Non-US sites LOVE Aces: Prove me wrong!

[Pokerstudy]

Is that all online overseas poker sites love ACES, You will never see as many twos or 3s or 4s or whatever else than you will aces, that right there will show you the RNG is not balanced. Look for yourself. Aces make the game interesting, just...it does not fit into randomizing the deck of cards lol

Waste of time playing IMO, but it is something to do I guess.

That, is not variance...

 

[DaveE]

Nobody is mucking aces preflop and usually will try to get to showdown with them if they end up playing postflop with them. You're going to see them most of the time.

You can't say the same for those small pairs.

 

[Pokerstudy]

Nobody is mucking aces preflop and usually will try to get to showdown with them if they end up playing postflop with them. You're going to see them most of the time.

You can't say the same for those small pairs.

That is true, I am mainly talking about the board though...there are aces everywhere. The game would be boring to most rec players if it was actually random. Oh well, had enough aces and random online stalkers (not you) stalking for one online setting lol

I wonder if there was an actual count of how many Aces hit the board vs any other card. After all, the deck is random right? I am all for being put in my place for making a false claim lol but, I just see aces almost every other flop/turn/river...don't see the same with other cards.

 

[alien666dj]

The Internet is full of statistics on this matter. Why bother discussing this? Instead of working on a game. This is what will give the opportunity to beat someone?

 

[vinnie]

That is true, I am mainly talking about the board though...there are aces everywhere. The game would be boring to most rec players if it was actually random. Oh well, had enough aces and random online stalkers (not you) stalking for one online setting lol

I wonder if there was an actual count of how many Aces hit the board vs any other card. After all, the deck is random right? I am all for being put in my place for making a false claim lol but, I just see aces almost every other flop/turn/river...don't see the same with other cards.

I have looked at my own database(s) multiple times. Aces hit the flop, turn, and river just about as often as they should. Other cards do too.

 

[lauestla]

Nobody is mucking aces preflop and usually will try to get to showdown with them if they end up playing postflop with them. You're going to see them most of the time.

You can't say the same for those small pairs.

Exactly the answer I was about to post

 

[Four Dogs]

You know, I actually ran a sort of study on this years ago to determine if RNG were actually random. My hypotheses was that if they were honest you would find an even distribution of all possible hands and if it was "rigged" in some way then the results of all hands would be skewed. Just for fun I had Cardschat members post the number of times they were dealt aces compared to the total number of hands dealt. I also broke it down by site. I think the conclusion was that on a whole Aces were being dealt pretty evenly throughout all the sites. Nobody seemed to be Juicing the pot.

Not that I trust the sites to be honest but IMO no site would ever risk doing anything like that because statistics don't lie and it would be way to easy to catch.

 

[Pokerstudy]

You know, I actually ran a sort of study on this years ago to determine if RNG were actually random. My hypotheses was that if they were honest you would find an even distribution of all possible hands and if it was "rigged" in some way then the results of all hands would be skewed. Just for fun I had Cardschat members post the number of times they were dealt aces compared to the total number of hands dealt. I also broke it down by site. I think the conclusion was that on a whole Aces were being dealt pretty evenly throughout all the sites. Nobody seemed to be Juicing the pot.

Not that I trust the sites to be honest but IMO no site would ever risk doing anything like that because statistics don't lie and it would be way to easy to catch.

Right on, and thanks for research and reply! the reason the thought came to mind was I saw quad aces (three times) on ignition two different days in two sessions, which I posted in the let’s talk about ignition thread, ever since then I haven’t been able to see things the same with aces, granted I didn’t post the first two sets of quad aces, but talked about it, and went back another day just for a screenshot which you can see lol…something doesn’t add up. That and set over set by same person in two months is ridiculous (another site)…and then the whole being beat by larger stacks each time I have premium hands after the bubble ..there is more but just going off of memory for now, I don’t trust it. Any of it, But it is fun…just not my idea of skill IMO

When you play Bingo you “watch” the balls spin and then pulled, same with lotto..we don’t see that, why not? Why not be transparent with how the RNG flows per site? If all is fair and random, where is our version of the bingo/lotto spinner lol

Shouldn’t effect the bottom line for any site if all is random, except paying someone 50 bucks to provide a video explaining with a digital representation how it works by showing it in action with thousands of samples lol

Again, just prove me wrong, if nothing else let me be the idiot for thinking such a thing exists after seeing quad aces 3 times in two days.

Also the only way I won money playing on BOL back to back was playing against the algo, nothing about it was poker lol, I then decided to just play poker strat for live games to see how people will fold, which is what I am doing on inter tops. I am not here to make money with unregulated online poker.

 

[GRIN281289]

When you play all-in preflop, and you often see an ace on the poker table, I agree with you here !!

 

[okeedokalee]

Bad players, stations and passives, plus the bad LAGs just love Ax. They are the majority of Villains.
That is why we will see Ax so often at showdown.
If they are being played so frequently, then they are often going to hit on board run outs, and take out big pairs. However, and most likely, often they will lose to better Aces or better hands.
Ax will actually cost you dearly in EV if you continue to play it regularly, because it is vulnerable.
The number of times the pocket Ax takes out your pocket QQ or KK is an annoyance, but people who rely on an Ax pockets are not going to be winning players long term.

 

[jj77jwj]

Very true you got to know how to play your aa can't go all in with them you got to watch board so you know what's your next move if aa is your only pair there a lot of hands out there that will beat out one pair

 

[ADRI7HO]

I haven’t noticed this so far that Aces would come in better, I don’t really know the exact math of how many hands you should get Aces on average. But it’s likely that Aces will be seen more than once because they get to the showdown more times than any other card, and many like to show up preflop if everyone folds to the raise.

 

[Pokerstudy]

So is it just me seeing aces because my mind is tricked? If there are 4 aces in a deck and my mind sees aces (what I think and feel are on almost every other board) is that just not me looking for other cards or high cards? I know I don’t see twos or threes or lower cards in general near as much as I see aces (on boards), but again maybe my mind isn’t looking the way it should. Not sure it is only aces that I feel the sites love but high cards in general for boards over low cards. Again, my mind may be tricked and certainly fine to admit to that if so. I know one thing for sure, and that is seeing quad aces three times is absolutely ridiculous lol But that is only one site and not all sites are the same, which is why I am curious overall…

To my understanding most players never see quad aces the whole time they ever play poker, much less 3 times in two days…

Will look again if I play unregulated online poker again. Would love to check out other sites someday, pretty crazy that in 2021 most states are still not able to play on most poker sites, hopefully that changes in the future.

Thanks

 

[Four Dogs]

Why should it be on us to prove you wrong when it's you who are making the extraordinary assertion. Anyone can make any claim about any person thing or event and they often do (See QAnon conspiracy theorists or flat earthers). As critical thinkers, we need a way to separate the wheat from the chaff or else we'll see monsters under every bed. And we have one!

It's all about data. Everything that's real leaves a signal. If a poker site was somehow "juicing the pot" then this would show up in the statistics. Maybe you wouldn't see it but someone could and most likely would.

The competition for players at poker sites is savage and reputation is everything so why would any reputable site even risk something that is so easily verified? Sorry but This just doesn't pass the smell test. Your making an absurd claim without any evidence.

 

[toots babos]

Simple solution: play every ace you are dealt and win lots of money!

 

[Pokerstudy]

Why should it be on us to prove you wrong when it's you who are making the extraordinary assertion. Anyone can make any claim about any person thing or event and they often do (See QAnon conspiracy theorists or flat earthers). As critical thinkers, we need a way to separate the wheat from the chaff or else we'll see monsters under every bed. And we have one!

It's all about data. Everything that's real leaves a signal. If a poker site was somehow "juicing the pot" then this would show up in the statistics. Maybe you wouldn't see it but someone could and most likely would.

The competition for players at poker sites is savage and reputation is everything so why would any reputable site even risk something that is so easily verified? Sorry but This just doesn't pass the smell test. Your making an absurd claim without any evidence.

I understand what you are saying but I can’t ignore what I see online and also what I see with a real deck of cards (and the randomness just isn’t there for me to see) , I think that it is very possible I am just terrible at online poker in general vs live poker but I couldn’t help but inquire, the title of the thread was actually “one thing I see” changed to non-Us sites love aces: Prove me wrong lol, but anyways doesn’t change anything for me looking for truth but it is not your responsibility to prove me wrong in all reality, (yes I said prove me wrong and would like to somehow be shown an in-depth recent study someday but really was just looking for a discussion in regard to what I am seeing, (you even ran a test yourself to find answers) seeing quad aces 3 times in two days was enough for me to know unregulated poker is definitely not for me. But again, that is not all sites, just one. I do not have thousands of hands with many people to compare and if everything is completely legit then there should be no reason to explore the idea further. It just comes down to me that a RNG does not portray a shuffled deck near close enough for me to consider it random, this might just be my own expectation but I am only looking to play poker in the way I can best understand the game. There are tons of reviews from players that feel the randomness is not random and I am just one of them.

Talking about seeing aces or rather more high cards than others that I see was just to get more clarity to what I am seeing, I have seen others say the same thing in games so it felt worthy of a discussion.

Also I am not convinced that the RNG works the same way per person per game…it’s possible to have many RNGs going and getting large databases together from different sources might not show accurate information to how the RNGs work, just saying. I really don’t know, I just don’t want to really spend the energy to find out or have the resources to find out.
On top of along with the possibility of who’s a bot, who’s a super user etc etc if the algo works in favor of large stacks etc etc but those are different subjects all together with online poker. Lots of reviews on trust pilot and other honest review sites have many of the same thoughts they feel that have been discussed with the randomness.

I think as a critical thinker it’s fair to question what is going on in general and not just accept what is presented, meaning where is the proof the RNGs are truly random like I discussed before. Why do we need to look for it, if all is legit why isn’t it shown up front somehow? We just accept that it is a truthful RNG just because?

 

[vinnie]

You know, you could even test this for yourself. But you would need to set parameters. Like "For the next 100 flops, I am going to count all the ones that have 0, 1, 2 and 3 high (J+) cards. Then I will compare the counts to the expected counts.

If you repeat that a few times, the data will get better and better. But, you need to actually count every hand and not just the big ones.

The approximate odds for each are:
0 High: 32.3%
1 High: 45.6%
2 High: 19.5%
3 High: 2.5%

Of course this will vary a little as there is more likely to be a flop when people hold high cards, but it is close enough. They don't add to 100% because of rounding. Right away you should see one problem with your theory. 67.7% of flops will be likely to contain a high card or more than one. So yes, you will see a lot of flops with high cards.

 

[Pokerstudy]

You know, you could even test this for yourself. But you would need to set parameters. Like "For the next 100 flops, I am going to count all the ones that have 0, 1, 2 and 3 high (J+) cards. Then I will compare the counts to the expected counts.

If you repeat that a few times, the data will get better and better. But, you need to actually count every hand and not just the big ones.

The approximate odds for each are:
0 High: 32.3%
1 High: 45.6%
2 High: 19.5%
3 High: 2.5%

Of course this will vary a little as there is more likely to be a flop when people hold high cards, but it is close enough. They don't add to 100% because of rounding. Right away you should see one problem with your theory. 67.7% of flops will be likely to contain a high card or more than one. So yes, you will see a lot of flops with high cards.

Interesting, I haven’t looked into the stats… you are also talking about the turn and river right? Most of the aces I see hit the river.

It’s definitely a study in itself and am all for knowing the large scale data that comes out and why I am seeing what I am seeing, but looking at the bigger picture, these sites are operating illegally in the US, which is another reason I am just avoiding in general..even when I filed taxes and tried to claim my winnings, when they looked at source, they were perplexed.

Not really something I care to look into at this point for more reasons then I can count not to play again on these unregulated sites in future.

Thanks for the insights, and hopefully it’s all just one big perceptual problem on my part and nobody has any doubts about the legitimacy going on with the randomness or anything else.

Best of luck in your games! Can’t wait for live game poker again!

 

[ozrock]

I've never seen so many Ace rag hands win live as they do online. It is crazy how many times an ace will flop online.

 

[fundiver199]

Most poker sites have downloadable hand histories. So its really easy to play for instance 100.000 hands in the cash games and then set a filter in your tracker to see, how often you were dealth certain starting hands, and then evaluate if those numbers are within normal statistical variance.

A pocket pair should be dealt every 221 hands on average, so over 100.000 hands we expect to see it an average of 452,5 times. But of course that number is not going to be exact, so if its 512 or 398, thats not proof, that anything is wrong. I am sure, you have performed this kind of analysis in your own tracker, so that you have some actual numbers to back up your claim?

 

[Pokerstudy]

There are so many twos and threes on every other board, why can’t there be aces on every other board? You would think 4 per card, just really sucks I don’t see aces.

 

[Pokerstudy]

Please forgive me, and I am all for being wrong, I do not have a confidence issue to be right etc. I used to be a news photojournalist, and as a reporter/photog we just question everything, and this is just something I am questioning. The games are fun irregardless…and not trying to take anything away from that, I just am just asking questions to better understand, thanks

When you interview someone like Erin Brockovich about schlumberger while as a photog, you just change your perception of everything else