My poker database has me convinced...

[Audi]

FWIW and not wishing to derail but IIRC Mike Shackleford (wizard of odds) found Iglobalmedia to be running rigged blackjack back in 2001/2002....they 'upgraded' and asked him to retest, this time they passed with flying colours.

Iglobal = Party (correct me if I'm wrong) so there is history.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

This looks like [censored] to me and the reasons it looks like [censored] are as follows:

1) His ratio of AKo/AA/AKs is roughly 6:3:2, which is exactly what it should be. Since you're putting money in essentially every time with these hands (but not with other hands), this strongly suggests the presence of a VPIP filter.

2) OP is suggesting that everyone was being dealt monster hands, not just him. However, if this were the case, a hand like 99 would not win when seeing a flop 67% of the time, as it has in his database. It would get busted (or have been behind to begin with) much more often that that, especially in loose games with several people seeing a flop.

Another way to look at this is that if OP was in fact dealt this distribution of hands *and* won with those hands as often as he implies, then his BB/100 would be much greater than the 7-12 BB/100 that he's claiming. It would literally be off the charts, maybe 20-30 BB/100 or something like that.

OP is either:
1) Showing his stats with a VPIP filter;
2) Showing someone else's stats for which only hands that were shown down appear;
3) Lying about his winrate;
4) The worst postflop player in the history of poker.

These are the only possibilities.

[NU Star]

Without even doing any calculations, I'm sure that if these numbers are right, and OP is getting nearly double on all his PPs, then there is a 99.999999999999999999999(a lot more 9's) that the site is rigged.

I obviously assume he has some filter on.

[Guthrie]

There's at least one more possibility. His copy of Pokertracker has a glitch in it, perhaps with the effect of setting a filter for voluntarily put money in pot, which is what the stats look like. The simple test would be for someone to take his 26,000 hand histories, load them into another copy of Pokertracker and run the same stats.

[NU Star]

My Pokertracker stats where I should be expecting ~58 of each PP. All are pretty close...except I get AA the least so definitley [censored] rigged. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
There's at least one more possibility. His copy of Pokertracker has a glitch in it, perhaps with the effect of setting a filter for voluntarily put money in pot, which is what the stats look like. The simple test would be for someone to take his 26,000 hand histories, load them into another copy of Pokertracker and run the same stats.

[/ QUOTE ]

All I know is that if these were your stats, there's no way that your winrate at $50, $100 NL would be "only" 7-12 BB/100.

Note that OP has no shown any screenshots that provide his winrate, even though he cited his winrate in the text of the original post.

He's full of [censored]. Y'all are gullible. 100%.

[WhoIam]

I find it really hard to believe that OP is so lame that he would manipulate his PT stats or hand histories this way as a prank. If he were going to do so, there are much more interesting things he could have done. He's also not trying to troll Party because he didn't even mention the site until I asked him on the first page.

The best way to prove/disprove this to look at other people's January stats. If everyone else is normal, we can assume that everything is fine because Party is not going to rig the game for one SSNL player. If there's even one or two more of these (assuming they don't come from first-time posters or anything), something is up.

For the record, I think there is almost no chance there is anything to this. When people come here claiming site X is rigged, we always ask them to provide evidence. We have some here so I think we should look at it.

[Bobo Fett]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it really hard to believe that OP is so lame that he would manipulate his PT stats or hand histories this way as a prank. If he were going to do so, there are much more interesting things he could have done. He's also not trying to troll Party because he didn't even mention the site until I asked him on the first page.

The best way to prove/disprove this to look at other people's February stats. If everyone else is normal, we can assume that everything is fine because Party is not going to rig the game for one SSNL player. If there's even one or two more of these (assuming they don't come from first-time posters or anything), something is up.

For the record, I think there is almost no chance there is anything to this. When people come here claiming site X is rigged, we always ask them to provide evidence. We have some here so I think we should look at it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you'd want to look at January stats. I believe OP is claiming the "rigged" time frame was January, then back to normal in February.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it really hard to believe that OP is so lame that he would manipulate his PT stats or hand histories this way as a prank. If he were going to do so, there are much more interesting things he could have done. He's also not trying to troll Party because he didn't even mention the site until I asked him on the first page.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not like it takes eons of time to turn a filter on in Pokertracker. That's what he's done here.

Personally, I'd be very entertained if I were him in a shine-a-magnifying-glass-on-an-ant way.

[Mitch Evans]

I don't know... I had a pretty interesting session last night. If you see, there's just no way I should have queens beat (and dealt) so many times. Got to be rigged. I know the sample is small, but come on.... RIGGED. Take a good look and decide….