Received an email..

[Backspin20]

From a friend of mine who plays poker but not that much online. He wants me to comment on a study someone "supposedly did" on online poker.
1. Im not sure exactly what the study shows or is trying to show. Does any of this make sense
2. Were HU games around on UB for 19 months?
heres the email

i didn't tell you about a 19-month "study" that some friends of mine did with online poker

they had 2 bots playing with each other .. on like 2 or 3 sites... wont say what percent of hands were from which sites, but UB and FULL TILT where included

Anyway, they had the bots check down every hand

then they pulled the hands into pokertracker (its a program that I have and other people have that analyzes online poker hands, etc) ... they played a HUGE number of hands heads up with all hands being checked down .. no human intervention ....

you would expect that the preflop starting hands would have had win% consistent with what their win% is versus a random hand, right?

NOPE. ALL WERE WITHIN 15/1000 of 1 percent of each other. In other words, it appears that each hand had the same chance of prevailing preflop regardless of what the cards are, as long as nobody folds

pretty funny stuff, huh?



Now I have PT and I have a large number of hands and in comparison to some other data bases it looks pretty normal. Is this some kind of a scare email to online players? No hard numbers are listed so Im not really giving this much thought. Figured it might be entertaining in the Zoo....Thoughts?

[DMoogle]

Damn idiots.

[lawsoncb]

Couple of points.

1 With out access to the database this means nothing.

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.

[LionelHutz00]

This is awesome.

[Backspin20]

[ QUOTE ]
Couple of points.

1 With out access to the database this means nothing.

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 ]

Well why would the sites care about this inparticular. They arent taking and money from players. It seems the sites might want them to do this since they get rake from the blinds every hand. Assuming this acutlly took place which im pretty sure ddint

[lawsoncb]

Very few low limit games will be raked when the SB completes and the hand is checked down.

There is going to be some very stange plays(checking the nuts, etc) that should set off reg flags at least for money laundring reasons.

[Backspin20]

So the argument is the sites would catch on and ban the accounts. I would agree.
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

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems the sites might want them to do this since they get rake from the blinds every hand.

[/ QUOTE ]


If they took rake from them each hand then eventually they would go broke. Unless they just liked to donate a lot of money.

But just completing the SB and then checking it down is not going to generate any rake on certain limits.

Still, it seems unlikely that this actually happened and is just some stupid story meant to scare online players. It's not even a very good story.
This is so obviously ridiculous and made up.

They played for 19-months straight on the heads-up tables? Wow that's one really long study!!!


Sorry, can't help you on the heads-up tables on UB. Honestly don't remember.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

Yeah, this is obviously true. Please tell as many people as you can. Fantastic stories about rigged sites and bots are just what we need.

Plenty of posters here have large enough databases to conclusively know that there is nothing fishy about the card distribution at the major sites.

But then again, that's not the stuff of a good urban legend. Rigged sites detected by super sleuth check down bots is far more entertaining.

[ntnBO]

[ QUOTE ]

then they pulled the hands into pokertracker (its a program that I have and other people have that analyzes online poker hands, etc)

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? Cool! I've never heard of this. Where can I get one?



[ QUOTE ]
you would expect that the preflop starting hands would have had win% consistent with what their win% is versus a random hand, right?

NOPE. ALL WERE WITHIN 15/1000 of 1 percent of each other. In other words, it appears that each hand had the same chance of prevailing preflop regardless of what the cards are, as long as nobody folds

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure this was the bozo that was spouting this nonsense a couple of weeks ago at a table I was at. It was funny then and it is funny now.

BO