party vs stars difference

[zerosum]

In theory it may be testable, but only in isolation. Any test conducted in isolation would be subject to justified criticism that the result is not representative of the result that would be obtained if a truly representative sample of the population is examined.

In other words, testing the experience of one player to determine systematic unfairness is close to meaningless against a counter argument that tens of thousands of other players did not share the experience of the one player examined, leading to the conclusion that the one experience is merely an outlier, something to be expected on occasion.

I still would like someone to start from the position that the deal is assumed to be unfair unless proven otherwise. That people persist on thinking that sites will not cheat because they have too much to lose if they are caught just blows my mind. If history teaches anything about human nature it is that we have insatiable greed and a belief that we won't get caught.

Anyway, I'm done with PStars forever. I have no doubt that I was targeted. What I experienced there three times in my three periods of play there was not just an extreme outlier. I believe it was manufactured. And because I live in the U.S., under the rule of a republican administration, my online playing days are history.

[pokey79]

[ QUOTE ]
i dont know how to explain this
but im reaching the end of my rope in this matter
is it possible to be up 200k on partypoker with sng,s (sample size 10.000)
and being down 70k on stars also with sample size 10.000
with the note that my last 6000 sng's on stars the loss stabilized
i lost 70k in the first 4000
and now with vip milestone bonuses and ffp i can keep it even but with horrendous swings of 100 buyins up and down

right know my mind is playing tricks on me
i have the feeling that my allins are sucked out more on stars than party
suckouts happen and are part of the game ,i never ever complained about this on the table or anywhere else
when they happen just started up a new game and went on
but now
my last 100buyin downswing its so dominant happening in my mind that its not even funny anymore
i even got taunted from another regular who's got the same impression according to his remarks

i know the level of play is different on stars and party so a litle difference can be explained
but is the difference in skill realy that big?
does anybody know a good program to load my hand histories in to calculate my sklansky bucks from all allin matchups
to clearify this for me that im seeing ghosts
and that indeed the skill difference is dominant
or show that maybe my feeling is right that my sklansky bucks are behind the results
because of some rare statistical occurance

regards

[/ QUOTE ]


Give up meat. Your luck will improve.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm rather curious about how you would propose dealing with the wire act?

[/ QUOTE ]
After playing poker online many times, you use the Wire Act as an excuse for not putting your money where your mouth is? Is anyone supposed to believe that?

Check with a lawyer. The Wire Act does not apply. Past rulings indicate that it doesn't apply to playing online poker, either.

So, there is nothing stopping you from accepting the bet, except of course that you don't believe your ridiculous, tired old accusations. Please come up with a more creative excuse for why you can't bet on what you say.

[ QUOTE ]
What is the maximum you are willing to wager?

Are you willing to place your end in escrow?

Are you willing to commit to writing the terms of any such wager?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm saying you are dishonest, so of course I'd want the money for the wager to be put into escrow, and I'd want the terms to be in writing. I don't know what the maximum amount I'd be willing to wager is, but I think I can line up 7 figures including proxies. The minimum is more interesting. I'd prefer to bet enough to cover a few thousand dollars worth of testing expenses.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW: I highly doubt that you are a mathematician. I can believe that you are a mathematics hobbyist, though. In my book, a PhD. in mathematics is the threshold requirement for proclaiming oneself a mathematician.

[/ QUOTE ]
That you challenge my qualifications further impeaches your credibility. As should be obvious, I am a mathematician by any definition. I have a Ph.D. in mathematics, as I have shown in numerous past threads, and I'm actually more qualified than most people with doctorates in mathematics. However, it doesn't take a mathematician to set up a simple fair statistical test.

[ QUOTE ]

My suspicion is that PStars actively seeks to rid the site of players who demonstrate significantly better skill than other players.
...
If you have not run as I have from the start of your account at PStars, then I would not be surprised that your experience at the site seems reasonable. Anyone who starts out as a modest winner at PStars will likely be left alone.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, if you specify a pattern, then cheating under these circumstances is testable, and it's not even hard to do that.

It's not particularly uncommon for a player who is only slightly better than break-even to run at 4 BB/100 for a few thousand hands, and it is quite common for that to happen to players who win 2-3 BB/100. I did that when I started playing on PokerStars (btw, I continued to win at an excellent rate), and I'm confident many other 2+2-ers did as well, and it wouldn't take long to set up several accounts to create a few which were a bit lucky initially.

Saying that you think PokerStars cheats players who start out winning is not a pattern. You need to specify how much cheating there was (give a minimum figure). How are you claiming that PokerStars has cheated you (to cost you hundreds of BBs and 3 deposits, although you only provided the graph for one)? If they chose hands where the better starting hands lose, then you should be able to say that the weaker hands draw out more frequently than they should by some amount large enough to explain a good proportion of your losses. How much more frequently do you think a flopped low pair wins against an overpair? 10% more than it should? How much more frequently do you think a gutshot wins against top pair? 5% extra? But note that any pattern you say can be shot down, and that's what everyone thinks would happen, including you.

You are doing the equivalent of publicly claiming that your neighbor is a serial rapist, then saying that you don't think it can be determined whether that is really true while experts tell you that there is reliable DNA evidence to test, while declining to make your statements under oath. Your accusations are very serious, and you should not make them unless you believe them. It's not fair to the accused, it makes you look terrible, and it wastes the time of investigators.

I was going to say that you have made a public fool of yourself. However, that is not quite accurate; an honest fool would take the bet. You have provided strong evidence that your words are worthless, that you don't even believe your own absurd, libelous accusations. The poll shows that almost everyone sees through you. You have flushed your credibility down the toilet. You tell uninteresting stories that you don't believe, that we don't believe, and that we don't even think you believe.

I've given you more attention than you deserve, although I believe accusations of serious misconduct should be examined. I first offered to bet against you 11 days ago, and have repeated that offer many times. If you don't quickly agree in principle to put your money where your mouth is, then you are a liar and a bore, and I will ignore you.

[pokey79]

[ QUOTE ]
Pzhon,

Here's a quick description/clarification of my experience at PStars.

Over the past several years, I have played at PStars for three discrete periods, with at least 12 months absence from PStars between periods of play there. All play has been LHE, and almost all of that has been 6-max.

Each time I started a period of play, I ran well for the first 7,500 to 10,000 hands, usually winning at a rate between 3BB/100 and 4.5BB/100. Then the fun starts. Suckout after suckout after suckout. The first and the second time this happened, I just left PStars, both times with an odd feeling that something just was not right with the play at the site.

My third period of play, however, I decided to see just how long play could continue to be such a suckfest. Well I found out.

Now, what could be happening. I win at every other site at which I've played, over long periods of time. Why the different result at PStars?

My suspicion is that PStars actively seeks to rid the site of players who demonstrate significantly better skill than other players. PStars makes money from rake. Having a more even distribution of skill among those playing at the site means that the money is traded with greater frequency among a greater number of players. The result is more transactions and thus more rake.

Now, how could PStars or any site for that matter accomplish the task of punishing the more skilled players and have that punishment remain close to undetectable by statistical analysis?

Here's how I think it could be done.

1. Deal hands, not cards.
2. Once all possible hands from deal to showdown are computed, place them in distribution bins according to the starting hand -- AKs, for example.
3. Identify the general range of starting hands of the player desired to be punished.
4. Distribute the hands to the player in a truly random fashion with respect to the starting hand, but pull those hands from the end of the distribution bin that has a greater frequency of losing, relative to the other starting hands that will be dealt and the remaining cards that are known to be dealt for the flop, turn and river.
5. Let the playing take its natural course. Some times the targeted player's opponents will not play a hand that will win at showdown with a suckout, other times they will.
6. The end result is that the targeted player is fighting quite an uphill battle to remain a winning player.

Such a scheme for ridding a site of more skilled players would be almost impossible to detect, as the overwhelming majority of players will not be treated to the experience.

Hence, the targeted player just looks like he hit a really, really bad bit of luck. As I stated in the start of this outline, this most recent experience is my third at PStars. If it were my first, or even my second, I would not have responded to the OP as I did.

If you have not run as I have from the start of your account at PStars, then I would not be surprised that your experience at the site seems reasonable. Anyone who starts out as a modest winner at PStars will likely be left alone.

Now, you tell me how you can possible apply statistical analysis to examine what I have described.

[/ QUOTE ]

Adolf Hitler is in the South Pole and building up a secret army to conquer the world.

[duh]

So you're saying that you've been doomswitched because you're awsome, but those of us who have been winning at stars for 3years straight have the perma boomswitch because we suck?




Oh and this is just plain retarded (which you would know if you took even 1 CS class):

[ QUOTE ]
1. Deal hands, not cards.
2. Once all possible hands from deal to showdown are computed, place them in distribution bins according to the starting hand -- AKs, for example.
3. Identify the general range of starting hands of the player desired to be punished.
4. Distribute the hands to the player in a truly random fashion with respect to the starting hand, but pull those hands from the end of the distribution bin that has a greater frequency of losing, relative to the other starting hands that will be dealt and the remaining cards that are known to be dealt for the flop, turn and river.
5. Let the playing take its natural course. Some times the targeted player's opponents will not play a hand that will win at showdown with a suckout, other times they will.
6. The end result is that the targeted player is fighting quite an uphill battle to remain a winning player.


[/ QUOTE ]

[zerosum]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm rather curious about how you would propose dealing with the wire act?

[/ QUOTE ]

Check with a lawyer. The Wire Act does not apply. Past rulings indicate that it doesn't apply to playing online poker, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like to guess what I am? Your interpretation of the wire act is not justified by its language, legal opinion and justice department posture. Whether the wire act applies or not to online poker is not relevant to your proposal.

Here's a link to a rather short overview of the wire act. I suggest you read it.

http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Feder...s/wire-act.htm

I see that you ignored my request for your analysis of the data required to prove that PStars provides fair limit hold'em games, starting with the hypothesis that the games are not fair.

Until you can satisfy that simple request, I have no reason to take you seriously.

You are attempting to solicit a wager, but you are not willing to demonstrate any real ability to conduct the analysis required, nor are you willing to hold a civil dialogue that could progress to a point of understanding with respect to terms.

You do persist with personal attacks and mischaracterizations, the latter of which I have chosen not to rebut. Do not take my lack of rebuttal as agreement with your positions.

The vigor with which you make personal attacks but ignore my simple requests regarding statistical analysis does suggest to me that perhaps you have some association with PStars other than as a player.

What say you?

[early325]

plz ban zerosum

That, says I.

[SneakyFerret]

I says that I am sorry I read this thread

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

By the way, this should be contrasted with Absolute Poker, which has admitted that there was cheating by at least one insider. There was actual evidence in September, and I offered to bet against multiple people including an offer to bet $10,000 against Julian West that the cheating was real.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oops. Of course, I meant Justin West, assistant editor of PokerPages who wrote a couple of columns saying that the accusations against Absolute Poker were stupid and had a very low probability of being correct. My apologies to my friend Julian West, a mathematician, and others by that name.

[Lori]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Testing theories is for suckers.

Clearly the problem is far too subtle to be able to test, but obvious enough for players in the know (taps nose) to notice it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. It's sublte, obvious to alert players, and it's devastating.

The following covers the period 9/21/07 through yesterday. All hands played LHE short.
[image][/image]

[/ QUOTE ]
you ever stop and think that maybe you're just not very good at poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

He doesn't have time to stop and think, he's busy pokering 16,000 hands in 2 months.

<font color="white"> Lori </font>