ON TOPIC???: Potential PokerStars issue

[pineapple888]

Help a brutha out

LOL in advance at me, if I'm grasping at straws here.

[ThorKGB]

[ QUOTE ]
I am very very suspicious about conspiracy theories

[/ QUOTE ]

[FoldYourLife]

This is the kind of stuff I used to look at two years ago when I'd lose 8 SNGs in a row and think Party Poker was rigged.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the kind of stuff I used to look at two years ago when I'd lose 8 SNGs in a row and think Party Poker was rigged.

[/ QUOTE ]

8 in a row? No WAY! I've never run THAT bad. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[FoldYourLife]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is the kind of stuff I used to look at two years ago when I'd lose 8 SNGs in a row and think Party Poker was rigged.

[/ QUOTE ]

8 in a row? No WAY! I've never run THAT bad. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I seriously thought online poker was rigged when I would lose that many in a row. I obviously didn't understand variance.

[futuredoc85]

that means they monitored like 45 minutes worth of hands

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am very very suspicious about conspiracy theories

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

So am I. However, if there really is a statistical anomaly in the Stars deal, it doesn't necessarily mean the site is intentionally "rigged." It could just be that their rng sucks. For example, the cards could be dealt at the expected frequency but not be statistically independent.

I'm not claiming that's the case, but in any event, I'd like to see all the sites somehow provide more comprehensive and objective evidence of a fair deal.

[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

[SuitedSixes]

You do realize that your source of panic is coming from a site that links to bots, cheating software, and affiliate links right?

[TruFloridaGator]

[ QUOTE ]
You do realize that your source of panic is coming from a site that links to bots, cheating software, and affiliate links right?

[/ QUOTE ]