Why I think online poker is rigged

i think your just seeing a lot more hands online, than in person. Cause i couldn't tell u how many times i've been in the bb with aa and it gets folded around to me.

y would they rig tournaments?? they alredy get the rake from the buyin... then after that they let the tourny run and dont make any more off of it

You, AG, and Dorkus appear to be talking about the same thing (what Paulsson suggested), but this is not the same thing that I was talking about. I understand exactly what they are saying but it is not relevant to my query.

To clarify, my query is how many times and at what frequency are hands played out where half the table or more ends up with a made hand. What I have said is that the only way to test this is to see all the cards (because people will have folded some of the cards we need to see).

I don't give a toss about how many times 1 good hand comes up against 1 other good hand. I'm not that moronic (cue loads of disagreements, lol).

Besides all that, you previously stated in this thread that our (the juiceh camp) opinions are worth zero. Being that you are a gifted mathematician, you should therefore be able to calculate what you estimate the net worth of your opinions are to us based on that statement alone. To give you a little head-start I'll give you a push in the right direction, It's a nice round number!!

Show us.

'nuff said

interesting thread, and I must say the best "rigged" thread ive seen around here in a while so I will just throw in my 2 cents.

French you talk about how a lot of people end up with "made" hands. in a hand with a-10, kj, and 10-9 if one hand hits they all usually hit since they are so close. I think this needs to be taken into account. In the one time the kj hits 2 pair, all that is needed is a queen to make straights for the a-10 and 10-9. Now lets say this one time hand sees another jack or king and lets make it the third heart (like in your hand), any person who stayed in with a flush draw made their flush. The important thing is, the kj, 10-9 and a-10 should have been betting much more before that river card comes. Online poker is a lot of people chasing draws and with the hands stated above, if one hits a good flop the others all have hit good draws and with everyone chasing everyone will hit if the others do.

I hope my point got across, when a lot of similar drawing hands go into a hand, and hit a good flop or good draw, everyone will chase and SOMEBODY will hit their draw. All im saying is when a lot of hands like that play a hand together, it will look juiced when everybody gets a draw and when the same card hits everybody's draw, we will think its even more juiced.

DaFrench

I am not trying to thump my chest (even thought that's probably how it comes off) with the statement that I have a masters degree, but I am trying to lend some weight to what I say by simply indicating that I've spent years studying this sort of thing. That has to be worth something to this discussion doesn't it?

I completely understand what you are saying but what I'm telling you and what AG/Dorkus have said is that you do NOT need to see all the hole cards to prove or disprove your theory. With a large enough sample of your own hole cards and only your own you will have enough data to prove or disprove it. You do not need to see anyone else's cards, they are completely statistically irrelevant. As Dorkus said this is based on your own set assumptions, not ours. Namely that the game isn't biased for or against any specific player(s).
To put this another way.

querying "how many times and at what frequency are hands played out where half the table or more ends up with a made hand" is an identical question to "over the long run, am I seeing certain made hands more often than I statistically should." I realize that you are saying they aren't the same but mathematically, if I can answer one I can answer the other.

I'm not trying to spark conflict or have this discussion turn nasty as I do enjoy a good debate, so I hope there are no hard feelings of any kind. But the above is a proven mathematical fact and not even that advanced a statistical concept. If I felt motivated enough which I really don't right now I could provide you a formal proof. If you want to keep debating this that's your right but to put it quite simply, you are wrong and as AG said if you want to keep arguing it there isn't much point in continuing this discussion. I think I'm done posting in this thread now. Have fun with it all!

And how many home games have you played in where 2 donks groan when the flop come 335 with 2 hearts (1 having thrown away 35 and the other the flush draw)? Ever think about how many hands get thrown away in a "non-rigged" live game that would have won at show down? I'd venture to guess the same number as on-line, but I know you wouldn't agree, online being "juiced" and all.

My apologies for "crediting" you with that link. I am pleased that you did not take offence, but whilst accepting my error am somewhat disappointed that you did not see the validity of the point, which was not materially effected by the fact that I atributed the link to you rather than Dorkus.

Regards

Boltneck

Firstly, to Tygran and Harty, I would like to commend you on the tone and content of your last posts, it is in this manner that debate should take place and I truly appreciate it.

You're correct with your points Hart, its what makes holdem a great game, you have made hands betting and protecting against drawing hands, lots of bluffs. We love it. My whole premise kind of rests on whether multiple strong hands and draws leading to high 'action' hands occur more frequently online than live, it is a valid question to pose being that we are comparing a real-world event with a simulation, and especially as we are putting money into it with the assumption that it is. In an ideal world we WOULD have number crunchers and statisticians monitoring the output from different sites and producing reports to either confirm fair-play or flag suspicious events, but we don't, and we are left to try and figure it out for ourselves (which is not a fruitless exercise in itself as it actually gets you to think about the game on different levels!). Some people will take the leap of faith, others will question the integrity to varying degrees. The discrepancy is amplified due to the lack of checks and balances present.



Again, it's expanding on Paulsson's proposal, it works to a certain degree, but it misses one crucial point for me. I understood that "over the long run, am I seeing certain made hands more often than I statistically should." will give figures that, if you are assuming that everyone is treated equal, which I do, you can then correlate for your opponents, agreed. Again, as with hole cards, I wouldn't expect any excessive deviance as it would be too easily picked up. BUT, I can question whether those hands are being made at the SAME TIME as other hands more than they statistically should, and that is where your methodology falls short, because I wouldn't have the information available to make that assessment. Now for that to be possible, you are going to need a lot of 'dead' hands to compensate statistically (where very few players, if any, get a hit above 1 pair), and I'm seeing that a hell of a lot as well, not to mention all of the hands that don't get to showdown and that would remain a complete mystery either way.

Why is this important? You should be able to see that a game that has lots of dead hands but with high-action hands interspersed between WILL be quicker than a game left to total randomness. This is because as Hartattack3 said: "when a lot of similar drawing hands go into a hand, and hit a good flop or good draw, everyone will chase and SOMEBODY will hit their draw", to this I would add on the end "And the rest will likely go bust!"

Does that make sense?

It makes sense, but as I said earlier, it's testable.

If action hands are pitted against each other, it means, by necessity, that some of these actions hands aren't winning as often as they should. And if they aren't, that will be noticeable in statistically large samples even if you're only seeing your own cards. And while it's difficult to analytically figure out how often a full house "should" win, it's easily done with a simulator.

I've been trying to think of a way that it's possible to juice the games that you suggest that wouldn't be clearly visible in PT, and I've even brought the matter up with my wife, the mathematician. She, for what it's worth, agrees with me. She also mumbled something about "binary variable needing only a relatively small sample" but I'm not sure what that means.

rigged/not rigged, can't say. but definately flawed.

I don't you post a one line bs response in every single thread on the site. Oh, wait...