I cannot win on pokerstars. Reasons ??

[FullyTilted]

[ QUOTE ]
gee what happened to the stats you aces at poker stars were so keen to show up the OP with?

Did you discover anomalies which can't be explained? phenomena which can't be comprehended? aberrations there's no accounting for? deviations that defy understanding?

You seemed so eager to set the record straight, I'm just wondering why it hasn't happened?

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently being a jerk is not sufficient so you are looking to add "moron" to your mix.

Guess what? not only does this take time to run, but you posted this at 2:12AM UK time. Even PokerStars employees need to sleep sometime.

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Boc4life, Sethypoo, mediocre players at best and they want to judge my play. Boc4life is one of the morons who check raises with 3 outs and usually hits. Sethypoo raises the button 95% of the time wen its folded to him,he is usually met with a 3 bet from me, he then proceeds to flop 2 pair wen i flop top pair, end result sethy takes down my KQ with Q7 off.

This is the reason very medicore players like them have come to believe that they are good players.

Another example is chezlaw, who I believe is better than the previous 2 players listed above. But if this man calls a raise from bb and its hu he check raises 100% of the time. I called him out on this and he wont do it against me anymore. But that strategy was working for him, everytime hedid that play he ended up sucking out.


[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks pro, having a tough night and I needed a good laugh.

[/ QUOTE ]

I for one am glad that he has deciphered Chezlaw's blind defense strategy. Never again shall I cbet the chez, though I'll have many many many opportunities considering I raise 95% of the time from the button.

[JackCase]

[ QUOTE ]

Five times consecutively I lost when I had a flush to a higher flush, all three-on-board not four. Two of them were Queen-high. I would say that's pretty damned deviant in any sample.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I understand the post, you are saying that in some series of hands, you lost flush over flush 5 times, without making a flush and winning over that time period.

Three observations:

1. I doubt it. More likely you remember being beat about 5 times over some period of time, and don't remember the times when you won with a flush. Or when you won with flush over flush.

2. Even if it happened, well, stuff happens. The OP was whining about losing 80/20 decisions. Well, 20% of the time, that happens.

3. I doubt the bad beats the OP claims happened to him either.

For all the whiners crying about unsubstantiated rigging, I offer the following classic response from Paul Phillips:

[ QUOTE ]
Some of you know that in a past life I was a programmer and a manager
thereof. In mid-1997 our company acquired an online game site called
playsite that had a decent population of people playing classic games,
one of which was backgammon. The codebase was something of a mess though,
so we undertook a complete rewrite and released it in early 1998.

After we released the new code, we began receiving email from people
and hearing chat online that there were unusually many doubles being
rolled in the backgammon games. That sounded unlikely but I took a
look into the code, and it was as straightforward as could be, no room
for a wacky error. The server picked two random numbers from 1 to 6
in the normal java fashion.

The java random call is a simple wrapper around the C library function.
We were seeding it in the normal ways. Everything was fine. But the
complaints were unrelenting, so we took increasingly extreme measures
trying to figure out what was going on. First we incorporated a java
RNG to avoid the C library. When this didn't "help", we started
logging all the die throws and did statistical analysis on tens of
thousands of logged rolls.

What we found was that doubles were being rolled at precisely the rate
one would expect. There was absolutely nothing surprising in the stats.
We communicated this to the complaining players, but it still didn't do
any good. You could go into a backgammon lobby anytime and you'd
rarely have to wait more than a couple minutes before chat would emerge
that "everyone knew" that too many doubles were being rolled. It had
entered the realm of known facts, and there was no getting around it.

We closed the dozens of filed bug reports involving our loaded dice and
moved on with our lives, but I've never forgotten the certainty with which
people asserted that our dice were not rolling right. And the point, of
course, is how similarly that certainty is echoed here when people talk
about online poker being rigged for this or that result.

I see three major factors contributing to this misplaced certainty.
The three are the same whether we're looking at original vs. rewritten
playsite, or B&M poker vs. online poker. Much of this has been
written before by myself and others, but I include it here to help
illustrate how similar the backgammon and online poker situations are.

1) SPEED. We build an unconscious model of how often noticeable events
take place, but it's largely rooted in time, not in number of events.
When the number of events per unit time increases (the rewritten playsite
was of course faster, just as online poker is faster than B&M) then we
are surprised to observe more noticeable events.

2) SELECTION BIAS. We notice quads. We notice doubles. We feel like
we know how often they happen because we know that we notice them, but we
do not know how often unnoticeable events take place. We therefore lack
the necessary data to do analysis, but we have so much faith in our brains
as pattern recognition machines, we try it anyway.

3) MEMETICS. This is in some ways the biggest one. When you're
surrounded by people who have become convinced that something is true,
it's difficult not to start believing it's true yourself. Online chat
environments make it very easy for people to share their feelings about
the injustice of the randomness, and it's such a seductive idea anyway,
it's not hard for it to gain followers. Read "The Tipping Point" for more.

In closing, here is one quote I found in my old email. I wish I had
the whole file so you could see how widespread the certainty was.

Message: your dice are throwing doubles again---CALIBRATE THEM! get your act together

A message to online poker sites: Your decks are dealing bad beats
again. CALIBRATE THEM!


[/ QUOTE ]

[5thStreetHog]

After reading antisocialgrace`s posts,im convinced this thread is rigged.The chances of someone dumber than OP posting mustve been one million to one.

[Sciolist]

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!

[Alobar]

[ 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 ]

wow, that [censored] is rigged, he gets his big pairs more than all his other pairs.

Poor OP, looks like hes running hot, and he still can't win. Wonder how tilted hes gunna be once his downswing actually starts! heh

[soah]

[ QUOTE ]
After reading antisocialgrace`s posts,im convinced this thread is rigged.The chances of someone dumber than OP posting mustve been one million to one.

[/ QUOTE ]

you actually read his posts? don't you people use your ignore lists?

[NFuego20]

[ QUOTE ]
I have said many times my screename is Suitedkings1


Yes i do play 6-10tables of 5-10 to 10-20 six max and full ring

I also play 1-2 six max and full ring 12 table

Boc4life, Sethypoo, mediocre players at best and they want to judge my play. Boc4life is one of the morons who check raises with 3 outs and usually hits. Sethypoo raises the button 95% of the time wen its folded to him,he is usually met with a 3 bet from me, he then proceeds to flop 2 pair wen i flop top pair, end result sethy takes down my KQ with Q7 off.

This is the reason very medicore players like them have come to believe that they are good players.

Another example is chezlaw, who I believe is better than the previous 2 players listed above. But if this man calls a raise from bb and its hu he check raises 100% of the time. I called him out on this and he wont do it against me anymore. But that strategy was working for him, everytime hedid that play he ended up sucking out.

So it is my belief that the players who have been playing for a long time online have figured out certain things that always work, IE check raising from bb or rasing the button with any hand, or 3 betting any button raise. I mean this in the litteral way because these guys dont look at their hands wen they make these plays, I see them do it with all ranges of hands.


I know the game of poker extremely well, and moves like that should not work at the percentage that they do online. if sethypoo and boc4life are thought to be good players than this site is a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post is flawed on so many levels and I think it proves why you're not winning. Instead of figuring out where the holes are in your game, you complain about people "checkraising you and always hitting". Nobody is good enough or lucky enough to raise with garbage and suck out on you all the time. Just because it happened once or twice doesn't mean poker is "rigged", which is pretty much what you're implying.

[antisocialgrace]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

wow, that [censored] is rigged, he gets his big pairs more than all his other pairs.

Poor OP, looks like hes running hot, and he still can't win. Wonder how tilted hes gunna be once his downswing actually starts! heh

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhm.. those are results over 1/5th of his database.

[antisocialgrace]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whatever stats Poker Stars were to post at this point (it's been 12 hours and they already tried to dance around it after he called their bluff) would be suspect because of how long they've been subject to possible manipulation.
[/quote

but that's absurd!

it's not possible, over an anonymous internet forum, to maintain the records that you request.


Also, your claim that PS staff have "already tried to dance around it after he called their bluff" is self-evidently absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have any access at all to the server Poker Stars RNG runs on.

Why do you people insist on being such incorrigible stooges for Poker Stars? Do you think you're going to get something out of it? Are you getting something out of it?

It may not be rigged but you certainly don't know that!

All I've argued is that given my own experience (I've logged around 250k hands) I am suspicious--suspicious doesn't mean I think it's absolutely true--they MAY be juicing the draws. If they are doing that it's likely either to collect more rake on lower stakes tables where the vast majority of their clients play or to keep the fish from busting their rolls too soon.

You don't have any way of knowing--NONE--whether or not Poker Stars or any other online site is rigged so stop letting your little pea brains (and this goes for all of you) tell you you do.