party vs stars difference

[Cadaver]

[ 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)


[/ QUOTE ]

ROFLMAO!!!
200k on sngs? s\n?

[zerosum]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Outline in detail your investigation plan.

[/ QUOTE ]
You didn't answer whether you are willing to put your money where your mouth is. If you believe your words enough to accuse PokerStars publicly of cheating, does that mean you believe your accusations enough to bet on them, or are you now retracting your claims and apologizing to PokerStars and everyone you tried to convince, or are you dishonest and want to keep asserting things you don't believe?

The details depend on exactly what patterns you claim. You have to be more specific than just that draws hit too frequently. At least how much more frequently do they hit? Do flush draws hit 10% too often, or is it more subtle than that, but still somehow "obvious" to observant players? Do you believe all hands are rigged this way? Does it only happen to punish players who are ahead? Does it only happen in big pots? Remember, for the pattern to be relevant, it has to show up often enough to affect win rates, so royal flushes appearing on the board twice as often as they should and aces getting cracked 0.01% extra are not viable patterns.

Just about any deviation from randomness you claim can be tested by collecting a substantial amount of unbiased data (such as hands where all hole cards are known) and analyzing it mathematically. Less subtle patterns can be tested by using data whose bias is bounded, say hands where both players were all-in by the turn.

I am a mathematician, but if you don't trust me, we can pay an independent gambling expert such as Michael Shackleford of WizardOfOdds.com to perform the routine Bayesian analysis comparing the hypothesis that the deals are completely fair and random against the hypothesis that the deals follow whatever pattern you claim. If you are right, you will be over 99% to win. If you are wrong, you will be over 99% to lose.

Are you willing to bet, or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are the one who proposed a bet. You would do well to remain calm and logical, as I would expect of a mathematician.

I agree with your observation that
[ QUOTE ]
Just about any deviation from randomness you claim can be tested by collecting a substantial amount of unbiased data (such as hands where all hole cards are known) and analyzing it mathematically.

[/ QUOTE ]

You first need to address a basic threshold issue. I want you to determine the amount of data you need to be able to conclude, to a determined level of confidence, weather the deal is or is not fair.

Don't get caught up in complex particulars. Pick a very simple scenario, then use that as your basis for determining the amount and type of data you need.

I am not so stupid as to agree to a wager before the terms are concluded. You have the burden of proving that you can at least obtain the data required for a simple test case.

I do not believe that you or anyone outside of PStars can obtain the amount of data that you would require.

Prove me wrong, then we can talk. Otherwise your bluff has been called.

[pzhon]

Here is what you said:
[ QUOTE ]

close to undetectable manipulation
...
Nothing like juicing the river card to boost the pot and the rake
...
suckout after suckout after suckout on the river after having 90 percent plus pot equity going to the river until I've given back all previous winnings and most of the deposit.
...
It's sublte, obvious to alert players, and it's devastating.


[/ QUOTE ]
You are accusing PokerStars of manipulating the deck to cheat you out of at least your deposits. Do you understand that those are accusations not only of incompetence, but of cheating, and that that is a serious matter? If you believe your neighbor is a child molester, and have evidence, you should speak up according to the strength of your evidence. However, you are a liar if you try to convince other people that your neighbor is a child molester when you don't believe it yourself.

[ QUOTE ]

You are the one who proposed a bet.


[/ QUOTE ]
You accused PokerStars of cheating. I proposed a bet. Money talks and BS walks. That you aren't jumping at the possibility of making money off of your claims is a sign you don't believe them.

It's time for you to state that you are willing to put your money where your mouth is, or else admit that you were just whining, and that you made a serious accusation you don't believe.

The details of a fair test are easy to work out if you specify a pattern instead of just that the cards are obviously unfair. If you think 11 out draws hit 3/4 of the time instead of 1/4, then every time the draw hits confirms your hypothesis relative to the fair hypothesis by a factor of 3, and every time the draw misses it confirms the fair hypothesis by a factor of 3. It would be normal to set a number of trails to consider ahead of time, say 100 for a difference this big, and use more trials in the extremely unlikely event that the Bayesian analysis does not signficantly favor one hypothesis over the other. Using a threshold of 0.01, that would happen if the 11 out draws hit 48 to 52 times, which happens less than one time in a million according to either hypothesis. It takes more trials if the claimed deviation from randomness is more subtle, but keep in mind you said that the cheating was obvious, and that you kept losing with more than 90% equity.

If you don't understand the math, you can ask someone else who does, and you should hear that this is a fair test. If you are right, you will win with high probability. If you are wrong, you will lose with high probability.

Do you believe your statements enough to bet on them, or are you going to retract them, or are you a dishonest person who is trying to convince others of a serious accusation without believing it, violating a Commandment?

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. It is important to distinguish that case from the hundreds of absurd, implausible accusations faced by every gaming site.
<font color="white">. </font>

[zerosum]

The hysteria with which you proceed is truly amazing.

Yet again, you have chosen to ignore my request for your opinion regarding the type of data and the amount of such data that you would require for conclusive testing. Let's just leave aside for the moment whether you or anyone outside of PStars could possibly procure it.

I do not take my expressed opinion lightly. However, I do realize that the few moments I did spend on the original post were not sufficient to describe the experiences I have had at PStars. Again, however, I did not expect my quick commentary to induce in anyone the sort of apoplectic rage that has stricken you.

Over the course of the next day or two, I will put together a better detailed and better targeted description of my PStars experiences. Today I simply lack even 10 minutes more time to devote to this issue. I trust you will understand and not construe this as evasion. Perhaps the forthcoming description will enable you to return to a calm and logical frame of mind, and then we can have a constructive dialogue.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
If you think 11 out draws hit 3/4 of the time instead of 1/4... It would be normal to set a number ... say 100 for a difference this big...
It takes more trials if the claimed deviation from randomness is more subtle


[/ QUOTE ]
Yet again, you have chosen to ignore my request for your opinion regarding the type of data and the amount of such data that you would require for conclusive testing.

[/ QUOTE ]
You denied that I addressed that immediately after I answered your question. I mentioned that a sample of 100 11-out draws would very likely be conclusive for some types of patterns. I stated that more hands would be required for other types of patterns which differ less from random. That's about as specific as I can get when you still haven't specified what patterns you claim are so obvious.

I have asked you three times whether you believe your statements enough to bet on them. You have dodged that question each time. This shows that you don't believe the very serious (but implausible) charges you have made against the poker site with the best reputation. Further, it makes you look terrible--you don't have the integrity to admit it, and you didn't have the sense to drop it when you were challenged.

An honest person might say, "Yes, I'd like to bet. How can we set up a fair test?" Or, an honest person might say, "I used to believe that, but now I'm not sure. I don't want to bet because I think it's likely that I was wrong. I'd still like to see the results of a test, because I'm not as convinced as you are that the site is fair, but I no longer claim that I must have been cheated." Both of those are honest positions.

You are not taking an honest position. You want to waste everyone's time telling stories you don't believe, perhaps because you feel less foolish for believing them at first if other people seem to be convinced. You are suggesting your claims might be impossible to test, when a professional mathematician is telling you that your claims can be tested (and has explained how some deviations from randomness can be tested). Accusations of cheating are very serious, both for players and for sites, and they should not be made unless you believe them.

[indianaV8]

I wonder why you all discuss moronic claims and nonsense but not the OP? To me it looks like 10k SNGs are pretty statistically significant sample.

I would rather ask the OP to post graphs for PS and PP.

It's widely speculated that party poker is beter place to play than pokerstars (softer etc) but I've never seen good sample proving it.

It could have also other explanations why particular strategy performs better on one site vs another and I would be interested in that.

[veggies]

To get back to the origonal point of this thread...

I am the same way with a much smaller sample size. Decent ROI on Party and Full tilt but I can't seem to win on Stars. I think there are a few reasons such as, the caliber of play is better on Stars, differences in blind structures play to certain people's strengths more than others, and OMG ITS RIGGED! (just kidding on the last one)

I would even say that it is a possibility that even the appearance of the software may affect some people. Personally, I prefer Full tilt's software to others as it seems the easiest to use. sometimes Stars frustrates me when you have a few windows open and you need to make an action in one that isn't dominant?(don't know what its called) but you gotta click a few times before it actually clicks the button on the screen.

Wow this is long and boring.

Also, toss in a bit of variance and you may have the same result. Looks like you are still up 130k though, not much to complain about...

[drzen]

Do you have the single click table action box checked?

[1968]

I run like [censored] on stars.. then again I hate their software- so it could just be that im tilting..

[insyder19]

stars has the better players. stars is really difficult to win at compared to european sites