Organizing a project to determine which sites are legit or rigged

[Henry17]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With the Absolute situation since the assumption was that someone could see the other player's hole cards you'd be doing an analysis similar to what they do when they are trying to prove that a corporation back dated option grants. It is a little more labour intensive but not very hard to do.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you do this? How would you apply it to online poker hand histories?

[/ QUOTE ]

With stock options you look at the stock price and the date. Basically looking for behaviour that is too unlikely to be coincidence. So if someone was issued options on the lowest stock price day repetitively then odds are they actually were issued those options much later and simply pick that date to put them underwater.

A player who can see other's hole cards plays differently. You would need to think about what those differences are. For example off the top of my head his ability to call down bluffs and fold strong but losing hands would increase.

So you take the hand histories and break them down into similar categories with the difference being the relative strength of the suspects hand. Then you compare them. If a player calls with A high when the opponent is bluffing but folds with A high when he is beat that is evidence. If he folds strong hands that in theory he should call when beat by a stronger hand but calls them in similar situations when he is winning then that is evidence. If you get enough of these situations it becomes conclusive. It is just very labour intensive since you need to make a number of categories and then parse all the hands into categories and compare them.

[Sciolist]

[ QUOTE ]
For example off the top of my head his ability to call down bluffs and fold strong but losing hands would increase.

So you take the hand histories and break them down into similar categories with the difference being the relative strength of the suspects hand. Then you compare them. If a player calls with A high when the opponent is bluffing but folds with A high when he is beat that is evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]
You'd never know this because you wouldn't know his holecards. All you will see are his holecards that go to showdown that he shows, as our sample size is going to be datamined.

[Henry17]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For example off the top of my head his ability to call down bluffs and fold strong but losing hands would increase.

So you take the hand histories and break them down into similar categories with the difference being the relative strength of the suspects hand. Then you compare them. If a player calls with A high when the opponent is bluffing but folds with A high when he is beat that is evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]
You'd never know this because you wouldn't know his holecards. All you will see are his holecards that go to showdown that he shows, as our sample size is going to be datamined.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right. When he folds we don't know what he had. The test about how many times he calls a bluff correctly could still be tested. I think that would be enough but you could probably design some tests about his behaviour vs flush draws and look for a difference when the opponents hits vs when he doesn't.

I haven't really given it much thought but there must be a few behaviours that are different for a player who can see hole cards vs a player who can't. I'd need coffee first before I can come up with some.

[Sciolist]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't really given it much thought but there must be a few behaviours that are different for a player who can see hole cards vs a player who can't. I'd need coffee first before I can come up with some.

[/ QUOTE ]
I imagine that their won money at showdown and % of time going to showdown will be skewed. However, both of these stats need a pretty huge sample size and I suspect would have to be correlated to VPIP or even perhaps ptbb/100 (which needs an even huger sample size). So I don't think you'd catch anyone on smallish (say 50k?) samples.