|
|
#1
10-25-2006, 12:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Too much of a good thing
I play $11 SNGs. I win at a reasonable rate and since I'm generally untrustful of online poker I won't move up because I don't trust anyone with much of my money.
6 months ago I tried a new site. My results were good at the start and then I flat lined after a week or two, my exact memory is not 100% here. I abandoned them. New rules, new needs, I go back to the above mentioned site. This time I keep strict and accurate records of every all-in situation with cards to come. I run each situation through twodimes.com to generate my true EV and this I compare to my actual results. So I'm looking at the first ~230 hands where I'm all-in since my return and my EV is to win 110 and my actual is to win 133. SOunds like no BFD, you say. Well, maybe not. My ROI for this period is 74%. Yes, it's a short run but...74%, wow. I have some statistical education but I can not tease a SD out of this data set, too convoluted, I'm too uneducated. I can simulate it to get some ideas. This is a 30 minute coding chore, I do it. The result is that my outlying result can be expected once every 500 runs. That's, er, maybe 3-4 SDs out of the mean. That will always get my attention. Sending good cards to new and returning players strikes me as perhaps the most likely cheat a dishonest site might try. It's nearly invisible, but only nearly. Obviously you don't deal them AA, you bugger the turn or river to lend a helping hand. For you kneejerk skeptics, design an experiment to catch this cheat and you'll see just how small the chance of detection will be. And for the site's name, well, that's unlikely to make a difference for my fellow Americans in a couple weeks. |
|
#2
10-25-2006, 12:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Too much of a good thing
BBV or deletion/lock here another jackass rigged conspiracy thread comes.
|
|
#3
10-25-2006, 12:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Too much of a good thing
[ QUOTE ]
Sending good cards to new and returning players strikes me as perhaps the most likely cheat a dishonest site might try. It's nearly invisible, but only nearly. Obviously you don't deal them AA, you bugger the turn or river to lend a helping hand. [/ QUOTE ] Why tell us this? Just continue to open new accounts and use their "cheat" system to win at the start, withdraw and then when you come back months down the road you will win again. seems like you have figured it all out. Why share this brilliance on a public forum? |
|
#4
10-25-2006, 01:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Too much of a good thing
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Sending good cards to new and returning players strikes me as perhaps the most likely cheat a dishonest site might try. It's nearly invisible, but only nearly. Obviously you don't deal them AA, you bugger the turn or river to lend a helping hand. [/ QUOTE ] Why tell us this? Just continue to open new accounts and use their "cheat" system to win at the start, withdraw and then when you come back months down the road you will win again. seems like you have figured it all out. Why share this brilliance on a public forum? [/ QUOTE ] My first reaction was to open more accounts and maybe play higher. This is no longer an option for US players. Secondly, how much could I trust a site that I strongly suspect? Tough spot. Also note I haven't exactly shared everything with you. |
|
#5
10-25-2006, 01:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Too much of a good thing
"For you kneejerk skeptics, design an experiment to catch this cheat and you'll see just how small the chance of detection will be."
How about just datamining the whole damn site for a day and looking at the results to see if the distribution of hands was in line with the rules of probability. If they are steering good hands to certain players they would then have to steer good hands away from certain other players for the numbers to work out. This would require them planning pretty much every hand. They'd screw up something. |
|
#6
10-25-2006, 01:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Too much of a good thing
[ QUOTE ]
"For you kneejerk skeptics, design an experiment to catch this cheat and you'll see just how small the chance of detection will be." How about just datamining the whole damn site for a day and looking at the results to see if the distribution of hands was in line with the rules of probability. If they are steering good hands to certain players they would then have to steer good hands away from certain other players for the numbers to work out. This would require them planning pretty much every hand. They'd screw up something. [/ QUOTE ] A bit too simplistic, I'm afraid. Try again. |
|
#8
10-25-2006, 01:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Too much of a good thing
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] "For you kneejerk skeptics, design an experiment to catch this cheat and you'll see just how small the chance of detection will be." How about just datamining the whole damn site for a day and looking at the results to see if the distribution of hands was in line with the rules of probability. If they are steering good hands to certain players they would then have to steer good hands away from certain other players for the numbers to work out. This would require them planning pretty much every hand. They'd screw up something. [/ QUOTE ] A bit too simplistic, I'm afraid. Try again. [/ QUOTE ] No, why don't you either explain how it's too simplistic or explain how they are going to rig it without violating the laws of probability? |
|
#9
10-25-2006, 01:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Too much of a good thing
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] "For you kneejerk skeptics, design an experiment to catch this cheat and you'll see just how small the chance of detection will be." How about just datamining the whole damn site for a day and looking at the results to see if the distribution of hands was in line with the rules of probability. If they are steering good hands to certain players they would then have to steer good hands away from certain other players for the numbers to work out. This would require them planning pretty much every hand. They'd screw up something. [/ QUOTE ] A bit too simplistic, I'm afraid. Try again. [/ QUOTE ] No, why don't you either explain how it's too simplistic or explain how they are going to rig it without violating the laws of probability? [/ QUOTE ] I was attempting to be nice. You fail to outline anything that comes close to methodology or anything that migh be quantifiable. In short, you got nothing. |
|
#10
10-25-2006, 01:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Too much of a good thing
This kind of ridiculous crap was debunked in 2001, could you come up with some other ridicuous crap to keep things interesting please.
Thanks in advance. Lori |
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
