My poker database has me convinced...

[stompin]

I had some really strange results from my poker database from January, particulary in hole card frequencies, and PFR%/VPIP% for the site in general. It is seriously so out of whack and so obvious its mind boggling. Based on this Ive come to accept that poker sites probably alter results to make more profit. Altering holecard frequencies seems the silliest way to do it but my database seems pretty conclusive.

Over a sample of 26,000 hands played during an approx 3 week stretch in January the following is captured in my database:

Pocket pairs:
- All pocket pairs were dealt at a frequency 1.5x to 2x the expected frequency.

Suited cards:
- Desired suited cards, such as suited broadways, mid suited connectors, suited aces and some suited kings were all dealt betweeen 1.3x and 2.1x more than expected.
- Junk suited hands (q high and lower with 2+ gaps) were all dealt less than expected, ranged mostly from .75x to .6x.

Unsuited cards:
- only a few non-suited cards (10 combinations) were dealt more than expected, these were all big broadways AK,AQ,KQ etc. Highest freq was AKo at 1.8x more than expected.
- All remaining unsuited hands were dealt less than expected, down to .6x expected frequency.

Anyone playing low stakes during these times must have noticed the extreme looseness at the tables (it was actually pretty fun). 60 VPIP / 35PFR was typical. A tag would be 40/30. The games were very slow something like 60-80 hands per hour. It seems to me that I was not the only one getting this pocket card distribution.

However, it all changed in February. Suddenly pocket card frequencies were back to normal, all the 40/30's were instantly back to playing 22/15, and we were getting 100 hands / hour. I haven't seen anything unusual since. My winrate was the same for both months...7-12BB's depending on level.

All this makes me think that I wasn't just me getting lucky pockets - most people were. Party likely was trying something out during January, perhaps didnt like the results (since games were slowed down i doubt they got much more rake, and I dont think fish did any better they just played even more hands > 80% was typical) and changed back in FEb

For me this has answered the question whether a poker site would resort to altering results to garner more profit. The only question is to what extent more clever approaches exist. I would love to see an organization (PPA, other?) take up this cause and would be willing to share my database to someone interested in doing so.

Surely someone else at low stakes - 50nl and 100 nl during January has a DB that shows similar results??

edited for typo