Is online poker rigged? Research program

[Irexes]

I don't think things are rigged, but I commend any effort to attempt to statistically analyse the way sites work. The data will show what it shows and you can get a big enough sample to make it worthwhile.

From what I understand of the model proposed here it seems to be taking account of most things that need to be considered. Beats people remembering things that fit their theory and calling anecdotes evidence hands down.

Credit to you for that Misu (even if I think you'll fail to find the evidence of riggign you are looking for).

 

[GreekFish]

rigged?

Well it sure seems so, but we as card players remember the bad and not how incredibly weve all been in some spots, take sorel mizzi the best internet player, would he say rigged?, he's to busy stealing your pots...........

 

[Egon Towst]

I will say this though. It seems that people tend to forget that poker is a game of odds, as in, there is a chance a certain event will happen. It's not an absolute. So of course there is going to be variance, despite what the odds say should happen.

Maybe I'm way off, but that's how I see it.

You`re not way off. In fact, that`s pretty much it in a nutshell. wp.

I don't think things are rigged, but I commend any effort to attempt to statistically analyse the way sites work. ....... Beats people remembering things that fit their theory and calling anecdotes evidence hands down.

Agreed. Respect to Valentin for this thread. So much better than the usual "my AA got cracked, it`s a fix" kind of thing that we usually get.

 

[Christianello]

Big time spended doing maths not always means great work,i like math(ì'm a big sklansky's fan)but,in my opinion when you search for a cheat,before starting an enquire you must think about the (presumed)cheater and ask yourself:has he any reason to cheat?
RESPONSE no he hasn't cause is the first interest of casino game(in poker of course,other games are another topic)that game flows crystal-clear.

 

[F Paulsson]

1. i dont take rake into consideration ..the game is considered 'ideal' (no rake)

I just realized I had yet another question regarding methodology: How do you go about dismissing the rake? If you're querying PT for the pot size, won't you get the raked pot size back?

The reason I ask is because the difference in convergence seems to be about $1.50 per hand lost.

 

[misu200]

I just realized I had yet another question regarding methodology: How do you go about dismissing the rake? If you're querying PT for the pot size, won't you get the raked pot size back?

The reason I ask is because the difference in convergence seems to be about $1.50 per hand lost.

In game table from PT there are pot & rake columns

real_pot_size = pot+rake - (any eventual overbet of one player or aniother - >absolute diff for total_bet columns from game_players table )

 

[F Paulsson]

In game table from PT there are pot & rake columns

real_pot_size = pot+rake - (any eventual overbet of one player or aniother - >absolute diff for total_bet columns from game_players table )

Okay, cool - just checking.

 

[beardyian]

The word "should" is very loaded and is inaccurately used. If you toss a coin 100 or 10000 times you might expect the "average" number of heads to be 50% but there is no "should" about it. In fact 95 or 9950 heads would be nothing unusual.

And the larger the sample, the larger the probable deviation in numeric (if not %) terms.

Agreed

The words 'should' & 'expect' do not really belong in a statistical survey as again they bring the area of doubt into play.

For this test the figures show what happened on this test.

What should happen now is several more tests of the same size to be compaired with the original.

Even then it will only show the odd/chances - and those of us who have ever back a favourite know they don't always win


We should try to remember when we lose with a hand that is the favourite that it must have been one of those times that the result came from the other half of the equation.


Terry Pratchett once wrote - A one in a million chance happens nine times out of ten

 

[Irexes]

Terry Pratchett once wrote - A one in a million chance happens nine times out of ten

I less than three you for quoting that Ian.

 

[misu200]

new version of 'ALL IN' program

I've added the option to do an aggregated analyze for more than one username because most poker players are playing on more than one poker site (with maybe different usernames).

Also I'm displaying some more information in the graph the program generates.

Here you can download the latest version:
ALL IN 1.1

And this is the graph for my ~250.000 played hands:

I would highly appreciate if somebody could share with us a similar analyze by posting his graph in this thread.

Thanks,
Valentin

 

[DeadMoneyDad]

Hi all,


Some people say that online poker sites are trying to curb the flow of money from bad players to good players in order to boost their profits.
Is very hard to prove mathematically somenthing like that BUT I can do some math against specific situations.

Thanks,
Valentin

If you want some serious help testing your theory and a place where people have mutiple 100,000 hand databases and a ton of advanced stats knowledge try the 2+2 forum.

Besure to wear your flame proof suit if your equation is off even a little. But given a few serious posts there are plenty of people, including a few egg heads dying to prove on-poker is rigged, who are willing to help you with your software and database issues.

D$D

 

[Bullwinkle]

Yikes!! What a huge waste of time this seems to be . . . statistics may be useful here to a certain extent, but you simply cannot quantify luck (as it relates to each individual), nor can you come up with a large enough accurate sample to make this worthwhile; also, you simply cannot just take any PF all-in for another without looking at the context (such as position, stack size, tournament stage, read of opponents, table "climate", etc.) -- pure odds are simply not enough to decide whether or not an AIPF makes sense at any given time with a given hand.

I, for one, firmly believe that any legitimate poker room (online or live) has everything to lose (as in, their entire business) and absolutely NOTHING to gain by rigging anything towards anyone -- I see the same kind of "sick, crazy, unreal, rigged, whatever" stuff happen just about everywhere I play, and someone always ends up ranting about how it's the poker room's, dealer's, deck's, unlucky seat's (etc., etc.) fault . . . yet they always come back to play, anyway. (What does that tell you about poker players?)

Anyway, that's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it! (Oh yes, and I did just bubble out of today's CC Bodog tourney, yet you don't hear me bitching and moaning about the site, do you?!)

Where on earth do you get this idea that poker rooms have everything to lose and nothing to gain by rigging? What will cause them to lose anything? There is no proper regulation, and there is no legislation to worry about falling foul of, so what exactly is it that will cause their downfall? If you think they will lose business, I doubt it. Anyone who plays on line poker already knows exactly what kind of juiced up flops on steroids are to be expected. It might even be that a lot of them prefer it that way as it is more exciting for them.
NOTHING to gain? NOTHING to gain? Give me a break NOTHING to gain what are you talking about? They gain from tournaments finishing quicker so people sign up for the next one which makes them more money - its hardly NOTHING when you multipy it by thousands of players. They gain from people putting more money in the middle of the table so more rake. Of course they gain from it. Give me a break from these people who keep saying nothing to gain everything to lose. What they gain is very very easy to see. Anyone can see what they gain, whats difficult to see is what they have to lose.
When on-line poker started it was a license to print money and no one expected it to last forever in its unregulated form. If one day it gets regulated I don't suppose the poker rooms will shed too many tears as they have already made ernormous profits, and they can continue if they want to with properly regulated poker games, albeit at a lesser profit. And your last question - What does that tell you about poker players? I will tell you - poker players don't go to places where there are no other poker players they go to places where there are lots of other poker players. Those places are the on-line poker rooms. Rigged or not there is not much point going anywhere where you can't get a game. Thats what it tells you about poker players, they are not dumb enough to go to unpopular places where they can't get a game.
There is only one way to prove its not rigged and that is to publish the source code, and that will obviously never happen. The least we can do is keep an open mind until it is proven one way or the other. I am not declaring to everyone that I think it is DEFINITELY rigged because I can't prove it, and I don't think anyone should be saying that it DEFINITELY isn't unless they can prove it too, so why not at least keep an open mind about these things? It won't cost you anything to do that, unless you have shares in a poker room.

 

[FeelnAcey]

I have some experience in calc the odds of thousands of card combo's. In reality the cards dealt vs the flop are inherritantly variable. The chances the flop is going to help you win the pot solely depends on if it's your turn for a good card run at the table.
What I have come to realize is that every player at the table experiences good card runs. These good card runs move around the table each player eventually. This is the "rigging" I have heard so many compaints about. The issue at hand is players often have not payed attention to flop patterns.
Bottom line, how you play your hole cards during a good card run determines how many chips you extract from your opponents. Experience is your only way to realize when it's your good card run.

Simply, pay attention.

 

[MrCannabis]

IM LOST..I DONT EVEN KNOW WHAT THE HEEL UR TALKIN ABOUT.....

 

[Egon Towst]

What will cause them to lose anything? There is no proper regulation, and there is no legislation to worry about falling foul of

Not so. Quite a few of the big poker sites are public companies registered at the London Stock Exchange. This is a closely regulated market and proven impropriety would get your company shut down quicker than you can call your lawyer.

 

[Bullwinkle]

Not so. Quite a few of the big poker sites are public companies registered at the London Stock Exchange. This is a closely regulated market and proven impropriety would get your company shut down quicker than you can call your lawyer.

We are not talking about the same type of regulation at all. What I am talking about is regulating the software which controls which cards are dealt. As far as I know there is no law, or rule, or regulation which says they can't juice up the flops, so there is no 'impropriety' or any other charge to answer. This is gambling software, it is intended to be exciting in the same way as playing the horses at portman park is exciting, in the same way as playing a fruit machine is exciting. It is exciting because of the design of the software and that process is not regulated by anyone. I think the only way it can be regulated is by making the software code available for inspection by a genuinely independent body (ie not some accountancy firm paid by the poker room).

 

[peacebrother]

must be rigged in my favor