I cannot win on pokerstars. Reasons ??

[washus]

olieovie, I never concluded the site must be rigged because of the data provided. You can check my posts again if you wish. I was commenting on that data only. And that data was not consistent with the hypothesis that the deal was random, that's all. I'm not a conspiracy theorist or anything, hehe.

What I noticed, and that's the reason why I posted, is that the data (OP's AA's that were analyzed already) showed a large deviation, and people said it was ok. For that sample only it was NOT ok. That's all. I only had that data, my own data is much, much smaller than that. I've been playing for a week only. What I did say, is that the data provided was inconsistent with an up and up deck, while people said it was ok. I said I wanted to see more data. Which was kindly provided by uDevil. THAT is consistent. And that has a suited hand way off, more than 3 sigma. That's less than a percent chance, but hey, I have more than a hundred other hands to see. That was my point. Not saying its 2 sigma off therefore its rigged.... its 2 sigma off therefore its inconsistent.

I wonder why people are so agressive here, jesus! Maybe its just me, but I think a forum is for people to express their ideas and discuss them, not call each other stupid (in a literal way) or tell people to shut up... Not to take quotes out of context and say "see, you're stupid". Maybe its a poker player thing.

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]

I wonder why people are so agressive here, jesus! Maybe its just me, but I think a forum is for people to express their ideas and discuss them, not call each other stupid (in a literal way) or tell people to shut up... Not to take quotes out of context and say "see, you're stupid". Maybe its a poker player thing.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's not just you, but you're in the minority. Get used to it.

You seem to have missed the point that OP's data is not a random sample. Rather it was presented by him because he thought it was an extreme outlier. The data is not consistent with that opinion.

[antisocialgrace]

[antisocialgrace]

[ QUOTE ]
to respond to your other points:

[ QUOTE ]
1-People say it's impossible to say online poker is rigged. 100% certainty yes. That's your confidence level.... 95% is very good, at least for me.


[/ QUOTE ]
that is just plain wrong. with the right evidence, you could certainly prove that online poker at a particular site is rigged.

"People say it's impossible to say online poker is rigged" - which is true, on the basis of evidence currently available. On the evidence available now, it is impossible to say online poker is rigged.

[ QUOTE ]
2-What about the time series (taking the order of the events into account)? Ex: I toss a coin a 100 times. Get about 50 heads so it's ok, right? What if the fist 40 times I tossed the coin I got heads? NOT right! But the average is still perfect. Think about it! One way to take this into account is to count the distance between the events, lets say, the distance d between AA's (if I get AA and the next hand I get AA d=1). I swear the most probable distance is one! the d distro should be [(1-p)^d]*p. If you plot a histogram (monolog) of d it should be a straight line (y is log(#events on bin) ) for a large sample.

[/ QUOTE ]
We do not have a publicly available analysis of the time series, so it is silly to make conjecture on the basis of a possible distribution.

[ QUOTE ]
2b- People say you need a big sample to say a site is rigged (or suspect with very good reasons). Wrong! Let's say you see 2 or 3 royals on a row. That's only 2 or 3 events

[/ QUOTE ]

But the sample is much higher than you realise.

Of the hundreds of thousands of people who post on this board, they play hundreds of thousands of hands each (I don't know what the average playing experience of people on this board is, but I imagine that those who have played millions of hands compensate for those who have played few).

we're now looking at hundreds of billions of hands - if the person who gets two royal flushes in a row (at odds of x million to 1, or whatever it is) posts about it (as he is likely to) that can not now be proof that online poker is rigged.


[ QUOTE ]
3-Now for less numbers and more feelings: Party poker changed something this week, I feel.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least points 1- 2b were at least credible and showed some logical thought (although they overlooked serious flaws in the thinking process). This is just silly.

A mistake that many people make is to intuitively over-estimate the favouritism that a hand like AK has over 72 (or whatever). That is, incidentally, why in STTs and MTTs hyper aggressive short-stack play is so incredibly important and the key to success - if you pick up the blinds, you get a huge boost, and if you get called, you're rarely worse than 40% chance of winning, and hardly ever worse than 20% chance of winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

[sanmarcosrun1]

Do you have a point for posting a picture of something that has been proven to be doctored and not a real hand?

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have a point for posting a picture of something that has been proven to be doctored and not a real hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe he's trying to prove the gullibility and poor thinking quality of peopple who claim that online poker is rigged with no evidence to support that idea.

[antisocialgrace]

how was it documented, a PS representative came on and said it was a fake?

good enough for me.

[MicroBob]

not only did a PS rep say that it was a fake but you can also look up the hand-history number yourself.
Stars provided a lengthy and detailed explanation and a very professional one at that.

Also - as they and others have pointed out:
if you look closely at a full screen-shot you can see that the last ace is actually a pixel off-line with the rest of the board cards.
So it's not even a very good fake because it's obvious the last card was photo-shopped in.

Congratulations for buying in to some idiot's plan to play into the fears of people like you.
This funny little screen-shot is somewhat ancient and was long ago shown to be a fake.

[hollister83]

Pokerstars is one of the greatest sites, kinda rigged thou.

[meleader2]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you have a point for posting a picture of something that has been proven to be doctored and not a real hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe he's trying to prove the gullibility and poor thinking quality of peopple who claim that online poker is rigged with no evidence to support that idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

i can tell u right now, albeit 3 years ago, i had 5 sixes on UB.