[bumpking]

First off, I do not think this website pertains to SNG's. It does not generate any more money for PokerStars if these anamolies happen.

At a CASH game, it creates more action and therefore a higher rake. Now granted, it's in PokerStars best interest to keep alot of players from going bust. They'd rather have 2 players with $10k each play a $1/2 limit game for years as opposed to a $100/200 NL for a few hands.

In a SNG, the rake is obviously already set, and for that matter the game time is nearly set as well since the blind sizes (correlated to time) dictate the length of game time.

If you're still reading my annoying analytical post, I've done all these statistical anaylses myself. For PokerStars, I have 24,790 all-in hands. From those hands, I have been "lucky" by 2,657%. That means that if my JJ beats an AA, I was "lucky" by 81.14% (100-18.86%). Likewise, if my AA loses to JJ, I was "unlucky" by -81.14%. Add these all up and it should come out to zero in a fair game (over a large enough sample size). So basically, I've been a lucky bastard at PS by averaging +0.11% per hand. To put that in laymens terms, I'd have to have my AA lose to 72o 30 times in a row to have my luck be back to "even".

NOW, at PartyPoker, I had roughly 930,000 all-in hands. My overall luck was -1,506,639%. That is -1.62%/hand. In laymens terms, my 72o would have to beat AA 17,082 in a row for my luck to be back to "even".

I know y'all will be skeptical of these numbers, but they are correct. My theory? Well, at PS I've just gotten lucky. At PartyPoker, there are 3 possibilites:
1. PartyPoker, the company, is fixed.
2. An outsider hacked the system and has fixed it
3. An insider at PP has fixed it.

I think option 3 is the most likely. Anyways, reply to this if you've got questions or want to hear more!

-BK