Online equity realization!

seeyouthru

seeyouthru

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Total posts
296
Awards
1
Chips
7
I am just wondering if we somehow by some supercomputer check on an online poker site
Eg: pokerstars or partypoker showdown values of particular hands.
For eg: 99 vs AA which is 81/19%
Since we always keep talking about the long run.
We should check and gather 99 vs AA hands of atleast past 1 year and see if the showdown is really 81/19.
Like that we can do do different hands as well and see if the equities are true online by taking a very large sample size!
 
qRock

qRock

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Total posts
105
Chips
0
RNG in the poker rooms auditors check. As a player, you can check your entire game history, but objective conclusions will require millions of hands.
 
pdcactus1

pdcactus1

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 1, 2018
Total posts
176
Awards
4
Chips
0
odds of AA

I am just wondering if we somehow by some supercomputer check on an online poker site
Eg: PokerStars or PartyPoker showdown values of particular hands.
For eg: 99 vs AA which is 81/19%
Since we always keep talking about the long run.
We should check and gather 99 vs AA hands of at least past 1 year and see if the showdown is really 81/19.
Like that we can do to different hands as well and see if the equities are true online by taking a very large sample size!

true that preflop AA is 81%to19% against any 2 cards left in the deck except AA. But with that said I think they "in the long run" only win 60% of the time against one player and less against more. Against 6 caller PF, it goes to 36%. Even with an Ace on the flop it only goes to 37%.
 
N

nunch92

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 18, 2019
Total posts
90
Chips
0
I think this is a great idea! The enormous sample size available and the ease with which that data could be analyzed would make for some pretty interesting statistics.. It'd be cool to see some of the theoretical statistics backed up with data.
 
puzzlefish

puzzlefish

🙉 🙈 🙊 student of the donk arts
Loyaler
Joined
Feb 18, 2018
Total posts
4,425
Awards
3
CA
Chips
275
It will come back normal. To find the discrepancy you would need to look for $ won / lost rather than % won / lost. Plot these ratios vs. time and enjoy.
 
TheniT

TheniT

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 15, 2019
Total posts
114
Awards
1
BR
Chips
35
To know the statistics accurately would require a very large hand sampling, but I support the idea.
 
rafa77777

rafa77777

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 15, 2018
Total posts
80
Chips
0
good idea, ahah ..) all these percentages are defined in the same distribution, squash 50 thousand hands .. for me, so it is quite fair interest ..
 
ChickenArise

ChickenArise

Legend
Bronze Level
Joined
Feb 24, 2018
Total posts
2,089
Awards
1
Chips
34
It would be fun to conduct this with a negative bias.

What I mean is have everyone who complains about frequent bad beats submit their hand histories to a central database and then have all of those players hands added to the pool of hands.

If this still shows that EV numbers are correct after a large enough sample is reached then that would be the end of the doubt for me.
 
M

maxboy44

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 11, 2019
Total posts
48
Chips
0
I had enough with boring statistics when I worked. I cannot imagine spending the time collecting them or studying them,
 
8bod8

8bod8

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Total posts
1,492
Chips
0
be careful that not only bad-beats are reported; resulting in AA losing most of the time.
 
S

spadeit

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 6, 2019
Total posts
55
Chips
0
What you need to do is not look only at AA vs other cards. You won't find anything.

You have to take at least 2 parameters into account.

1. Compare a shorter chip stack, who is constantly set-up against a larger chip stack for elimination with a dominant hand, for example short gets KK, large gets AA. Sometimes it's as subtle as K5 for shorty UTG vs K6 for big boy in the big blind. I know you have to steal the blind to survive, I know Mr. Big will call you with his K6 because he has you 10x on chips and is in his interest to eliminate you on the bubble. Add up the number of instances you notice this in all-ins.

If I am programming an algorithm for equity distribution, or for elimination, I don't need to crack your AA to cheat you, I just need to give another player AA when you have KK, K6 when you are forced to go all in for a blind steal with K5, when you are in an elimination scenario, and re-balance it when you are not, and the odds look perfectly normal. I also don't need a huge statistical anomaly. 2-3% in favor of the large stack is more than enough over 1000 player fields and thousands of tournaments. Not much different than how a casino only has a tiny percentage edge over the player. Heck if I target your account 1% is more than enough if you play every day to make sure you go broke in a timely fashion.

2. Compare the number of times the higher chip stick cracks your dominant hand, again in elimination scenarios.

Add those two together and that's where the discrepancy will reveal itself.

Those two stats added together should actually be 50% over time. In other words chip count should have zero bearing on who wins a hand at show down in an elimination scenario.

But this is how the algorithms eliminate players in a timely fashion to keep the tournaments moving. It's as simple as that. Without this, 1000+ player tournaments would take 24 hours or more to complete not 4-6. You would have tons more people making come-backs.

If I'm programming the algorithm I'm not going to be so stupid to skew the % of times AA hold up or gets dished out which is so easy to track, when I can do it perfectly fine without ever touching those statistics. I'm going to do it based on poker game rules, position, player tendencies, not card statistics. I leave those alone.


In a fair game, over time, I should have the dominant hand when I am short just as much when I am big in elimination scenarios.
In a fair game, my hand should crack the dominant hand when I am short just as much as when I am big in elimination scenarios.
In a fair game, my dominant hand should hold up just as much when I am short as when I am big in elimination scenarios.

Now that you break it down like this, can you see how you can adjust it without ever touching card stats? Take these rules, and add another step, apply it to the rules of poker, such as where players are forced to steal blinds from to survive, and I need to adjust it even less than a catch-all code to push players out of the tournament and it's going to be pretty damn difficult for you to figure out where my algo set-you up. Hand history is going to look 100% legit, that's for sure.

It's situational. Think of football. Red zone offense and defense, vs other situations. On the bubble, not on the bubble. Etc. I can increase the number of action flops on the bubble vs when you are not on the bubble. I can submit my card dealing RNG for verification, and get certified, but I don't have to submit the entirety of the algo, not the overlayers. Not the user accounts overlayers, "that's proprietary, that's a security risk".

I can adjust my algorithm through table rotation to adjust it for faster elimination, or adjust it for longer duration. Since my company is interested in as many tournaments as possible, as many rebuys as possible, it's going to be adjusted for elimination and to shorten duration. Shuffle and deck RNG can be 100% untouched.

As long as online poker is programmed, don't ever trust it. Online poker has a house advantage beyond rake, whereas Live poker does not, beyond rake.
 
S

spadeit

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 6, 2019
Total posts
55
Chips
0
Taking everything I wrote above into consideration, players should demand to see a history of all hands under these scenarios above, verified, and publicly posted on their website before ever depositing any money. Any one single account discrepancy can be accounted by variance, but the combination of all hands, and millions of accounts should churn out a 50/50% to the nth decimal. Even a 1% discrepancy is reason for suspicion.

Just like there are a million sports stat sites that you can access these statistics, red zone efficiency, points per play, etc it should be the same with poker. Only when there is full transparency of the nature I described above, and open source software, will we actually be closer to having legitimate poker software. Nobody is even talking about these stats, let alone someone willingly publishing them.

As long as people complain about bad beats,or verifying card stats, not only is that silly, and is very easy to disprove, but you will have stones cast your way because of it.
 
Last edited:
Rob Hobson

Rob Hobson

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Feb 2, 2012
Total posts
4,446
Awards
2
BR
Chips
98
This is a very good problem for Mr RNG!
 
Top