I cannot win on pokerstars. Reasons ??

[Minn_pokerplyr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who thinks the deal at pokerstars is normal is mentally retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

FINALLY, why did someone not say this before, it's all clear now, a nobody with a full 7 posts says PokerStars is rigged.
Keep your statistical analysis, I'm taking my money out RIGHT NOW!!

[censored] DONKTARDTASTIC!!!

[/ QUOTE ]
If so many continue to play at sites truly believing they are somehow rigged against them, then perhaps there is a market for "riggedpoker.com" - just think about it: you could play at a site and be <u>100% sure that it was rigged</u>!!!

There would be no need to fill the zoo with endless posts about how you think online poker is rigged and no need for us "non-believers" to waste our time reading this [censored]...

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Hmmmm, but would the very same posters then want to fill the forum with pointless posts accusing "riggedpoker.com" of NOT rigging the cards properly??? You just can't win...

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok so show me your proof the deal at pokerstars is random, and don't link to the page on their website. Just because some of you are winners on pstars means nothing.

There are tons of people who win playing slot machines. Does not change the fact that the machines are rigged against them, and in the long term they will lose.

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]


There are tons of people who win playing slot machines.

[/ QUOTE ]

Short term, yes. Long term, no.

People HAVE shown evidence that the deal is random by posting their stats.

[JackCase]

[ QUOTE ]

Ok so show me your proof the deal at pokerstars is random, and don't link to the page on their website. Just because some of you are winners on pstars means nothing.



[/ QUOTE ]

It is logically impossible to prove that a site is not rigged. No matter how much data is presented that shows a normal distribution of randomness, that does not prove that non-randomness never happens. It is difficult if not impossible to prove a negative proposition. You cannot prove that something does not happen or does not exist unless and until you examine every occurrence in that universe.

On the other hand, it only takes one statistically significant example of non-randomness to show that a site is rigged. No one in this thread has provided such an example. To the best of my knowledge, no one in these forums has ever provided such an example.

[ QUOTE ]
There are tons of people who win playing slot machines. Does not change the fact that the machines are rigged against them, and in the long term they will lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would hardly say that a slot is "rigged" if the odds are in favor of the house and anyone with an IQ &gt; room temperature knows that. If that is your definition of "rigged", then I would agree that Stars is rigged. The rake ensures only a minority win and that most people lose in the long run.

[Sciolist]

I would not be surprised if a lot of people here have a much better idea of the things I should be checking for than I do. Does anyone have any suggestions? I have all the hands imported by now. I think I have a wrong setting somewhere in PT, as I'm only seeing 409k hands, but I'm not in a great state to tell otherwise. Here're the pocket pair numbers:

408750 hands

AA 1934 84.07
KK 1844 72.40
QQ 1882 69.50
JJ 1943 62.64
TT 1801 58.25
99 1908 48.01
88 1822 43.03
77 1836 33.33
66 1854 22.44
55 1827 15.44
44 1860 15.44
33 1835 8.99
22 1815 6.34

Expectation over 408,750 hands is 1850

[Marc Desjardins]

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
I would not be surprised if a lot of people here have a much better idea of the things I should be checking for than I do. Does anyone have any suggestions?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd suggest pzhon, BruceZ, AAronBrown, or other stats guys have a look. But I don't know if they have time to spend on this kind of nonsense. The deviation observed for JJ would occur ~3% of the time by chance. I don't see anything extraordinary here.

Updated normal probability chart:

[MicroBob]

it very much seems like the people who would be so bold to say "you should check for this" or "you should check for that" are pretty much making it up as they go along.

I offer no suggestions because I don't believe you can "prove" that it isn't rigged per-se. The conspiracy-tin-foil-hat crowd will come up with some other way.
"Well obviously they set it up in such a way that it wouldn't be detected in a regular scan of PT stats. They just give somebody else a 74o and those times that they give another player that hand they set it up for a 744 flop to beat somebody else's AA. But they balance it out so nobody notices."

Whatever silly stuff they want to come up with there is no stopping them.

Although showing all his pocket-pair stats is a reasonable start since that's where OP seemed to be all concerned.
OP still has not responded as to why he thinks there is such an anomoly in his own pocket-pair stats.
Really isn't that big a deal to admit that he hasn't updated his pokertracker in awhile. Sure looks better than when everyone thought he was making it up because he was getting all those pairs so many more times than he was supposed to.


Personally, I think some of his playing stats would be interesting. Especially at 6-max.
My hunch is that he is way too tight and passive for such games.
If he doesn't mind everyone seeing his VP, PFR, WtSD, ag-factor, etc etc then I suspect that could lead to others pointing out the flaws in his game which is the REAL reason he's losing afterall.

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think some of his playing stats would be interesting. Especially at 6-max.
My hunch is that he is way too tight and passive for such games.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think your hunch is supported by his win% with smaller pairs. The larger pair win% seems perfectly reasonable, but the smaller pair win% seems quite low (for 6 max anyway).

I agree we can't prove much here. Certainly not to everyone's satisfaction.

[OnlinePro]

Stats are wrong because I am definately not winning 84% of the time with AA, that number is at 80% and next highest is KK at 64%

I cannot post everyday because I just bought a new house ( brag ) 1.2 million. ( I really must suck at poker ) and I am moving a bunch of crap and trying to figure out a stupid wall mount for that 60inch pioneer in the vip store ( awesome tv by the way )


No I have not updated my pt, infact I have never updated my pt, it got overfull with data sometime early this year and tech support told me to do some stuff to re new the database thats why I only have 84k hands.

Here is the stats to look for sciolist.

1. percentage of pots lost over 5 big bets with high pocket pairs.

2. Percentage of times I lose to bigblind wen its heads up.


IF those 2 stats are possible to look up that will be great indicator of how many bad beats i suffer. I am not looking forward to any of this information to be valid since you do work for the company and would not reveal such information. Let me repeat this post is in no way bashing full til,pokerstars or any big poker company. I am just saying that online poker in general is not real, it is skewed for bad players to do better.

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think some of his playing stats would be interesting. Especially at 6-max.
My hunch is that he is way too tight and passive for such games.
If he doesn't mind everyone seeing his VP, PFR, WtSD, ag-factor, etc etc then I suspect that could lead to others pointing out the flaws in his game which is the REAL reason he's losing afterall.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's like 18/14 in my current DB over about 650 hands.