Rigged: The AA test

"Is it a reasonable thing, I ask you, for a grown man to run about and hit a ball? Poker's the only game fit for a grown man. Then, your hand is against every man's, and every man's is against yours. Teamwork? Who ever made a fortune by teamwork? There's only one way to make a fortune, and that's to down the fellow who's up against you." - W. Somerset Maugham

Love the Thread.......Great respones too.........At the end of the day however, even if the statistics are proved to be a little off.....everyone is still in the same boat......you have to play your cards in the belief you can win the hand.

Thank you Hillbilly.

"Thinking anecdotally comes naturally to humans, thinking scientifically does not." - Michael Shermer

Attached Images

Rigged AA.JPG (52.4 KB, 5 views)

Not supposed to get, expected to get. There are 1326 unique combinations of 2 card starting hands and 6 cominations of AA which make AA (or any pair for that matter) .4525% of all starting hands. That's 1 in 221 or 220:1.

I am not sure if the AAs are rigged or not. But, it is good reading. I enjoy getting the threads. haha

Thank you sir. We aim to please.

Expected means what? I dont get it

[

I assume you're asking about this.
Whenever your dealing with statistics and probability, your dealing with uncertain outcomes. Although you can never be certain of an exact outcome you can still predict it's likelyhood of occuring. Expectation is just that, the likelyhood of an uncertain events occurance.

In the above post, appstatepkr77 used the term supposed to and I corrected him. In my opinion, supposed to instead of expected to implies that there's something wrong with the software or random number generator if you don't get exactly the number calculated as the expected value. Statistically, we can calculate exactly how likely a pocket pair like AA is to occur in a given number of hand, its frequency, but it is very rare that that exact expectation will actually happen. In fact, I wouldn't bet on it.

AA is probably the hardest hand to lay down no madder what. people play entire tournament and never catch AA and then might catch it and still be beat. people have mad an assuption that AA is unbeatable but in reality can be beat 50% of the time.

Don't feel too bad. It took Chris Furguson like 6 months to break the 15$ barrier.

50%? You should be winning with this hand 75% to 85% of the time. If your winning less than you're probably not raising enough, if your winning more, you're raising too much.

The AA test


I found very interesting the result of the program Poker
Tracker,i do not use this program, but in the future with
sure I will use it.
The test was done with hands AA, AK, KK with all ins.

this proves that sites such as full tilt poker and pokerstars
idoneos and are reliable, and we have a famous phrase
that explains everything .Thats poker.
Playing with response , if we lose, it was not the fault of poker site, but the way we play.

ok whats the conclusion? why do I get KK the very same time as someone else gets AA? obviously no K appears until the next hand is dealt. any one know the odds ? also when I get pocket K's ACE hits the flop when i have Q's K's hit the board, damn frustrating game

this is very impressive but how, where and why did you get all these stats from? would I be able to find similar stats about my HH?

ok mrs vordaman
while we are on the subject of odds, what was the odds on me getting writers block on my 50th post?

Larf with loudness, now your 90% statistics are starting to make sense. You're losing 90% of the time pushing into Aces. That's about right for a random hand vs. Aces.

This will inevitably happen to everyone at some time or another. The more you play, the more likely it becomes. But your just as likely to find yourself on the profitable side of this arrangement; just less likely to remember it.

Where? I got these stats from all of these fine people who have bothered to contribute data from there own datbase of stored HH's.

Why? We're all interested in just how accurate the shuffling algorithms used by various poker sites really are, and to test the theory that on-line poker sites jimmy the deck to produce seemingly improbable match-ups like AA vs KK.

Yes you too can become a contributing member to this little survey. All you need is a piece of analysis software like Poker Tracker or Poker Office.

Sorry, can't help you with the writers block.

haha im glad someone has actually taken the time to do these stats, i've thought about it before and just in the end said to myself "who cares, playing for fun anyway" but its good to know the statistically it doesnt seem to be rigged... thanks!

*just thought about it again, yes statistically u get AA the expected amount of times, but whats to say that people havent got KK that same hand, or AK, it still doesnt solve that part of the issue...

Can we get some stats for carbon poker?

It does. This is a long thread, but this has been discussed several times along the way. All starting hands are drawn from the same pool of possible starting hands. You simply cannot distort the frequency of one any one hand without it showing up everywhere.
If you got 'em, give 'em. I'll add a heading.

This happens to me time and time again. It happens so many times that went I write my friends about a suck out, I tell them sometihime lile this"

I had Pocket pair, QQS, ETc. Opponent had one over card rag, maybe K or A. And, the I say, you know what happened next. Because most of the time the A or K or over card will come.

May seem silly, but it happens so many times that I expect it, and expect to get sucked out under those circumstances.

I haven't been able to find any hand/player tracking software that works with Carbon, PDC, or Reefer.

On the isse of rigging, I have one thing to say. Texas holdem is a game designed to stir up action. It does not need to be rigged to stir up action.

Thanks, this is helpful. Did you also track how many times aces won? I imagine they win less often on lower buy-in tourneys because , in my opinioni, many people over play their hands and hit their cards. For example, my aces got cracked today by an all-in by a 4 7 off-suit.

Thanks again,
Jane

forget me gettin aces i have had them like 500 times but about 250 actually help up i hate that hand i rather look down and see some kings but if i do have aces i want to see one on the flop soo i can call it a day

I'll tell you something that happened to me the other day and I wonder if anyone has had a similar situation. I was on full tilt in a freeroll and got pocket queens. Played them and won. Next hand, pocket queens again. Again played them and won. Later I ran into pocket 3's, then 4's, and then 5's all in a row. What are the odds in that? I also was in a freeroll on a different day and again got 2 sets of pocket queens in a row. If anyone does have a similar experience I would be interested in hearing about it.

so basically party poker is rigged for action and full tilt is rigged for non-action

Full tilt
Hands 11,908
dealt 66

Great data, im no expert but one of the posts i read towards the beginning was saying around 200,000 hands to be statistically significant. From what I can remember the sample size has to be a decent junk of the population (total # of hands). So I would say to be significant relating to online poker the sample # of hands should be atleast a million to start, since millions of hands are probably dealt a day on any single site. So your data is good, but keep it going. I dont think its gonna sway to far from the expected value though.

thank you thank you thank you! Thanks for presenting these stats to share with the people that online poker isnt rigged. Hopefully people will soon realize this and stop moanin and complainin. THANKS!

i hate aces and kings when ur short stacked in a tourney, they are just there to eliminate you cause they know u wont fold em grrrrrrrr. and if u do fold, then u hit the set grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, lol gl all

Hey Four Dogs,

Some one sent me a Screen Shot of a Hand they were playin in a tourney at PokerStars.

It appears that five (yes) five aces were dealt on the board.

I up loaded this pic to the ScreenShot.

I am not very proficient at the Cardschat Forum, so dont know how to upload it to this post.

If you are interested, I could e-mail you the pictures, or let me know how to send it to you via Cardschat.

Unbelievable, but, it appears to be a legit pic.

Let me know if you are interested in me sending this Screen Shot to you.

This is a long thread and it seems focused on AA.
But I think this was a nice test but not a full test.

I think a better test is (not sure if possible though) is to cover all HU (all ins on at least one of the players) and to see how many times the better hand won - The average win rate should be closely related to the average ratio of difference between hands.
For example if at X HU games the average chance was ~80% for the good hand and ~20% to the low hand then I think the number of wins should be close to 0.8X to the strong hand as well.
This way we will address all of these claims of "QQ lost to one over card".

Please correct me if I am wrong (Mathematics is soooo complex sometimes :-)) and sorry if this was discussed before.

What?? 5 aces on the board???? lol

I wanna see this pic too ...

I've seen that picture before. In fact, I think it's already been posted here. It's bogus. Please don't repost it here. Thx.

“The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: Be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge.”


-Elbert Hubbard

How rude of me not to see this earlier. Can you ever forgive me?

Oh, BTW, Full Tilt was extremely generous to you. 54 was the expected number.

Attached Images

Rigged AA.JPG (56.5 KB, 5 views)

this thread is really long, in the beginning there were people asking about data sample size but I just didn't have the the motivation to read 11 pages of posts.

The thing with sample size is increased sample size just means a higher degree of confidence. The sample mean is rarely the same as the population mean but you can usually get to a point where you have enough data to suggest a certain confidence interval. It works out to be that a 95% confidence interval is a common target in statistical analysis. You also have a range of error that comes with any analysis. This can also be calculated. A lot of times you'll see a political poll with +/- x% attached to it, which means the actual value can be expected to be within that margin of error from the result 95% of the time.

The required sample size to achieve 95% confidence interval is dependent on the total population of the data. It turns out that 95% confidence is equivalent to 3 std deviations from the mean under a bell curve. In laymans terms that means if you see a normal bell curve with a tail drifting off to each end .025 of the data points will be greater than 3 std deviations away from the mean at each end which adds up to .05 which is where the 95% or .95 comes from.

I haven't done much statistics in a while but you need to know the expected outcome of an event % wise, the total number of events, your error tolerance (it takes a lot more data to achieve a 1% margin of error than a 5% for instance)and your confidence interval. We're not going top have the total population number because the poker sites aren't going to give you a db including all the hands. You don't need that number to do this it just makes it easier and more accurate.

Full TiltHands 43,200AA - 177expected - 194

wow ... the stats that i read threw this thread are pretty close from what everyone is posting ..im gonna have to give it a try and see how many AA's i get..it seems to me that i get alot mre then i should and i lose about 30% of the time with em, butt it could just be my style of play lol