Received an email..

[Mano]

[ QUOTE ]

2 I doubt that they're going to get any significant sample size checking every hand down before the site shuts them down. I sure hope the hell this would sets off reg flags on every major site.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't they just do this on the play money tables?

[Backspin20]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2 I doubt that they're going to get any significant sample size checking every hand down before the site shuts them down. I sure hope the hell this would sets off reg flags on every major site.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't they just do this on the play money tables?

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone knows the play money tables arent rigged. Im sure they didnt use those

[That Foreign Guy]

[ QUOTE ]


Couldn't they just do this on the play money tables?

[/ QUOTE ]

Like duuuh. Play money clearly isn't rigged - there's no money in it for the sites.

[Josem]

clearly, report the person who sent you the email for running a bot ring.

[MuppieDoll]

This topic was forwarded to me as an online and brick N mortar player. I found it, and the responses interesting. Allow me to add my 2% of a dollar. I think I understand what the initial poster was saying. It appears as though a few of the responses indicated that they are confused. Without agreeing or disagreeing or commenting on any methodology, etc, here are some comments/responses to various statements made here:


"Now I have PT and I have a large number of hands and in comparison to some other data bases it looks pretty normal."

"Plenty of posters here have large enough databases to conclusively know that there is nothing fishy about the card distribution at the major sites"
---------------
I have PT and it looks normal as well. My distribution of starting hands appears to be within a reasonable margin of error. But, when it comes to analyzing the win % of hands, my database, just like yours, is the results of hands that were PLAYED and hence, the results are the results of MY PLAY of those hands, not the results of the PROGRAM if left to it's own devices. You might win 65% of the time with KJs, and I might win only 57% - that would have NOTHING TO DO with the program - that would only be attributable to the difference between how you and I play that particular hand. I mean, look - you could claim that ABCPOKER.COM is "rigged" because AA always loses, and produce PT database to back it up - because you could fold AA everytime you get dealt it. That's not the site's fault. I believe that is what the perpetrators of the bot excersize (assuming it was done) were trying to do - to rule out differences in playing ability and see what would happen if the program were left to its own devices to see if KJs won about 61.5% of the time (which is what is should against a random hand)
************************************************** *******

"I doubt that they're going to get any significant sample size checking every hand down"
-------------------------------------------------------
If the results of the non-played hands were as was claimed in the first poster, I don't know how large a sample you really need. After all, if I was flipping a coin against you for money and you had "tails" and 19 of the first 20 were "heads", while you might not have a large enough sample technically, realistically, you would probably suspect an unfair coin and want to gouge my eyes out
************************************************** *****
"How long have UB and FT offered HU cash games? Dont think its been as long as stated in the email? or am I wrong"
-------------------------------------------------
I think they have had heads up play for at least a couple of years. This could have been done in cash game or play money for that matter - I think the program is the program. I don't think these sites have different programming for tourneys, cash games, sitngo's, play chips ... I think anyone claiming that there are "action flops" to increase rake for cash games, for example, is NUTS.
************************************************** ********
"Really? Cool! I've never heard of this. Where can I get one?"
----------------------------------------
http://www.pokertracker.com/ it's a terrific program for analyzing your play and, if you want to track other people as well. Great tool for improving your game IF you have an open eye and are willing to look at stats and LISTEN to what they are saying. A must for any student of the game who plays enough online hands. Also has nice hand replay feature.
************************************************** ***
I guess if I wanted to test for something like this, I would use a bot too, after all ... how long would it take you to sit there and check down hands? I don't know what's involved in programming bots, but I imagine you could program one to just check with no additional time, so as to maximize the number of hands per hour to accumulate data. Also, if I was doing something like that, I wouldn't just have 2 bots set up shop at a table and just sit there for 3 weeks, 24 hours a day - for sure that would ring some kind of bell and I imagine the site would chuck it even if they were raking hands or whatever. Putting my dopy criminal hat on, it would make sense for someone to have the bots playing say, for a couple of hours here and a couple of hours there, and not every single day - and to collect the data over a long period of time. That would make sense versus trying to collect the data in one shot.

[ILuvRiver]

"What do you mean I lost, I cant have, these sites are obviously rigged "

LOL @ people trying to justify why they have just lost when they are clearly the bestest bestest player in the whole universe ever, EVER!

While we are on conspiracy theories, what if Pokertracker etc are rigged. <GASPS>

[MuppieDoll]

<font color="red">Im not sure I understand your post??? </font>


[ QUOTE ]
"What do you mean I lost, I cant have, these sites are obviously rigged "

LOL @ people trying to justify why they have just lost when they are clearly the bestest bestest player in the whole universe ever, EVER!

While we are on conspiracy theories, what if Pokertracker etc are rigged. &lt;GASPS&gt;

[/ QUOTE ]

[ChipFerFree]

[ QUOTE ]
This topic was forwarded to me as an online and brick N mortar player. I found it, and the responses interesting. Allow me to add my 2% of a dollar.
...when it comes to analyzing the win % of hands, my database, just like yours, is the results of hands that were PLAYED and hence, the results are the results of MY PLAY of those hands, not the results of the PROGRAM if left to it's own devices.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is known as the Hathorne Effect -- which basically states that you cannot observe something without influencing the behavior you are examining thus to at least some degree minimizing the results you obtain...

Is that worth another 2%?

[MuppieDoll]

very interesting ... I think it's also the definition of outplaying - and why the better player wins in the long run - because if all players were left to their own devices and just checking down hands, in the end all would be even ... in fact, you could just give people blank sheets of paper and whisper the names of cards in their ears and they will start to behave as though they are playing with a 52-card deck ... Its more like the Placebo effect

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This topic was forwarded to me as an online and brick N mortar player. I found it, and the responses interesting. Allow me to add my 2% of a dollar.
...when it comes to analyzing the win % of hands, my database, just like yours, is the results of hands that were PLAYED and hence, the results are the results of MY PLAY of those hands, not the results of the PROGRAM if left to it's own devices.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is known as the Hathorne Effect -- which basically states that you cannot observe something without influencing the behavior you are examining thus to at least some degree minimizing the results you obtain...

Is that worth another 2%?

[/ QUOTE ]

[bosox747]

Why is it that anyone who has a differing opinion regarding the randomness of the deal online considered an idiot?

The only idiot IMO is the one who just calls someone an idiot without trying to refute them logically.