I cannot win on pokerstars. Reasons ??

[antisocialgrace]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes I know that. It's still inadmissable in my court.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this. I'm not a lawyer.

Can you please explain this?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody

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 ]

it's impossible for pokerstars to fake records in their custody, but when an employee takes them home on his own time and imports a 650 MB file for 12 hours, they're fixed

this is more lol than the politics forum

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said any of this.

Pokers Stars and certain of their employees can however do anything they want and you will never be the wiser. Never. Never. Never. Get that through your skull into your little brain.

[Sciolist]

[ QUOTE ]
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 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, you feel the site is rigged, from your personal experience. Do you have any statistical analysis to show this? If not, why not? Mail PS and ask for your entire hand history to date. Look at your own PT database. Have you done this and found that it's fine to the limits of what you can research?

Is your experience finely tuned enough to show you a discrepency that analysis of 250k hands is not accurate enough to show? Do you know how precise that has to be?

I think we all know that the answers to this is that of course your experience isn't that finetuned. And of course it isn't possible for anyone's to be.

The reason you think that the site is rigged is the same reason OnlinePro does. Our brains try to impose patterns on random data (and infact you could even define random as a sequence that has no repeatable patterns). You imposed a pattern - like "if he check raises the flop, he always wins", and you only notice the times that you are right. You ignore the times that you are wrong. This is a combination of the confirmation and the selection bias:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Instead of considernig the likelyhood of these events, you are instead alleging that I am fiddling hand histories in my spare time to try to prove my employer is random when I know they aren't.

That's a completely insane allegation, and it is incredibly insulting to me. You're saying that I have no personal integrity, and I do not enjoy that kind of comment at all. I've played considerably more than 250k hands - infact, I've played 300k hands at PS alone (before I took this job), do you think I have less interest in playing on a random site than you? And that I care nothing for the internet poker community? I make more money from poker than I do from work.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

[ 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 ]

I play on stars in these same games. I have no interest in revealing my screenname.

Let me say this: suitedkings1 calling out those three players as luckbox donkeys is the funniest thing I have ever heard.

[antisocialgrace]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, you feel the site is rigged, from your personal experience. Do you have any statistical analysis to show this? If not, why not? Mail PS and ask for your entire hand history to date. Look at your own PT database. Have you done this and found that it's fine to the limits of what you can research?

Is your experience finely tuned enough to show you a discrepency that analysis of 250k hands is not accurate enough to show? Do you know how precise that has to be?

I think we all know that the answers to this is that of course your experience isn't that finetuned. And of course it isn't possible for anyone's to be.

The reason you think that the site is rigged is the same reason OnlinePro does. Our brains try to impose patterns on random data (and infact you could even define random as a sequence that has no repeatable patterns). You imposed a pattern - like "if he check raises the flop, he always wins", and you only notice the times that you are right. You ignore the times that you are wrong. This is a combination of the confirmation and the selection bias:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Instead of considernig the likelyhood of these events, you are instead alleging that I am fiddling hand histories in my spare time to try to prove my employer is random when I know they aren't.

That's a completely insane allegation, and it is incredibly insulting to me. You're saying that I have no personal integrity, and I do not enjoy that kind of comment at all. I've played considerably more than 250k hands - infact, I've played 300k hands at PS alone (before I took this job), do you think I have less interest in playing on a random site than you? And that I care nothing for the internet poker community? I make more money from poker than I do from work.

[/ QUOTE ]

I plainly said I don't know one way or the other. I'm mostly frustrated with stooges who insist online poker couldn't possibly be rigged, as if it's some kind of sacrosanct institution lol.

I'm trying very hard to give PS the benefit of the doubt, but I'm finding it difficult owing to the strange things I witness all too often when I'm playing. I would dearly love to be able to believe beyond the shadow of any doubt that online poker is completely on the up and up, I know it would increase my hourly substantially.

As for your integrity I have not said you're a dishonest person. I merely suggested what someone in your position could theoretically do.

I understand your being angry and frustrated that I won't stipulate to your integrity if you are in fact an honest straight-forward person who would never knowingly involve himself in anything shady ..

but why should I?

[Sciolist]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm trying very hard to give PS the benefit of the doubt, but I'm finding it difficult owing to the strange things I witness all too often when I'm playing

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that:

1. Your gut feeling is illogical and has no possible way of telling if the shuffle is random

2. Your gut feeling is more accurate than a statistical analysis of 250k hands

[antisocialgrace]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm trying very hard to give PS the benefit of the doubt, but I'm finding it difficult owing to the strange things I witness all too often when I'm playing

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that:

1. Your gut feeling is illogical and has no possible way of telling if the shuffle is random

2. Your gut feeling is more accurate than a statistical analysis of 250k hands

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying I don't know and you probably don't either.

[Sciolist]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that:

1. Your gut feeling is illogical and has no possible way of telling if the shuffle is random

2. Your gut feeling is more accurate than a statistical analysis of 250k hands

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying I don't know and you probably don't either.

[/ QUOTE ]
I just explained why I do know. I do not doubt that there are limits to what we can tell about a site's shuffle from 250k hands. We can probably say "you are dealt xyz hand within +/- 5% of expectation". I can say, with 100% certainty, that your gut is not more accurate than that. You are arguing that you can "tell" something is wrong with the shuffle that statistical analysis cannot tell you - well, that's what it boils down to.

[Minn_pokerplyr]

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

[JackCase]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, finally some good, strong, statistically-significant empirical evidence. Many thanks for this priceless contribution to this thread and to poker knowledge in general.

[qpw]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, finally some good, strong, statistically-significant empirical evidence. Many thanks for this priceless contribution to this thread and to poker knowledge in general.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yup, he's completely changed my way of thinking.