Doomswitch? Part 6 Last one!

[Andy B]

I ask people to post one hand per thread when they are looking for actual discussion. When you just want to bitch about how this or that site is rigged, one thread is more than sufficient. I should probably lock these, but I'm content to make fun of you for now.

[Nina]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Stats (some 60 000 hands, 80% H 20% Hi/Lo):


site 1: $VPIP 35.29 Won at SD 55.60 BB/100 3.62
site 2: $VPIP 33.50 Won at SD 50.24 BB/100 3.10
site 3: $VPIP 34.01 Won at SD 50.53 BB/100 3.88
Poker Stars: $VPIP 32.01 Won at SD 53.36 BB/100 -2.37 PS

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty good BB/100 for playing that high a VPIP...do you play short-handed a lot? also is that 60K hands at each site?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes those BB/100 numbers are great! If you're playing 20-40 or bigger and winning 3-4 BB/100 you're great. About the VPIP #'s I have ALOT more than 60k hands on several sites I don't so how your hi-lo VPIP should be higher than your high. In fact it is clearly correct to play less hands at hi lo, mine is a full 10% smaller. GL

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh no (but I wish!)! I've been playing for 2 yrs now -no high stakes yet. Mostly 1/2 - 3/6, very few hands at 4/8 and 5/10.

[JackDuckSooted]

[ QUOTE ]
I ask people to post one hand per thread when they are looking for actual discussion. When you just want to bitch about how this or that site is rigged, one thread is more than sufficient. I should probably lock these, but I'm content to make fun of you for now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy, long time winning players at mid to high limits(on the internet and live) questioning the integrity of the game imo are credible and valuable to 2+2 readers i.e. the absolute thread.

[MRBAA]

I think it's fine to question the legitimacy of sites, but remember that if you are winning overall, that's the ultimate proof it's likely not rigged.

I've been through some amazing downswings online, and some amazing upswings. Because my play does change in reaction to results, both ways tend to get magnified. But it's still truly amazing how you sometimes just can't win and other times just can't lose. I"m in a can't lose phase right now, and I just keeping hitting hidden trips and filling as my opponent makes a flush and figures I've been aggressive lately (when really I've mainly just had alot of playable hands) and decides to jam it up. On the other side, sometimes it seems you sometimes get a totally live flush draw in four, jam it up with two or three live ones who are nearly drawing dead if you make your hand and then you look at 3 straight bricks as they cluelessly keep jamming the pot. And one extra round of betting in stud only makes it even more fun.

[SuitedBaby]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's fine to question the legitimacy of sites, but remember that if you are winning overall, that's the ultimate proof it's likely not rigged.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is completely wrong. In my case, because I am winning overall I continue to play but I do believe it proves anything. In fact it is unfathomable to me that the sites would not be rigged. It is also unfathomable that they would be rigged in an obvious fashion.

I have long believed that the rigging simply involved altering the odds so that hands that were ahead early in the hand simply did not finish ahead as often as they should. JJ isn't a ~4:1 dog to AA, maybe just 3:1 or so and similar things in stud, etc. The rest will take care of itself. Winners will win, just more slowly, losers will lose, just more slowly than they ever had before (can you feel the new found joy), and most importantly the rake will be taken inexorably. Winning players with too big an edge are the most dangerous enemy of any site. Why would you think the sites wouldn't tame them?

If you want to know how they would do it think something like this. Create a random hand. You know, just like they say they do. Instantly computer examine the hand for the game it will be used in. Does the best hand on 3rd street or preflop hold up through the river in this hand? If so cull it out say every 5th time you find it to be so and just simply instantly create another random hand to replace it and repeat the process. Easy. Looks just like quality control and it is. Only the best quality hands (for the site) will be dealt.

What is more you can crank the culling up or down as needed. Even vary it for different games and limits. Let the .01/.02 players go at it for real, who cares, but chill out the big winners in the 100/200, they understand variance. Cool. The mantra is keep the money on site. Plus you can turn it off briefly when the auditors (lol) come around or turn it way down if your site's reputation was taking so much heat in the poker community that it seemed to be affecting deposits.

Patty

[RustyBrooks]

It occurs to me that it would be very easy to test the legitimacy of a site, regarding whether it cheats in the way Patty says it might.

Get 7 of your friends and play a lot together at the same table. Join all the hands together including the hole cards and start crunching numbers. If the rigging is significant enough to notice, it won't take more than a few thousand hands for it to become apparent. All you lose in the process is the rake. You could publish your work and become a hero to many!

[SuitedBaby]

[ QUOTE ]
It occurs to me that it would be very easy to test the legitimacy of a site, regarding whether it cheats in the way Patty says it might.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not. The actual number of possible deck shuffle combinations is 52! If you are not familiar with how big this number is it exceeds the number of atoms in the known universe. Really. Something like 8x10 to the 67th power.

It is very hard to prove the deal is non-random when you are dealing with such a large number. It isn't infinity but it is big. PokerStars has only dealt 10 billion hands to date. That is 1x10 to the 10th power or about 1/8x10 to the 57th power of the possible hands. A very, very small fraction. Perhaps all of the seemingly rigged hands just came early in PokerStars series of deals, lol. You would need an enormous amount of data to "prove" anything. Plus if I was the site I would only use this "rigging" in an intermittent fashion.

Please also notice that no site is giving up their entire history of deals/shuffles for scrutiny though it would be an easy thing to do. Ever wonder why not?

Patty

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
It occurs to me that it would be very easy to test the legitimacy of a site, regarding whether it cheats in the way Patty says it might.

Get 7 of your friends and play a lot together at the same table. Join all the hands together including the hole cards and start crunching numbers. If the rigging is significant enough to notice, it won't take more than a few thousand hands for it to become apparent. All you lose in the process is the rake. You could publish your work and become a hero to many!

[/ QUOTE ]

Please, I'd rather question the legitimacy of the HHs you posted here, they look a lot like 1/2 hands to me, and thinking poker sites are rigged is worse than ridiculous, and a few thousand hands would tell you nothing, try a few million and maybe you have enough.

Please come clean and admit you are desdia72 incarnate.

Regards Mack

[Alchemist]

[ QUOTE ]

Probably not. The actual number of possible deck shuffle combinations is 52! If you are not familiar with how big this number is it exceeds the number of atoms in the known universe. Really. Something like 8x10 to the 67th power.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite. This post is largely off topic but with the nit scientist in me I feel I have to address this.

52! is indeed 8x10^67 but is nowhere near the # of atoms in the universe. Avogadro's number is 6.02x10^23 which represents the number of atoms in a mole of something. How much is a mole? A mole of water for example would weigh 18g or have a volume of 18ml, not very much.

Now consider that the amount of water on Earth is about 326 million cubic miles, which translates to, well, a heck of a lot of atoms[1] (three atoms in a molecule of water on top of that). And that's just counting water...on one planet.

/geek mode off

[1] I did a quick calculation and got about 2.38x10^48 atoms just in earth's oceans.

[PoorLawyer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I have long believed that the rigging simply involved altering the odds so that hands that were ahead early in the hand simply did not finish ahead as often as they should. JJ isn't a ~4:1 dog to AA, maybe just 3:1 or so and similar things in stud, etc. The rest will take care of itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe part of the problem is thinking that hands should hold up more often than they actually should. AA has about 66% equity, it is not a 4:1 fave over JJ in stud.