|
|
#31
12-31-2006, 01:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: If poker sites are rigged, let\'s prove it.
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder why he cares whether or not the sites are rigged anyway when he's also advertising bots for sale. It's almost as if he's only in it for the money and has no scruples whatsoever. [/ QUOTE ] Maybe his bots are not working and he's angry about it. Bad poker player = bad programmer? 
|
|
#32
12-31-2006, 06:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If poker sites are rigged, let\'s prove it.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] FYI, the definitive analysis is this survey of a half million hands on PokerRoom.com. https://www.pokerroom.com/main/page/games/cardStats [/ QUOTE ] A joke? PokerRoom audits PokerRoom? [/ QUOTE ] PR's tournament-award system notwithstanding (  ), this is the type of data that confirms randomness in the deal of each game. PR's database has complete information (on all dealt cards, on board cards, on the stub), and thus its tests for randomness are going to be the most precise. As for the question of intra-hand rigging, the best defense is one of complexity. Programming a random card to fall on the river is a straightforward exercise. Programming a "rigged card" is much more complex, particularly when you have to ensure that the overall results still meet the statistical requirements for randomness. If you program a "rigged card" to fall on the river, you then have to store the value of that card somewhere to ensure that it's cancelled out by another "rigged card" falling somewhere else -- and then that card has to be stored and covered up, and so on. Ultimately, you'd need to rig another 51 river cards in order to cover up the first one. Here's another question without a good answer: if deals are supposed to be rigged in order to protect bad players, why is it that the bad players are the ones complaining about poker being rigged? The simplest conclusion (and therefore, by Occam's Razor, the correct one) is that people, by and large, are bad at math. Most people can correctly identify AA and 72o as the best and worst possible starting hands; but how many can firmly grasp that in a heads-up showdown between the two, AA loses 11 times out of 100? Let a bad player lose this showdown with AA, and he'll whine that online poker is rigged. In fact, the converse is true: the fact that AA doesn't automatically win lends credence to the theory that online poker is NOT rigged. Someone (Lee Jones?) wrote an article a while ago, noting that the sheer quantity of hands being dealt online makes it possible to see extremely unlikely outcomes on a regular basis. At some table, somewhere, someone gets sucked out with runner-runner quads. Every day. Multiple times. It's statistically inevitable when you're dealing with so many hands. For the sake of genuine research... I would like to see Stars or Party or someone strip the individual player names out of a billion hands and make those hand histories (the COMPLETE hand histories, with everyone's hole cards) publicly available. I think that would go a long way toward settling the question, even for the bad players.
|
|
#33
12-31-2006, 07:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If poker sites are rigged, let\'s prove it.
Since the poker-sucks.com has published no raw data or detailed description of their methods, I see no reason to take them seriously. If they have actual evidence of rigging, they need to publish it. If they don't, then as far as I'm concerned, they're full of [censored].
|
|
#34
12-31-2006, 07:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If poker sites are rigged, let\'s prove it.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] FYI, the definitive analysis is this survey of a half million hands on PokerRoom.com. https://www.pokerroom.com/main/page/games/cardStats [/ QUOTE ] A joke? PokerRoom audits PokerRoom? [/ QUOTE ] PR's tournament-award system notwithstanding ( ), this is the type of data that confirms randomness in the deal of each game. PR's database has complete information (on all dealt cards, on board cards, on the stub), and thus its tests for randomness are going to be the most precise. [/ QUOTE ] Let's start by putting on our critical thinking caps, OK? Assume PR is rigging. Further assume they provide detailed hand analysis that shows total randomness. Every thing looks good. Next case. Now assume PR is clean. Further assume they provide detailed hand analysis that shows total randomness. Every thing looks good. How do you tell the difference? Obviously you can not. PR can not audit PR in any meaningful way unless they are 100% stoooopid. [ QUOTE ] As for the question of intra-hand rigging, the best defense is one of complexity. Programming a random card to fall on the river is a straightforward exercise. Programming a "rigged card" is much more complex, particularly when you have to ensure that the overall results still meet the statistical requirements for randomness. If you program a "rigged card" to fall on the river, you then have to store the value of that card somewhere to ensure that it's cancelled out by another "rigged card" falling somewhere else -- and then that card has to be stored and covered up, and so on. Ultimately, you'd need to rig another 51 river cards in order to cover up the first one. [/ QUOTE ] Here's how it might work. A is a winner B is new or a loser or otherwise favored and they are head's up. The flop comes 100% random. Now the software calls up T+R pairs randomly and picks the first pair that locks it for B. These are pseudo-random cards and it wouldn't be done except for a fraction of the time, maybe 10% of the hands. You will not catch this counting the frequency of various T+R cards. [ QUOTE ] For the sake of genuine research... I would like to see Stars or Party or someone strip the individual player names out of a billion hands and make those hand histories (the COMPLETE hand histories, with everyone's hole cards) publicly available. I think that would go a long way toward settling the question, even for the bad players. [/ QUOTE ] Won't happen. The database crowd would invest hundreds of hours looking to crack the deleted names. Also, why trust this stuff provided by a poker room? Same problem as above.
|
|
#35
12-31-2006, 09:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If poker sites are rigged, let\'s prove it.
[ QUOTE ]
How do you tell the difference? Obviously you can not. PR can not audit PR in any meaningful way unless they are 100% stoooopid. [/ QUOTE ] True. That's why I wrote that this is the TYPE of data that needs to be made available. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [ QUOTE ] Here's how it might work. A is a winner B is new or a loser or otherwise favored and they are head's up. The flop comes 100% random. Now the software calls up T+R pairs randomly and picks the first pair that locks it for B. These are pseudo-random cards and it wouldn't be done except for a fraction of the time, maybe 10% of the hands. You will not catch this counting the frequency of various T+R cards. [/ QUOTE ] For an individual hand, you're right. But over the course of millions of hands, better cards (read: aces, suited runners, etc) would appear more often than normal, while useless cards would appear less often. If you're not keeping track of what you've rigged, you can't balance out your statistical probabilities. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] For the sake of genuine research... I would like to see Stars or Party or someone strip the individual player names out of a billion hands and make those hand histories (the COMPLETE hand histories, with everyone's hole cards) publicly available. I think that would go a long way toward settling the question, even for the bad players. [/ QUOTE ] Won't happen. The database crowd would invest hundreds of hours looking to crack the deleted names. Also, why trust this stuff provided by a poker room? Same problem as above. [/ QUOTE ] Instead of releasing a billion consecutive hands, release a billion random hands. Strip out the names and starting stack sizes. Encrypt the hand numbers. If there's no guarantee of sequentiality, the dataminers will be hard-pressed to create usable information. Of course, if you think that the sites are going to provide you with bogus hand histories, then you should really put on your tinfoil hat and wait for the black helicopters to come get you. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] At some point, you have to accept that the data you're looking at is genuine, or you'll drive yourself insane.
|
|
#36
01-01-2007, 01:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If poker sites are rigged, let\'s prove it.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It looks like a pointless wild goose chase as you are trying to prove a negative. [/ QUOTE ] Exactly! It's like trying to prove that god exists. [/ QUOTE ] It's a negative thing if god exists? Wow...I'm not religious and think that's f'ed up. [/ QUOTE ] Not quite. Negative-lack of existence in that use of the word. Although God is neither provable or unprovable at the moment, so that post was off. Example: Can you prove Bigfoot exsists? Yes, find a living/dead Bigfoot. Can you prove Bigfoot doesn't exist? No, you could be missing it or it is extinct but did exist. That's the point. The negative (non-exist) is unprovable. Can you prove a site is rigged? Yes, numbers are off. Can you prove it's not? No, you might be missing something. (Not saying it's rigged)
|
|
#37
01-01-2007, 01:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If poker sites are rigged, let\'s prove it.
[ QUOTE ]
Can you prove it's not? No, you might be missing something. [/ QUOTE ] You can provide an instantaneous proof of site honesty if you inspect the underlying code and watch its installation. You're sure until you leave.
|
|
#38
01-01-2007, 12:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If poker sites are rigged, let\'s prove it.
[ QUOTE ]
Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here's how it might work. A is a winner B is new or a loser or otherwise favored and they are head's up. The flop comes 100% random. Now the software calls up T+R pairs randomly and picks the first pair that locks it for B. These are pseudo-random cards and it wouldn't be done except for a fraction of the time, maybe 10% of the hands. You will not catch this counting the frequency of various T+R cards. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For an individual hand, you're right. But over the course of millions of hands, better cards (read: aces, suited runners, etc) would appear more often than normal, while useless cards would appear less often. If you're not keeping track of what you've rigged, you can't balance out your statistical probabilities. [/ QUOTE ] This is evidence that you are likely not to well educated in statistics. Maybe I'm wrong, but you need to investigate this better before you dismiss it. And from what I've read of you here, you likely lack the statistics tool box to do so. You're suggesting that the method I describe will leave some trace. I suggest that with ordinairy statistical methods you'll never see that trace in any hypothesis test.
|
|
#39
01-01-2007, 01:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If poker sites are rigged, let\'s prove it.
Bottom line: If it's rigged, then it's rigged in my favor. Why should I be motivated to investigate the issue?
|
|
#40
01-01-2007, 02:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If poker sites are rigged, let\'s prove it.
Yesterday, I pushed all in with KK. I got called by some idiot fish with TT. He got a T on the flop and beat me. Has anything like this ever happened to anyone else before? If so, please post about it here. If we can get enough examples like this one maybe we can prove something.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
