Rigged: The AA test

#**211** 15-03-2008, 3:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jstnorv07

Was that an insult?

Was what an insult?

Cheers,

grift

#**212** 15-03-2008, 4:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jstnorv07

Four before you reffered to my half baked idea and I asked which one and got no reply. Now I would like to know which theory of mine you are referring to.

Actually, grift could you answer these questions for Four?

This was kind out there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jstnorv07

Here is a pretty out there idea that I just thought of that I reaize would probably be very difficult to achieve. Again please don't attack this as I know it is pure conjecture. What if a US player was playing someone in Berlin. There is an ever so slight delay between him seeing his hand and you seeing yours. Software is written that determines his hand after you make your move. i.e. you push all in with A's, instantly and unbeknownest to either... Berlin player sees K's and flop is set to drop a K. I hope I don't regret posting this one.

#**213** 15-03-2008, 4:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grift

I was kind of hoping that everyone else here with other theories about how a site may rig the game would see the basis that this sort of statistical analysis is for further investigation. Now that we've done something basic like this, why couldn't we move on to designing experiments for the more complex forms of rigging that have been discussed.

For instance, let's say you've flopped a set, what are the chances the other guy also flopped a set? You've flopped a boat, what are the chances the other guy flopped quads? This type of hand would generate lots of action, and would always go to showdown resulting in us being able to see both players cards and thus generate usable data. Furthermore, with a couple of assumptions we could come up with a pretty accurate expected value for this type of hand.

We could look through some hand history data and see how often on average people go into hands with certain pocket pairs. This is obviously not rigged, because the decision is totally on the user. Then we can look at how often these pocket pairs are dealt. Again, we're assuming this part is not rigged because we've just disproved that in this thread (see how useful this thread is becoming?). Now what do we have? We know how often people go to the flop with these pocket pairs, and we know how often they are dealt, so we can generate an expected value for these types of situations, and compare the results to the actual data. And thus we would be able to see if the poker sites rig in this manner.

The only problem is we need to find a way to sort hand histories based on the actual showdown hand. This should be pretty easy using a simple script. I would probably write it in matlab because I'm more familiar with it, but if someone else here is proficient in a more efficient language for parsing files such as these they could post and let us know.

Anyways, long rant, but this is the reason why I'm interested in 4 dogs analysis. Like I said before, it's a good start, and we can come up with lots of interesting things based on the "fair start" assumption proven by these data.

Grift, there are a couple of problems i can see with this. One is that once you get passed your own hole cards, there are way too many variables to consider. The way you play your hand, and the way your opponents play theirs makes any results too subjective to be meaningful.

Poker Tracker actually does track how your own cards would have played out had you continued to the end, but a sample size needs to be at least several hundred times greater than the total number of possible outcomes to have merit. When your dealing with only 2 cards, there are 1326 possible outcomes, when your dealing with 7 there are about 133 million.

You saw how difficult it was to get a sample size from PokerStars that is about 500 times larger than the 1326. Imagine trying to achieve the same degree of accuracy with 133 million. I think the beauty of the AA test was its simplicity. But, if I were to try another I think I'd do it with something less obvious; 72o would be poetic.

Thanks grift and yes, justnorv too for some good debate.

#**214** 15-03-2008, 5:17 AM

There's probably a way to get around the large sample size we just need to think about it a bit.

One tool that comes to mind is re-sampling:

Resampling (statistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Anyways, even if we can't get something nice and neat, it'd still be fun to at least see just how small of a sample size we can really get away with.

Or, we could find a way to test for randomness. I mean, if these sites are rigging and are supposedly "action generating" there would definitely be some sort of unexpected trend in the size of the pot.

Yeah I'm just throwing ideas out there, I think it would be kinda cool if we could come up with a way to measure this stuff.

Well after looking through my handy stat book the smaller sample size/low probability of a "success" does make it pretty hard to do.

#**215** 15-03-2008, 6:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Four Dogs

This was kind out there.

Oh, so you were saying that the idea that I said was out there was out there. OK

#**216** 15-03-2008, 6:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Four Dogs

Grift, there are a couple of problems i can see with this. One is that once you get passed your own hole cards, there are way too many variables to consider. The way you play your hand, and the way your opponents play theirs makes any results too subjective to be meaningful.

Poker Tracker actually does track how your own cards would have played out had you continued to the end, but a sample size needs to be at least several hundred times greater than the total number of possible outcomes to have merit. When your dealing with only 2 cards, there are 1326 possible outcomes, when your dealing with 7 there are about 133 million.

You saw how difficult it was to get a sample size from PokerStars that is about 500 times larger than the 1326. Imagine trying to achieve the same degree of accuracy with 133 million. I think the beauty of the AA test was its simplicity. But, if I were to try another I think I'd do it with something less obvious; 72o would be poetic.

Thanks grift and yes, justnorv too for some good debate.

Are the A's winning as often as they would be expected to?

#**217** 15-03-2008, 2:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jstnorv07

Are the A's winning as often as they would be expected to?

That would be a good test, but who's to say how often AA is expected to win? We know how pocket aces should fare vs a random hand; something like 80% (I'll run it through Poker Stove when I get home) but once a player has the chance to make a decision, bet, fold, raise, check, the hand is no longer random. In holdem, the only thing that is (or should be) random is your own hole cards and those of the players around you. But we can't see theirs, and if we do then their randomness has been tainted.

However! If we're just interested in determining randomness, we don't have to restrict ourselves to Hold'em. In Stud, your first 3 cards are random, in Omaha it's 4. In draw, it's 5 but there aren't many sites that spread it and most poker tracking software doesn't include it anyway.

#**218** 15-03-2008, 3:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Four Dogs

That would be a good test, but who's to say how often AA is expected to win? We know how pocket aces should fare vs a random hand; something like 80% (I'll run it through Poker Stove when I get home) but once a player has the chance to make a decision, bet, fold, raise, check, the hand is no longer random. In holdem, the only thing that is (or should be) random is your own hole cards and those of the players around you. But we can't see theirs, and if we do then their randomness has been tainted.

However! If we're just interested in determining randomness, we don't have to restrict ourselves to Hold'em. In Stud, your first 3 cards are random, in Omaha it's 4. In draw, it's 5 but there aren't many sites that spread it and most poker tracking software doesn't include it anyway.

Would it be possible to see how often pocket A's are folded? I would imagine it would be a small enough number to not signifigantly effect a sample. After that I would think we would have to make a reasonable assumption. The assumption being that the variation in play would balance out in the sample.(i.e. From the player who goes allin everytime he has A's and wins small amounts but increases winning percentage to the player who slowplays and brings down his winning percentage but wins larger amounts when he wins.) If we can make that assumption I think we could reasonably say how often the A's should win.

#**219** 15-03-2008, 3:59 PM

This thread is a very valuable one. And while the subject matter is one that causes tension as people's belief systems are challenged there's no need for insults or rudeness, plenty of other forums for that. There's a fair bit in this thread that's close to the line.

Anyone, either pro or anti r1gged gets abusive and I'll get busy with the deleting and the warnings.

Keep up the good discussion folks and much kudos to FD for actually providing some evidence to try and test what should be testable positions(still waiting for some empirical testing of a rigged theory, any theory).

Love and kisses

Rex
(a moderator imo)

#**220** 15-03-2008, 6:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irexes

This thread is a very valuable one. And while the subject matter is one that causes tension as people's belief systems are challenged there's no need for insults or rudeness, plenty of other forums for that. There's a fair bit in this thread that's close to the line.

Anyone, either pro or anti r1gged gets abusive and I'll get busy with the deleting and the warnings.

Keep up the good discussion folks and much kudos to FD for actually providing some evidence to try and test what should be testable positions(still waiting for some empirical testing of a rigged theory, any theory).

Love and kisses

Rex
(a moderator imo)

Your intolerance of intolerance will not be tolerated.

#**221** 15-03-2008, 7:26 PM

oooooooooo rexy just got playonworded (plowed)... machete deathmatch will ensue imo.

#**222** 16-03-2008, 4:20 AM

I now believe that online poker is rigged. I was recently playing in a 180 SNG and had a huge chip lead with about 25 people to go. I had been playing very well the entire tournament and then started playing like a complete idiot. I managed to finish 17th and ITM due to the massive chip lead I had built over the entire tourney. Obviously, the site was sending me subconscious signals to disrupt my play.

P.S. In case anyone didn't catch it this was sarcasm. Most of the story is true though.

#**223** 16-03-2008, 3:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jstnorv07

I now believe that online poker is rigged. I was recently playing in a 180 SNG and had a huge chip lead with about 25 people to go. I had been playing very well the entire tournament and then started playing like a complete idiot. I managed to finish 17th and ITM due to the massive chip lead I had built over the entire tourney. Obviously, the site was sending me subconscious signals to disrupt my play.

P.S. In case anyone didn't catch it this was sarcasm. Most of the story is true though.

Got it.

Had me goin' there for a second though.

#**224** 17-03-2008, 2:54 AM

Just started using this forum... love this thread.

I'm pretty tired of listening to people whine about getting beat. I was playing in a live game the other night, and people complained about getting beat by better play... no one said that the live game was rigged...

#**225** 17-03-2008, 3:15 AM

Welcome to the forum chloerox. Glad you like it. Now if I could just get people to start contibuting more data.

#**226** 17-03-2008, 7:49 PM

Although a different theory altogether, I am beginning to think that the river hits lesser hands more often in Bodog that in live games (bad beats). Not sure how to get stats on this theory. (My feelings are probably skewed by me getting beat on the river, but it also appears that others I watch also get beat by the worst hand if it goes to the river.)

#**227** 19-03-2008, 10:58 PM

bump diddy, keep it up guys

#**228** 19-03-2008, 11:12 PM

Poker is only rigged when I lose.
When I win, it's because of great play.

#**229** 20-03-2008, 2:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MR X

Poker is only rigged when I lose.
When I win, it's because of great play.

It must be rigged tonight because I am getting my arse whooped!

#**230** 21-03-2008, 6:30 PM

I don't mind a little fun banter in threads (lord knows I contribute my share), but please, let's keep this thread on the topic at hand. FD needs some more data. Let's not turn this into a bad beat thread.

#**231** 22-03-2008, 1:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juiceeQ

I don't mind a little fun banter in threads (lord knows I contribute my share), but please, let's keep this thread on the topic at hand. FD needs some more data. Let's not turn this into a bad beat thread.

You're right I have posted enough in here the least I could do is contribute something.

Pokerstars sent me these stats.

14,321 Hands
53 Pocket A's
46 Wins with the Pocket A's

#**232** 22-03-2008, 3:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juiceeQ

I don't mind a little fun banter in threads (lord knows I contribute my share), but please, let's keep this thread on the topic at hand. FD needs some more data. Let's not turn this into a bad beat thread.

Thank you JQ. I was just about to ask you to unsticky this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jstnorv07

You're right I have posted enough in here the least I could do is contribute something.

Pokerstars sent me these stats.

14,321 Hands
53 Pocket A's
46 Wins with the Pocket A's

And look, justnorv!

OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG!
Welcome to the club.

#**233** 22-03-2008, 4:38 AM

Pocket AA analysis has gone down to a bias...oh well...good luck! Cheers.

#**234** 23-03-2008, 8:49 PM

Nice work thanks alot..

#**235** 26-03-2008, 7:25 PM

so im a big nobody...and i dont know anything as indepth as yall are talking about....

so on that note...i have a question ...

dont major pokersites have more to lose by allowing/participating in cheating/rigging....

i mean im a true fish...i deposit money in poker sites quite often... ps mostly...

but if i knew for a FACT that they were cheating/rigging i wouldnt...and im sure theres a few others that would be with me on that....

i would just play as many live games as possible where i know for a FACT that theres no cheating/rigging going on

.... where as now i can sit around in my boxers and play poker when ever...i would be bummed but hey its one thing for me to lose my money but its another for some site to TAKE it from me....

am i crazy here...or what...

perhaps i should just shut up.....

who knows...

#**236** 26-03-2008, 7:32 PM

My problem with AA isn't how often I am dealt AA-it is how often it wins versus other random hands. It often feels to me that AA is ab out a coin toss with any other hand-anyone else feel the same?

#**237** 01-04-2008, 11:42 PM

ever since i found out about the potripper guy on absolute i just got furiuos, all that money he won by seeing everyones hands. i still have a little faith on bodog, and ultimate bet, but the beats i lose to piss me off.

#**238** 02-04-2008, 10:29 AM

Imo, it seems that it is rigged and sometimes favors the higher chip holder sometimes.

#**239** 03-04-2008, 8:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phynatik0ne

Imo, it seems that it is rigged and sometimes favors the higher chip holder sometimes.

LMFAO..ive actully thought that a lot before... its like the survivall of the fittest.... the little stack must go....

it seems like ive seen it to many times for it to be just an "oops"

too funny...

#**240** 03-04-2008, 6:58 PM

pokers.:18524 hands
AA ; 81
1/228 (i win 67 hands )

fulltilt; 3455 hands
AA; 17
1/203(lol lol lol)(i win 15 hands )
fulltilt so good for me!

#**241** 04-04-2008, 3:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ambripiotta

pokers.:18524 hands
AA ; 81
1/228 (i win 67 hands )

fulltilt; 3455 hands
AA; 17
1/203(lol lol lol)(i win 15 hands )
fulltilt so good for me!

Well paint me green and call me Gumby.

Finally someone who remebers what this thread is all about. Thank you ambriopiotta for your donation and for getting us back on track. The Full Tilt numbers are especially appreciated as our sample size, even at 100,000 hands is still too small. Both your Stars numbers and your Tilt numbers had a correcting effect on the overall numbers. BTW, you were shorted 3 at PS, but your up one at FTP. Oh, and welcome to Cardschat. I hope you stick around.

Fiction reveals truth that reality obscures.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

#**242** 04-04-2008, 7:30 PM

thanks for putting those charts up, that's really helpful info. makes you think about the AA's too. I don't have the data 'cuz i haven't been tracking my play, guess i should start.

#**243** 05-04-2008, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Four Dogs

Well paint me green and call me Gumby.

Finally someone who remebers what this thread is all about. Thank you ambriopiotta for your donation and for getting us back on track. The Full Tilt numbers are especially appreciated as our sample size, even at 100,000 hands is still too small. Both your Stars numbers and your Tilt numbers had a correcting effect on the overall numbers. BTW, you were shorted 3 at PS, but your up one at FTP. Oh, and welcome to Cardschat. I hope you stick around.

Fiction reveals truth that reality obscures.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

And with all that I forgot to post the updated chart. Sorry.

#**244** 06-04-2008, 6:40 PM

I have been playing online poker for a while and i think i am pretty unlucky. yet i don't ever say the site is rigged or anything like that. Pretty soon people will be saying that casinos are hiring mechanics in brick and mortar to make more money. Those sites make more money in one day than any of these noobs that complain will see in a whole lifetime. Why would they need to rig it for big hands when people like the complainers play. because obviously they have gotten in too many hands if they can't sustain a bad beat every now and then. luck may always change but the statistics never change and idiots complaining about there bankroll being devestated cuz the site is "rigged" is really ignorant and getting on my nerves cuz if any player plays proper bankroll management and good poker they will never have any problems. any pro will agree with me there. well next week we will see the next post of ignorance with a guy claiming FTP or PS is out to get him. gl to everyone and hope to see you on the felt.

#**245** 07-04-2008, 9:10 AM

i havnt got stat but ive lost with aces lots the only reason is the amount of hand played online vs live games is far more plus if it was rigged they must be sittin there going oh we like tha user name hes a winner oh thatone suck we will doom that user my freind wins lots and i lose lots and i even play like him ive watched and tried to take lessons of him but nah i still lose


Full Tilt Poker is the poker site the pro's play at. US players are welcome - use Full Tilt Poker referral code CARDSCHAT for a $600 bonus.	PokerStars is one of the best sites to play online poker. They accept US players & using PokerStars marketing code CARDSCHAT you get a $75 bonus.