|
|
#21
10-25-2006, 03:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Too much of a good thing
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] And for the site's name, well,... [/ QUOTE ] Pacific? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] An excellent guess. Pac Poker did not face up tourney hands when the players all in last time I played there so my experimention is thwarted there. I was unable to pull them out of history all the time either. I have some reasons to doubt their honesty. [/ QUOTE ] get the [censored] out moran! [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] |
|
#22
10-25-2006, 04:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Too much of a good thing
[ QUOTE ]
This kind of ridiculous crap was debunked in 2001, could you come up with some other ridicuous crap to keep things interesting please. Thanks in advance. Lori [/ QUOTE ] Once you've seen (and understand) the underlying code and then seen it compiled and you're 110% sure that its in operation THEN you can assume honesty at a site. Short of that you've got feeeeelings, nothing more than feeeeelings.... |
|
#23
10-25-2006, 04:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Too much of a good thing
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] "For you kneejerk skeptics, design an experiment to catch this cheat and you'll see just how small the chance of detection will be." How about just datamining the whole damn site for a day and looking at the results to see if the distribution of hands was in line with the rules of probability. If they are steering good hands to certain players they would then have to steer good hands away from certain other players for the numbers to work out. This would require them planning pretty much every hand. They'd screw up something. [/ QUOTE ] A bit too simplistic, I'm afraid. Try again. [/ QUOTE ] No, why don't you either explain how it's too simplistic or explain how they are going to rig it without violating the laws of probability? [/ QUOTE ] I was attempting to be nice. You fail to outline anything that comes close to methodology or anything that migh be quantifiable. In short, you got nothing. [/ QUOTE ] I love how he proposes a conspiracy theory, gives some weak evidence from his 200 or so hands, and then requests others to design experiments to prove him right. When people politely tell him that his stats are insufficient and propose a further test, and ask what he is getting at, he dismissively turns them down, criticizing the methods. The onus is on the conspiracy theorist to prove himself right. It is unreasonable to expect uninterested people to dedicate themselves to proving you right, and it is tiresome for people to explain why (we all think) you are wrong. [/ QUOTE ] No need to read my post first before commenting. You are in good company. |
|
#24
10-25-2006, 04:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Too much of a good thing
[ QUOTE ]
Um, he did. You're saying that the site does not produce hands at a statistically random rate. The site probably is making the claim that they are. In fact, I bet that if you look on their site, you'll find a letter of attestation from a top accounting firm, stating that they conducted a test of a sample of hands and found that they were distributed randomly. But how in the world could they make a claim? They did what HSB suggested - they took a sample of hands, and tested the distribution to see if they were distributed according to the probability at which they would be distributed if it were being randomly generated. For example, do you get pocket AA approximately 1/221 hands? Or is it 1/8 for certain players? Would someone flop a set 1/8 times? Or is it 1/500? This is done by determining mathematically how large of a sample size out of the entire population would be needed to examine and guarantee a certain level of accuracy - probably 95%. Then, you use a random number generator to randomly select that number of hands from the entire population. Then, you examine those hands. Examine the results and see if the hand selection is random, or if it fails to hit a randomness. Now, how much can you trust the letter of attestation on the sites? Considering that most of them come from Price Waterhouse, which is a highly respected accounting firm, which probably has zero desire to risk a lawsuit and reputation if they falsely attest to the accuracy of a site, I'd say you can rely on them. But still, you can use poker tracker and data mine and test the claims yourself. I'll bet you come up with a random selection. [/ QUOTE ] All RNG honesty lies in the code. THat is the only area of inspection where any certainty of honesty can be found. It's not too difficult to understand if you spend a little time thinking about the problem. |
|
#25
10-25-2006, 04:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Too much of a good thing
And the way to test the results is what I explained above. If you want to read more about it, look in an auditing textbook, because this is how auditors are trained to do it.
|
|
#26
10-25-2006, 04:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Too much of a good thing
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Sending good cards to new and returning players strikes me as perhaps the most likely cheat a dishonest site might try. It's nearly invisible, but only nearly. Obviously you don't deal them AA, you bugger the turn or river to lend a helping hand. [/ QUOTE ] Why tell us this? Just continue to open new accounts and use their "cheat" system to win at the start, withdraw and then when you come back months down the road you will win again. seems like you have figured it all out. Why share this brilliance on a public forum? [/ QUOTE ] My first reaction was to open more accounts and maybe play higher. This is no longer an option for US players. Secondly, how much could I trust a site that I strongly suspect? Tough spot. Also note I haven't exactly shared everything with you. [/ QUOTE ] OP, Do tell. I am not saying online sites don't cheat, i just need a little more convincing that they do. [/ QUOTE ] I don't give a rip if I convince anyone. In fact, I expect to convince nearly no one. I do it for me and the rare person out there that might have the seed of doubt planted that actually has the skills to design potent experiments and the desire to carry them out. Also, general skepticism is healthy but rare since the bulk of the youthful posters will believe most any pap. |
|
#28
10-25-2006, 04:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Too much of a good thing
get the [censored] out moran!
|
|
#29
10-25-2006, 04:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Too much of a good thing
[ QUOTE ]
And the way to test the results is what I explained above. If you want to read more about it, look in an auditing textbook, because this is how auditors are trained to do it. [/ QUOTE ] To refine my point, your test meets the standard of accounting and statistics and may miss a dishonest site. |
|
#30
10-25-2006, 04:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Too much of a good thing
Explain how.
Site A makes the claim that their cards are dealt in a random fashion. I take a sample of the hands dealt, and see if that sample shows a random distribution or not. If the cards come up as often as they should statistically, then the site's claim is reliable. If not, then we should look into why it's not. Explain why this isn't a good way to test your claim vs. their claim. |
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
