Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

***Andy sorry if 6 posts is too many I could have put them all in 1 but I thought policy was 1 per hand.

I am posting some hands from the past 2 days first to vent my frustration and second to state my opinion that Pokerstars is rigged. I am sure I will be flamed and people will say I can’t beat poker and I don’t understand variance. I have poker tracker, and I have logged 140,000 hands; I am also a 6 figure winner in that time. I understand no amount of hand histories or ‘bad beats’ are proof. For me these hands in 2 days time is enough to throw up my hands and say something is wrong. Basically I think there is a point where they just don’t let you win anymore.

Good Luck

7 Card Stud High ($100/$200), Ante $15, Bring-In $30 (converter)

3rd Street - (0.75 SB)

Seat 1: xx xx 6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]___folds
Seat 2: xx xx 8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]___folds
Seat 3: xx xx 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]___raises
Hero: 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]___calls
Seat 8: xx xx 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]___brings-in___folds

4th Street - (3.05 SB)

Seat 3: xx xx 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]___checks
Hero: 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]___checks

5th Street - (1.53 BB)

Seat 3: xx xx 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]___bets___raises___calls
Hero: 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]___checks___raises___raises

6th Street - (9.53 BB)

Seat 3: xx xx 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]___calls
Hero: 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]___bets

River - (11.53 BB)

Seat 3: xx xx 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] xx___raises
Hero: 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]___bets___calls

Total pot: (15.53 BB)

Results (in white):<font color="white">

Total pot $3105 | Rake $2

Seat 3: [Ah 5h 2h 4s Jh Kd 3c] (a straight, Ace to Five)

Hero: [3h 3d 3s Kh 4d Js Ad]

</font>

Eh, maybe this beat is just to standard to post but this was the last straw for me. If you've read all my posts thanks for sharing my pain!

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

I play mtt on every site and noone has bad beat me over and over like Pokerstars. The higher the buyin the worse the beats.

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

I was right about to post the [censored] sick retarded outdraws in EACH and EVERY Stud WCOOP Qualifier played today. Stars is just so [censored] rigged. I don't care what anyone says about FTP, playing across 4 sites for 3 years, I haven't run nearly as bad on any other site as I do on goddam Stars!!!


Please do not circumvent the profanity filter.

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

Stats (some 60 000 hands, 80% H 20% Hi/Lo):


site 1: $VPIP 35.29 Won at SD 55.60 BB/100 3.62
site 2: $VPIP 33.50 Won at SD 50.24 BB/100 3.10
site 3: $VPIP 34.01 Won at SD 50.53 BB/100 3.88
Poker Stars: $VPIP 32.01 Won at SD 53.36 BB/100 -2.37 PS

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Stats (some 60 000 hands, 80% H 20% Hi/Lo):


site 1: $VPIP 35.29 Won at SD 55.60 BB/100 3.62
site 2: $VPIP 33.50 Won at SD 50.24 BB/100 3.10
site 3: $VPIP 34.01 Won at SD 50.53 BB/100 3.88
Poker Stars: $VPIP 32.01 Won at SD 53.36 BB/100 -2.37 PS

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty good BB/100 for playing that high a VPIP...do you play short-handed a lot? also is that 60K hands at each site?

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

Fold hand 4 on the river, fold hand 5 on 6th street. The 1/2 Stud Hi on Stars always looks like an awful game with the same 2-4 people playing and a terrible ante size.

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Stats (some 60 000 hands, 80% H 20% Hi/Lo):


site 1: $VPIP 35.29 Won at SD 55.60 BB/100 3.62
site 2: $VPIP 33.50 Won at SD 50.24 BB/100 3.10
site 3: $VPIP 34.01 Won at SD 50.53 BB/100 3.88
Poker Stars: $VPIP 32.01 Won at SD 53.36 BB/100 -2.37 PS

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty good BB/100 for playing that high a VPIP...do you play short-handed a lot? also is that 60K hands at each site?

[/ QUOTE ]

A total of about 60 000 hands. It's the Hi/Lo part that makes VPIP that high, not much SH. The point was, nevertheless -that I lose on PS, nowhere else.

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

You are really making multiple bad beat posts. I guess since it is from high stakes it is more acceptable.

I would reraise the raise from the 2 with a 3 on 3rd. Your reraise represents a concealed big pair, but could be a lot of things. The 2 will won't fold that quickly if you reraise unless he just is on an ante steal or has a very weak hand like 227 or 2KQ.

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Stats (some 60 000 hands, 80% H 20% Hi/Lo):


site 1: $VPIP 35.29 Won at SD 55.60 BB/100 3.62
site 2: $VPIP 33.50 Won at SD 50.24 BB/100 3.10
site 3: $VPIP 34.01 Won at SD 50.53 BB/100 3.88
Poker Stars: $VPIP 32.01 Won at SD 53.36 BB/100 -2.37 PS

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty good BB/100 for playing that high a VPIP...do you play short-handed a lot? also is that 60K hands at each site?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes those BB/100 numbers are great! If you're playing 20-40 or bigger and winning 3-4 BB/100 you're great. About the VPIP #'s I have ALOT more than 60k hands on several sites I don't so how your hi-lo VPIP should be higher than your high. In fact it is clearly correct to play less hands at hi lo, mine is a full 10% smaller. GL

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Fold hand 4 on the river, fold hand 5 on 6th street. The 1/2 Stud Hi on Stars always looks like an awful game with the same 2-4 people playing and a terrible ante size.

[/ QUOTE ]

Folding hand 4 on the river is a typical 2+2 tough fold advice. We could discuss this some more but imo in general making laydowns in 7 stud on the river at bigger games is not a good idea. There so just so many standard check call and bet call lines on the river. There really is no getting around it. Once you put 2 bets in on 5 in a dinky pot and bet 6th and 7th and fold. Its clear to the thinking plays at the table that you had 3 2's or K's up and you just folded it for 1 more bet on the river. Its not so smart encourage some of the better(or reckless) players to take shots. Also players sick enough to call a ck raise from an open pair with no pair no draw are usually sick enough to river raise bluff often enough.

About hand 5 I think the call is correct not very many hands that call 2 bets from a J and a K have a J for a straight. He could have a flush it just didn't feel like a flush to me at the time though it could have been. Btw he was bluffing but rivered the dead J.

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

I ask people to post one hand per thread when they are looking for actual discussion. When you just want to bitch about how this or that site is rigged, one thread is more than sufficient. I should probably lock these, but I'm content to make fun of you for now.

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Stats (some 60 000 hands, 80% H 20% Hi/Lo):


site 1: $VPIP 35.29 Won at SD 55.60 BB/100 3.62
site 2: $VPIP 33.50 Won at SD 50.24 BB/100 3.10
site 3: $VPIP 34.01 Won at SD 50.53 BB/100 3.88
Poker Stars: $VPIP 32.01 Won at SD 53.36 BB/100 -2.37 PS

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty good BB/100 for playing that high a VPIP...do you play short-handed a lot? also is that 60K hands at each site?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes those BB/100 numbers are great! If you're playing 20-40 or bigger and winning 3-4 BB/100 you're great. About the VPIP #'s I have ALOT more than 60k hands on several sites I don't so how your hi-lo VPIP should be higher than your high. In fact it is clearly correct to play less hands at hi lo, mine is a full 10% smaller. GL

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh no (but I wish!)! I've been playing for 2 yrs now -no high stakes yet. Mostly 1/2 - 3/6, very few hands at 4/8 and 5/10.

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

[ QUOTE ]
I ask people to post one hand per thread when they are looking for actual discussion. When you just want to bitch about how this or that site is rigged, one thread is more than sufficient. I should probably lock these, but I'm content to make fun of you for now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy, long time winning players at mid to high limits(on the internet and live) questioning the integrity of the game imo are credible and valuable to 2+2 readers i.e. the absolute thread.

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

I think it's fine to question the legitimacy of sites, but remember that if you are winning overall, that's the ultimate proof it's likely not rigged.

I've been through some amazing downswings online, and some amazing upswings. Because my play does change in reaction to results, both ways tend to get magnified. But it's still truly amazing how you sometimes just can't win and other times just can't lose. I"m in a can't lose phase right now, and I just keeping hitting hidden trips and filling as my opponent makes a flush and figures I've been aggressive lately (when really I've mainly just had alot of playable hands) and decides to jam it up. On the other side, sometimes it seems you sometimes get a totally live flush draw in four, jam it up with two or three live ones who are nearly drawing dead if you make your hand and then you look at 3 straight bricks as they cluelessly keep jamming the pot. And one extra round of betting in stud only makes it even more fun.

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's fine to question the legitimacy of sites, but remember that if you are winning overall, that's the ultimate proof it's likely not rigged.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is completely wrong. In my case, because I am winning overall I continue to play but I do believe it proves anything. In fact it is unfathomable to me that the sites would not be rigged. It is also unfathomable that they would be rigged in an obvious fashion.

I have long believed that the rigging simply involved altering the odds so that hands that were ahead early in the hand simply did not finish ahead as often as they should. JJ isn't a ~4:1 dog to AA, maybe just 3:1 or so and similar things in stud, etc. The rest will take care of itself. Winners will win, just more slowly, losers will lose, just more slowly than they ever had before (can you feel the new found joy), and most importantly the rake will be taken inexorably. Winning players with too big an edge are the most dangerous enemy of any site. Why would you think the sites wouldn't tame them?

If you want to know how they would do it think something like this. Create a random hand. You know, just like they say they do. Instantly computer examine the hand for the game it will be used in. Does the best hand on 3rd street or preflop hold up through the river in this hand? If so cull it out say every 5th time you find it to be so and just simply instantly create another random hand to replace it and repeat the process. Easy. Looks just like quality control and it is. Only the best quality hands (for the site) will be dealt.

What is more you can crank the culling up or down as needed. Even vary it for different games and limits. Let the .01/.02 players go at it for real, who cares, but chill out the big winners in the 100/200, they understand variance. Cool. The mantra is keep the money on site. Plus you can turn it off briefly when the auditors (lol) come around or turn it way down if your site's reputation was taking so much heat in the poker community that it seemed to be affecting deposits.

Patty

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

It occurs to me that it would be very easy to test the legitimacy of a site, regarding whether it cheats in the way Patty says it might.

Get 7 of your friends and play a lot together at the same table. Join all the hands together including the hole cards and start crunching numbers. If the rigging is significant enough to notice, it won't take more than a few thousand hands for it to become apparent. All you lose in the process is the rake. You could publish your work and become a hero to many!

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

[ QUOTE ]
It occurs to me that it would be very easy to test the legitimacy of a site, regarding whether it cheats in the way Patty says it might.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not. The actual number of possible deck shuffle combinations is 52! If you are not familiar with how big this number is it exceeds the number of atoms in the known universe. Really. Something like 8x10 to the 67th power.

It is very hard to prove the deal is non-random when you are dealing with such a large number. It isn't infinity but it is big. PokerStars has only dealt 10 billion hands to date. That is 1x10 to the 10th power or about 1/8x10 to the 57th power of the possible hands. A very, very small fraction. Perhaps all of the seemingly rigged hands just came early in PokerStars series of deals, lol. You would need an enormous amount of data to "prove" anything. Plus if I was the site I would only use this "rigging" in an intermittent fashion.

Please also notice that no site is giving up their entire history of deals/shuffles for scrutiny though it would be an easy thing to do. Ever wonder why not?

Patty

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

[ QUOTE ]
It occurs to me that it would be very easy to test the legitimacy of a site, regarding whether it cheats in the way Patty says it might.

Get 7 of your friends and play a lot together at the same table. Join all the hands together including the hole cards and start crunching numbers. If the rigging is significant enough to notice, it won't take more than a few thousand hands for it to become apparent. All you lose in the process is the rake. You could publish your work and become a hero to many!

[/ QUOTE ]

Please, I'd rather question the legitimacy of the HHs you posted here, they look a lot like 1/2 hands to me, and thinking poker sites are rigged is worse than ridiculous, and a few thousand hands would tell you nothing, try a few million and maybe you have enough.

Please come clean and admit you are desdia72 incarnate.

Regards Mack

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

[ QUOTE ]

Probably not. The actual number of possible deck shuffle combinations is 52! If you are not familiar with how big this number is it exceeds the number of atoms in the known universe. Really. Something like 8x10 to the 67th power.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite. This post is largely off topic but with the nit scientist in me I feel I have to address this.

52! is indeed 8x10^67 but is nowhere near the # of atoms in the universe. Avogadro's number is 6.02x10^23 which represents the number of atoms in a mole of something. How much is a mole? A mole of water for example would weigh 18g or have a volume of 18ml, not very much.

Now consider that the amount of water on Earth is about 326 million cubic miles, which translates to, well, a heck of a lot of atoms[1] (three atoms in a molecule of water on top of that). And that's just counting water...on one planet.

/geek mode off

[1] I did a quick calculation and got about 2.38x10^48 atoms just in earth's oceans.

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I have long believed that the rigging simply involved altering the odds so that hands that were ahead early in the hand simply did not finish ahead as often as they should. JJ isn't a ~4:1 dog to AA, maybe just 3:1 or so and similar things in stud, etc. The rest will take care of itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe part of the problem is thinking that hands should hold up more often than they actually should. AA has about 66% equity, it is not a 4:1 fave over JJ in stud.

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Probably not. The actual number of possible deck shuffle combinations is 52! If you are not familiar with how big this number is it exceeds the number of atoms in the known universe. Really. Something like 8x10 to the 67th power.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite. This post is largely off topic but with the nit scientist in me I feel I have to address this.

52! is indeed 8x10^67 but is nowhere near the # of atoms in the universe. Avogadro's number is 6.02x10^23 which represents the number of atoms in a mole of something. How much is a mole? A mole of water for example would weigh 18g or have a volume of 18ml, not very much.

Now consider that the amount of water on Earth is about 326 million cubic miles, which translates to, well, a heck of a lot of atoms[1] (three atoms in a molecule of water on top of that). And that's just counting water...on one planet.

/geek mode off

[1] I did a quick calculation and got about 2.38x10^48 atoms just in earth's oceans.

[/ QUOTE ]
The difference between 2x10^48 and 8x10^67 is huge however. One is about 40,000,000,000,000,000,000 times bigger than the other. A quick googling shows that there's 1.33x10^50 atoms on the entire earth. There are 5x10^68 atoms per galaxy. So in conclusion: in the grand scheme of things, nothing you or I do will matter. Even the Hitlers and Ghandis of the world are less than a spec of sand in the beach of the universe.

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

Yes of course, there are a tremendous number of possible deck orderings.

But your claim is that certain situations had subtle modifications, like from 4:1 to 3:1. Even if the modifications were much slighter, from 4:1 to 3.9:1, it would not take very many hands to figure this out.

I mean, people who say a site is rigged are not saying "some decks appear more often than others" right, they are saying "big hands don't hold up as often as they mathematically should". This is a very easy assertion to test.

But even so, you do not need to examine a significant number of deck shuffles to see if the distribution is random.

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, people who say a site is rigged are not saying "some decks appear more often than others" right, they are saying "big hands don't hold up as often as they mathematically should". This is a very easy assertion to test.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually I don't think you've got the common assertion right yet. The assertion most people use to claim site X (or online poker in general) is rigged is that their big hands don't hold up as often as they should, or the corrolary that their draws don't come in often enough. The typical claim is by those who feel they are good players and play correctly, and that the sites are rigged in favor of the fish so they don't go bust as quickly and will pay more rake. Thus you can't disprove conspiracy theories like this by showing that AA holds up over KK 82% of the time since it could be rigged that they hold up 90% of the time for the "fish" and only 50% for the few good players.

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I mean, people who say a site is rigged are not saying "some decks appear more often than others" right, they are saying "big hands don't hold up as often as they mathematically should". This is a very easy assertion to test.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually I don't think you've got the common assertion right yet. The assertion most people use to claim site X (or online poker in general) is rigged is that their big hands don't hold up as often as they should, or the corrolary that their draws don't come in often enough. The typical claim is by those who feel they are good players and play correctly, and that the sites are rigged in favor of the fish so they don't go bust as quickly and will pay more rake. Thus you can't disprove conspiracy theories like this by showing that AA holds up over KK 82% of the time since it could be rigged that they hold up 90% of the time for the "fish" and only 50% for the few good players.

[/ QUOTE ]

This assertion is provable too, as long as you can establish the rules for what you might think the site thinks a fish is. Make 4 new accounts, play like a fish, then repeat my experiment. [Edit: or recruit 4 fish]

Look, this is an assertion about a statistical anomaly, that has been empirically "observed" albeit anecdotally and not particularly rigorously. It is eminently provable, or disprovable.

If I was a richer man I'd do the James Randi thing and give a prize for proving it.

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I mean, people who say a site is rigged are not saying "some decks appear more often than others" right, they are saying "big hands don't hold up as often as they mathematically should". This is a very easy assertion to test.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually I don't think you've got the common assertion right yet. The assertion most people use to claim site X (or online poker in general) is rigged is that their big hands don't hold up as often as they should, or the corrolary that their draws don't come in often enough. The typical claim is by those who feel they are good players and play correctly, and that the sites are rigged in favor of the fish so they don't go bust as quickly and will pay more rake. Thus you can't disprove conspiracy theories like this by showing that AA holds up over KK 82% of the time since it could be rigged that they hold up 90% of the time for the "fish" and only 50% for the few good players.

[/ QUOTE ]

This assertion is provable too, as long as you can establish the rules for what you might think the site thinks a fish is. Make 4 new accounts, play like a fish, then repeat my experiment. [Edit: or recruit 4 fish]

[/ QUOTE ]
That's the key to the problem. The proof would have to be based on subjective terms, like what constitutes a fish? How could you even recruit 4 fish, if they have to sign up themselves? I guarantee you most of the fish don't think they're playing badly, they think they're good players and the site is rigged against them too. I honestly don't believe there is anything more nefarious going on here than a systematically shallow understanding of probability and statistics, and the fact that 80% of poker players are fish who think the other 80% are fish.

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

[ QUOTE ]

That's the key to the problem. The proof would have to be based on subjective terms, like what constitutes a fish? How could you even recruit 4 fish, if they have to sign up themselves? I guarantee you most of the fish don't think they're playing badly, they think they're good players and the site is rigged against them too. I honestly don't believe there is anything more nefarious going on here than a systematically shallow understanding of probability and statistics, and the fact that 80% of poker players are fish who think the other 80% are fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you (sites are not rigged).

It's up to the person who thinks the site is rigged to tell me what constitutes being rigged. Just like the Randi foundation, we then come up with a concrete set of rules for what would determine success or failure of the experiment, and try it.

As for recruiting fish, I certainly would not say "Hey, I need 4 fish, someone come sign up", I'd try to contact players that met the criteria, and ask them to participate.

Anyway, the site would have to recognize fish by some kind of pattern, if it is indeed biased towards fish, so if you think you know what that pattern is, you can recreate it yourself.

Even without recruiting players, running tests, it would be pretty trivial to get millions of hands from a bunch of players at 2+2 and crunch through them.

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

Wouldn't you need 1 million showdown hands? That would take a while longer to compile.

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

Here's a pretty easy way to determine whether the site is rigged:

Dig up your entire hand history for the site and look for situations where you have a 4 flush on 4th, and you saw the river. Determine the percent of times it hits.

You would only need something like 30 hands to say with 95% confidence that your expected hit rate equals your actual hit rate. With a few thousand hands of the above scenario, you'd probably be able to say if your hit rate was within 2% of expected with 99% confidence.

Getting the hit rate of major losing players will probably be a lot tougher, but this would give you fairly good results.

On a side note, I kept track of how often I won with rolled trips. After two months I felt my lose rate was around 70% with them. My actual lose rate was only 40%... which while is still pretty bad, isn't nearly as bad as I had thought. So if you feel your flush hit rate is only 30%, it might actually be 45%.

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't you need 1 million showdown hands? That would take a while longer to compile.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if the rigging is very, very subtle. So subtle that you'd never notice it yourself. As the poster above me points out, you don't need the ridiculously large number of samples people think you do, in order to detect malfeasance.

But whatever. People who want to believe the site is rigged are never going to let anyone pin down a set of criteria that would prove that it was or was not.

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

"It is rigged" is one of the many money safety issues all of the sites face every day. Yet any site could publish all of it's deals any time they want. For confidentiality they could just publish what was exposed during the hand. Anyone could check their hand history against hand numbers for veracity. The showdown hands alone would have an enormous amount of information easily adequate to determine if things were rigged. But the sites don't make this available. Hmmm.

Patty

Sorry Andy if this has gotten off track. My last post in this direction. A bit of geeky humor to follow to make up and lighten things a bit.

Years ago I used to occasionally quiz some of my smarter friends who would sort of scoff at my card playing hobby. Many were science types. Sometimes I would quiz them as to how many different shuffles were possible with a 52 card deck. Many knew it was 52! Then I asked, "is 52! greater than the number of grains of sand on the beaches of the USA?" Maybe 50% said yes and 50% said no. Everyone that said "no" agreed however that it was not greater than the number of grains of sand on all the beaches on Earth. Of course the number of grains of sand on all the beaches is incredibly, incredibly, undescribably small compared to 52!.

Then one day I asked a PhD physicist friend of mine the same questions. He said "oh my yes 52! exceeds greatly the number of grains of sands on Earth." In fact he said the number was probably something like 1x10 to the 55th power. When I told him the number was actually something like 8x10 to the 67th power he was aghast and obviously embarrased. To quote him he said "Oh my God, I was way off". That is even though he was actually "infinitely" (as used in common parlance) closer than anyone else who had confidently estimated the number and probably ended up felling they had been pretty close.

The science of large numbers is a fascinating thing and can play with your mind a bit.

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

SuitedBaby &gt; PhD physicists

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

The number of distinct decks in flop and draw poker games is actually 52!/4!. I'm not quite sure how to figure it for stud games; it's somewhat greater, but from a practical perspective still not 52!.

Do you see why?

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

[ QUOTE ]
The number of distinct decks in flop and draw poker games is actually 52!/4!. I'm not quite sure how to figure it for stud games; it's somewhat greater, but from a practical perspective still not 52!.

Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]
For flop and stud games the precise sequence of the burn cards is immaterial to the "deck" in play, but that still doesn't jibe with your figure, and I have no idea why it would be so for draw games.

Given a fixed number of players, the number of necessary "decks" is reduced because each player will receive N cards on the first deal, and the N! possible combinations of those cards in each hand play identically.

Oh, are we playing with a bug?

Re: Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!
 

[ QUOTE ]
SuitedBaby &gt; PhD physicists

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh, no. I would have probably been squarely in one of the "more sand" groups if I hadn't read about it. Just thought it was funny how somebody who actually has a clue about these things looks at it a bit differently than the rest of us.

Patty