a simple aq/ak riggedness question

[doubLe a tom]

lol OP, Good sample size. That is very standard, and mild variance.

[fusting4321]

[ QUOTE ]



3) you lose 10 sng's in a row (assuming "equal skill" this would be 0.7 to the power of 10



[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe we shouldnt be assuming equal skill, no? Hint Hint

[NU Star]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because something unlikely happens doesn't mean that it's rigged. What are the chances that you'll be dealt 5d 4h on one hand, and then 7s Th on the next hand? 1 in 7,033,103. That's extremely unlikely. But just because you were dealt those two hands back to back doesn't mean that online poker is rigged.

BBV: Serious Business

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems wrong...unless it has to be those cards in that specific order.

[kylma]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



3) you lose 10 sng's in a row (assuming "equal skill" this would be 0.7 to the power of 10



[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe we shouldnt be assuming equal skill, no? Hint Hint

[/ QUOTE ]

You're correct.. My ROI is 16%. so it's not equal skill. I just made it more simple for the sake of simplification

[SneakyFerret]

[ QUOTE ]


I said top top, not two pair..

[/ QUOTE ]

[OHFreak]

I SAID TOP TOP M'FER

[saucyspade19]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I said top top, not two pair..

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

a jamie gold reference in a thread about variance, ha, how appropriate.

[pokerchap]

let me guess.. full tilt?

[AlwaysWrong]

Here's a better question: What are the chances that if I go back and look at my last 10,000 hands I can find some stat that in isolation looks extremely unlikely? I'd go for nearly certain, if I look hard enough.

This thread is either a joke (and not that funny) or OP should never play poker again.

[GrandMelon]

[ QUOTE ]
[x] you might suck

[/ QUOTE ]

wait.. fixed my own post

[x] you do suck