I cannot win on pokerstars. Reasons ??

[ILuvRiver]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who thinks the deal at pokerstars is normal is mentally retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

FINALLY, why did someone not say this before, it's all clear now, a nobody with a full 7 posts says PokerStars is rigged.
Keep your statistical analysis, I'm taking my money out RIGHT NOW!!

[censored] DONKTARDTASTIC!!!

[luckychancer]

[ QUOTE ]
Op claims to have been dealt hands he couldn't have been dealt and run bad for a period of time that couldn't be simply "running bad." He is, it appears, delusional with respect to this limited issue. [ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

So I ask you: who is actually helping OP? Those that are confronting him with facts, or those that are saying sorry buddy sucks to run bad for a half million hands.........

I for one would rather someone inform me if i was hallucinating, rather than just smiling and playing along.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is fair comment and should be heeded by the OP. The next step would be to take a look and ask why he is losing in a more conventional poker sense that applies to himself. Obviously this is not a question the OP has sufficiently addressed if he is still mired in the 'I'm so unlucky' rut.

It's too easy to wave your e penis about and say ' I'm better than you' then insert a smartassed put down of your choice. Obviously after 500k hand of losing poker many on this thread should know the above without having to state it in such a sickeningly arrogant manner.

Looking foreward to the statistical analysis here.
Should be interesting and maybe useful.

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
Annoyingly, my PC crashed overnight importing. It got to 111k hands in. This is hand/instances/win percentage in PT. Importing the rest now...

110928

aa 555 82.70
kk 503 70.78
qq 520 69.42
jj 550 65.82
tt 488 58.81
99 504 47.62
88 479 43.42
77 478 32.22
66 507 28.60
55 481 17.88
44 503 12.52
33 489 13.50
22 497 11.07

Expectation for number of pairs is 502 by the way. I'll look more closely at the numbers when I get home again, sorry!

[/ QUOTE ]

Standard error is 22.4. 555 is 2.37 standard errors from expectation. A deviation that big would occur ~1.8% of the time by chance. A little less often than hitting a one outer on the river. So far, meh.

Sciolist can no doubt provide more extensive analysis.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
Standard error is 22.4. 555 is 2.37 standard errors from expectation. A deviation that big would occur ~1.8% of the time by chance. A little less often than hitting a one outer on the river. So far, meh.


[/ QUOTE ]

While this is true, it may give heart to the nutters.

We're actually looking at 13 statistics here.

The chance that NOT ONE of the results is 2.37 standard errors from deviation is (1-.018)^13. This is approximately equal to 78.968%

Thus, there is a 21% chance that at least one such result (from a sample of 13) is 2.37 standard deviations above the mean.

[jukofyork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who thinks the deal at pokerstars is normal is mentally retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

FINALLY, why did someone not say this before, it's all clear now, a nobody with a full 7 posts says PokerStars is rigged.
Keep your statistical analysis, I'm taking my money out RIGHT NOW!!

[censored] DONKTARDTASTIC!!!

[/ QUOTE ]
If so many continue to play at sites truly believing they are somehow rigged against them, then perhaps there is a market for "riggedpoker.com" - just think about it: you could play at a site and be <u>100% sure that it was rigged</u>!!!

There would be no need to fill the zoo with endless posts about how you think online poker is rigged and no need for us "non-believers" to waste our time reading this [censored]...

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Hmmmm, but would the very same posters then want to fill the forum with pointless posts accusing "riggedpoker.com" of NOT rigging the cards properly??? You just can't win...

[Wahoo73]

OnlinePro said:
[ QUOTE ]
Looking at my pokertracker stats I have gotten high pockets an unreal amount of times excact numbers coming up below

AA 971 times
KK 882
QQ 929
JJ 785
1010 1032

Out of 84 thousand hands. My aces are winning 80% of the time but nothing else is winnign over 65% with kings being at 64 and queens at 61%

[/ QUOTE ]

Sciolist said:
[ QUOTE ]
It got to 111k hands in. This is hand/instances/win percentage in PT. Importing the rest now...

110928

aa 555 82.70
kk 503 70.78
qq 520 69.42
jj 550 65.82
tt 488 58.81
99 504 47.62
88 479 43.42
77 478 32.22
66 507 28.60
55 481 17.88
44 503 12.52
33 489 13.50
22 497 11.07

Expectation for number of pairs is 502 by the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, it appears as though one of these two sets of numbers is grossly inaccurate. I'm guessing it's OnlinePro's set.

However, both sets of numbers do seem to support OnlinePro's contention that he has "gotten high pockets an unreal amount of times." So perhaps IF PokerStars' deal is "skewed", as OnlinePro contends, it is "skewed" in his favor, but his expectation as to how often these high pocket pairs should win is also "skewed."

[MicroBob]

sciolist only posted a smallish percentage of the hands because he hasn't been able to import them all yet.

onlinepro most likely did not update his pokertracker. There was an old version of PT that was not importing all of the hands.

It would be nice if OP would confirm that he hadn't updated his PT and that was the explanation why his stats were so far off.
Either that, or he could just admit that he made it up.

[Josem]

I suspect that there is a selection bias by now selecting the most frequently occurring hand out of 13 (AA) and using that to determine that something is skewed.

What I'm trying to say, and might be explaining it poorly, is that I think retrospectively looking at a chart and say that there was a "x%" chance of a particular result being that far from the median would be incorrect - after all, it has happened, and the chance is now 100% (ie, it is in the past and certainly happened)


Would it be better to predict stuff before the numbers were posted - say, for example, that of the 221 (?) different starting hands, we expect x% to be within y% of the median?

Alternatively, we could show graphically that the rates of pocket pairs being dealt (and the respective hands' deviation from the mean) more or less follows a bell curve (I assume that's the sort of distribution you'd expect, and although I haven't looked at the numbers, i assume that's the sort of distribution we have here)

(note: I'm very unsure of my thinking in this post, so don't place a great deal of weight in it - although then again, I might be right)

[notreallymyname]

How come the original post refers to a sample of 84k hands? It sounds like there's some filtering going on, perhaps vpip.

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Standard error is 22.4. 555 is 2.37 standard errors from expectation. A deviation that big would occur ~1.8% of the time by chance. A little less often than hitting a one outer on the river. So far, meh.


[/ QUOTE ]

While this is true, it may give heart to the nutters.


[/ QUOTE ]

I see no hope of avoiding that. Here is a normal probability plot. (The points furthest from the straight line are those that deviate most from a normal distribution.)