My poker database has me convinced...

[stompin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


they are not filtered as to whether they saw flop or anything. 26k hands is all the hands played.

[/ QUOTE ]

screenshot of Known Hands Filter plz

[/ QUOTE ]

[MelchyBeau]

are these hands you played, or hands you datamined?

[stompin]

played

[LionelHutz00]

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You would have to have 500,00 to 1,000,000 hands to be statistically meaningful. Same for cards dealt on flop, turn and river.
I have seen stats from Poker Stars like this that show their RNG gives results close to the actual odds.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong. A statistical anomaly is a statical anomaly. If something is 10 standard deviations out from the mean over more than 10000 hands, that's plenty of evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the most annoying thing EVER. People who say "duhhhh invalid sample size" when something is 6 standard deviations out from the mean are [censored] idiots.

[kyleb]

stompin,

This is actually a very interesting post. You've taken a much different route than most people do to prove that a site's RNG is flawed. I hope someone can help you out with the advanced math to determine whether or not it's a real anomaly.

Don't mind the people who bitch about 'zomg rigged'. Most of the posts in this forum about sites being rigged/flawed are stupid (aka OnlinePro's posts), but your post actually has some merit to it.

[stompin]

I see now Lionel. here you go.

[LionelHutz00]

OK now I'm scared.

[JayA]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, here are my frequencies of pocket pairs so far this year:


And here it is filtered for hands in which I voluntarily put money in the pot:

ZOMG RIGGGED

OP check your filters

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this mean you folded AA pre? Just curious...

Btw, very interesting post...keep it goin.

[LionelHutz00]

[ QUOTE ]


Does this mean you folded AA pre? Just curious...

Btw, very interesting post...keep it goin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Presumably I was in the BB and everyone folded.