Online Poker-Rigged? Read Me!

Status
Not open for further replies.
diabloblanco

diabloblanco

Guest
Joined
May 30, 2005
Total posts
1,198
Chips
0
Here is a sampling of 37,867 hands played at low limits on Paradise Poker. This sampling was taken by Tony Hwang and was posted on RGP newsgroup. The actual sampling contains much, much more information, however, the information below is a sample of the product in its entirety. The entire thread on RGP can be found here:
Http://www.playwinningpoker.com/rgp/02/
I suggest everyone go there and read the thread in its entirety and then make an educated judgement on the state of online poker as it pertains to the online cardrooms employing dishonest tactics in order to maximize profit or entice betting.

All suited cards dealt: 8982 (23.72%)
All suited cards expected: 8910 (23.5%)

All connected cards dealt: 5980 (15.79%)
All connected cards expected: 5940 (15.70%)

Suited connector starters dealt: 1486 (3.92%)
Suited connector starters expected: 1485 (3.92%)

Paired starters dealt: 2264 (5.979%)
Paired starters expected: 2227 (5.88%)

AKo dealt: 363 (0.959%)
AKo expected: 343 (0.905%)

AKs dealt: 98 (0.259%)
AKs expected: 114 (0.302%)

Any AK dealt: 461 (1.217%)
Any AK expected: 457 (1.21%)

Pocket Pairs
A's: 157 (0.415%)
K's: 140 (0.370%)
Q's: 184 (0.486%)
J's: 168 (0.444%)
T's: 183 (0.483%)
9's: 167 (0.441%)
8's: 185 (0.489%)
7's: 182 (0.481%)
6's: 192 (0.507%)
5's: 178 (0.470%)
4's: 186 (0.491%)
3's: 162 (0.428%)
2's: 180 (0.475%)
Each pair expected: 171 (0.452%)

Flop Analysis
Only data from hands where a flop was dealt is used in the following percentages.

Total hands dealt: 37867
Total times a flop was dealt: 35691 (94.25%)

When player dealt AK, flops at least one A or K: 154 (34.45%) Expected: 145 (32.4%)

Dealt any 2 suited cards: 8546 times
Using both hole cards the player flopped
3-Flush: 3593 (40.04%)
3-Flush: expected: 3554 (41.6%)
4-Flush: 922 (10.79%)
4-Flush Expected: 935 (10.9%)
Flush: 70 (0.82%)
Flush Expected: 72 (0.842%)

The 3 cards on the flop made:
3-Straight: 293 (3.43%)
3-Straight expected: 272 (3.18%)
2-Flush: 4698 (54.97%)
2-Flush expected: 4710 (55.1%)
3-Flush: 463 (5.42%)
3-Flush expected: 446 (5.22%)
Any Pair: 1470 (17.2%)
Any Pair expected: 1447 (16.9%)

Players Hand Flops
High card: 4453 (52.1%)
High card expected: 4497 (52.6%)
Pair: 3503 (41.0%)
Pair expected: 3453 (40.4%)
Two pair: 373 (4.36%)
Two pair expected: 345 (4.04%)
3 of a Kind: 107 (1.25%)
3 of a Kind expected: 134 (1.57%)
Straight: 32 (0.37%)
Straight Expected: 35 (0.412%)
Flush: 70 (0.82%)
Flush expected: 71 (0.835%)
Full House: 7 (0.082%)
Full House expected: 8 (0.0918%)
4 of a Kind: 1 (0.012%)
4 of a Kind expected: 1 (0.012%)
Straight Flush: 0
Straight Flush expected: 1 (0.00589%)
Royal Flush: 0
Royal Flush expected: 0

User has any pair (dealt 2196 times):
Using both hole cards flopped a:
Underpair (to flop): 523 (23.82%)
Underpair expected: 515 (23.5%)
Overpair (to flop): 496 (22.59%)
Overpair expected: 515 (23.5%)
Set: 238 (10.84%)
Set expected: 253 (11.51%)
Quads: 5 (0.228%)
Quads expected: 5 (0.228%)


As I stated, this is a small sampling of a huge amount of information gathered using poker tracking software.

Compare this real data with the few people that refuse to believe online poker isn't rigged and the ACTUAL statistical data will win out every time in the mind of a sensible player. People who use tracking software anylize and re anylize this information over and over to search their game for leaks and it is an utter impossibility that someone has never used raw data such as this to promote or prove that any site is doing anything wrong. On one hand you have real numbers, tangible evidence, and on the other you have conpiracy theorists jumping up and down claiming they saw too many "funny" hands. Which do you believe?

Hopefully this will knock some sense into the few holdouts that swear it is all a big sham, and that online gaming sites are juicing flops and other such nonsense. I pray I don't have to read another online poker is rigged post again. You can't argue with raw data, and that's what is provided here.
 
Sammyv1

Sammyv1

Legend
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Total posts
1,618
Chips
0
Hey Diabloblanco,

Som real great stuff there. I have always wondered about how the percentages of on line poker would add up to the "expected". It looks like all these figures are right on. Thats very good to know. I wonder if the majority of the poker sites would come out this even?
 
Crippler450

Crippler450

Guest
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Total posts
390
Chips
0
Im not sure anyone had a question about a large site like Paradise poker. If you can get me statistics like that on a poker site such as pokerhost and they arent completely out of the ordinary I will eat my hat. Its kind of interesting, but these statistics dont really prove anything to me about any site except for Paradise, which I always thought to be a legit site anyway.

Let me know when you find stats on a questionable site.
 
Alon Ipser

Alon Ipser

Cardschat Elite
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Total posts
1,406
Chips
0
When I first started playing the microrooms at Paradise I was sure that it was rigged because I kept getting bad beats but I realized that in these microrooms that a nickel bet is nothing to some folks and they would stay in with junk cards. As I moved up to the higher priced tables, the junk players were fewer and so were the bad beats.
 
diabloblanco

diabloblanco

Guest
Joined
May 30, 2005
Total posts
1,198
Chips
0
Crippler- Come on man. Don't you honestly think that somebody out of the thousands that play on the smaller sites on a daily basis, and use this kind of software would have come forward by now with difinitive statistical evidence supporting your theory? All it would take is one person posting it on one forum and it would be all over the net before you knew it. I guess a true conspiracy theorist always has a rebuttal even in the face of evidence. Did you read the entire thread that I linked?

And what makes a site questionable? Size? Number of players online? You're using blanket statements in order to stick to your theory. No amount of fact is going to deter you I am afraid.

Instead of me proving that "questionable" sites are on the up and up, how about you provide one shread of information that hints otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Crippler450

Crippler450

Guest
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Total posts
390
Chips
0
Diablo, I respect your opinion and agree that I have not come up with any evidence other than my personal experiences. I am not trying to say that all, most or even many sites would gain much if anything by rigging some hands. I am simply trying to bring up the option that some, or even one of them may be doing it, since 1) it would be very profitible, and 2) most people would not even believe it if it leaked out (They may call it a 'conspiracy')

As much as you state that I have no evidence, which is true, neither do you. Writing down a lot of numbers that you got from a website really means nothing. I could just as easily write down a list of my own numbers, put them on a website, and call them fact. Now im not saying that your statistics are false, but I would not be parading them as fact either. (Something being posted on the net does not constitute it as a 'fact', especially if it only covers one large specific site out of the tons that are popping up)

In the end, I'm not trying to start a conspiracy about how the sites are trying to scam us, I am just trying to keep the possibility on people's minds. You can say over and over that there is no chance that any site would rig a hand despite the obvious benefits. But if even one site is doing this...people such as yourself are defending them without any reason to other than to start an argument.

Saying that this is not a possibility seems very strange to me. Most people would at least entertain the possibility, and then maybe be careful which site they deal with. However, if they do not ever consider this in any way, they may end up being burned.

In other words, you can defend the sites all you want, but just because I have not given any proof that it happens, dont discount the possibility. I would rather warn people of my personal experiences and hope they dont get burned themselves than defend a site that i've never played at with so-called certainty.

I would suggest that anyone playing at poker sites keep an open mind and not assume that they are always on the 'up and up'. There is no regulating agency that watches over them, and no real consequences for smaller sites if they dont follow the rules. I could probably sit here and type back and forth with you 10 times without either of us changing our opinions, but I value my time and would rather leave it at this. You can keep playing at sites without ever questioning their methods if you like. I will continue playing at my favorite sites, but will avoid the ones that I consider questionable. I'll let you have the last word on this thread because I have made my point and don't wish to argue any farther. I'll just let others decide for themselves.

Cheat me once, shame on you. Cheat me twice, shame on me.
 
Last edited:
diabloblanco

diabloblanco

Guest
Joined
May 30, 2005
Total posts
1,198
Chips
0
I don't play online poker, and haven't for a long time. Is it possible that one or more gaming sites are cheating, maybe. Is it probable? No, IMO.

As I have said numerous times, if it were happening, people using poker tracking software would have picked up on it by now and put the offending sites out of business by word of mouth.
 
XXIII

XXIII

Rock Star
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Total posts
300
Chips
0
Well, did you happen to notice that the majority are over expected? And these are just counting the cards that do make it to the flop. And yes it is just percentage points but .35 is still a lot of hands when it comes down to millions of hands an hour
 
diabloblanco

diabloblanco

Guest
Joined
May 30, 2005
Total posts
1,198
Chips
0
What's your point? Now they don't give enough action? You do realize that the slim margins there are well within probable tolerances. The expected isn't a perfect number, it is an odds calculation. Hitting them exactly right would be impossible. Think about it.
 
B

Bozza

Guest
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Total posts
84
Chips
0
Hmmz, it is really interested. Sometimes when I play poker online and I see what some guys have I think: is this delt to make it more sensational? But I dunno, maybe it's just lucky that I noticed it... I really dunno.
 
H

hackadart

Guest
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Total posts
29
Chips
0
Diab,

Some people just need to use the "riiged" theories to justify their losses or act as reason not to make a deposit when the reality is that they are simply not winning players. I sincerely thank you for making that post, and providing some data that suggests that sites are not rigged. If that player continues to track and posts again in a few months we will see those numbers getting increasinly closer to the expected percentages. As the post says this is a very small sample but even with a sample that small it is clear that nothing out of the ordinary is going on.
 
diabloblanco

diabloblanco

Guest
Joined
May 30, 2005
Total posts
1,198
Chips
0
I agree completely on the reasoning behind some peoples theories of online poker being fixed. A lot of it, IMO, comes from their desire to pass blame for poor play in some instances. Not that this applies to everyone, but some people I definately believe hypothesize about a "fix" for this reason.

In my original post when I said that "this was a small sample" I was actually refering to what info I posted. I strongly encourage people on both sides of the argument to read the entire page. There is about 5 times the information, both hand and percentages, that I posted here. It is imperative that we all educate ourselves to the fullest degree, especially when you are dealing with a game like poker where there is more to learn than you will ever be able to absorb.

Poker tracking software, while not reccomended for the casual player or weeked warrior, is an invaluable tool for any serious online player. It gives you more information than you could imagine. The rgp thread where I got the above statistics is a perfect example of the information obtained using it and shows you on a 100% accurate basis exactly where your game may contain leaks. It leaves nothing, absolutely nothing, to the imagination, its all spelled out in statistical form and black and white.

XD mentioned that he is in the process of tracking play at a particular site due to his recent string of bad beats and suckouts. He has remained fairly convinced that the site rigging the game isn't to blame, but is tracking his play there to affirm or disconfirm his suspicions. He will be processing these results only when he has a sufficient sample group so that the numbers will be as accurate as possible. In doing this he is refraining from jumping on the bandwagon of conspiracy, and taking the initiative to actually investigate this himself.

I further encourage anyone who still has suspicions about this, to do the same as XD and do your own research sample. The software isn't insanely expensive and is easily abtained. Why continue to post suspicion and unfounded allegation when it is so simple to confirm whether or not you were correct in your theory?
 
twizzybop

twizzybop

Legend
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Total posts
2,380
Chips
0
You can't argue with raw data, and that's what is provided here

Of course you can. You've allready forgot that I enjoy and study math. Raw data is just that, sampling based apon some #'s. Now if that same # hands were done that Raw data would be completly diffrent then the 1st one.

This is like saying 60 out of 100 people surveyed like oranges. Yet if you did another sample it could be 70 out of 100 or even 10 out of 100.

Only data from hands where a flop was dealt is used in the following percentages.
Then of course this only data from hands where the flop was dealt. Now, Now if you are going to do a sample, lets make it a complete sample. The data is now skewed cause the sample is incomplete.

Puuulease when you are going to actually come up with something. Come up with something that is complete and not skewed.
 
IrishDave

IrishDave

A Member
Joined
May 13, 2005
Total posts
1,960
Chips
0
I've seen a lot of strange things while playing online; however, I still play. I'm just more aware that "action hands" seem to happen and that no hand is unbeatable. It's always nice to rationalize our weaknesses by blaming the establishment. As I look over some of the "bad beats" I've taken, in most of them I should have bailed but the riverrat in me made me stay in the pot. When you can lay down pocket aces or kings when you feel you're beat, you're ready to go to the next level. When you whine about your aces or kings being cracked - stay at the freerolls and micro games...
 
C

Cardealer

Guest
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Total posts
15
Chips
0
I had the same problem playing at Paradise in the lower stakes room such as 10/20cent but as I progressed into higher stakes I did realize that the junk cards and bad beats were strongly fewer. :icon_shak Thanks for the %'s that was interesting.
 
diabloblanco

diabloblanco

Guest
Joined
May 30, 2005
Total posts
1,198
Chips
0
Twizzybop- you argue just to hear your fingers clicking on the keyboard, don't you?

Go read the entire thread for yourself. All 37 plus thousand hands are doccumented. And puuuuuuulease, be rational instead of arguing with fact because you simply don't like the person presenting the information.

*edit*

I DON'T MEAN THIS THREAD. READ THE THREAD I LINKED TO IN MY ORIGINAL POST.
 
Last edited:
twizzybop

twizzybop

Legend
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Total posts
2,380
Chips
0
FIVE CARD BOARD ANALYSIS:
(Note that only data for hands where a river was dealt are used. Hands where no river was dealt are skipped. This will bias the data to include only times where a showdown was seen.)


Notice the part about bias.. Now reapply that bias to pre-flop's and flops. You get the picture.
 
diabloblanco

diabloblanco

Guest
Joined
May 30, 2005
Total posts
1,198
Chips
0
Twizzybop- you have got to be kidding me. That is only refering to the particular section of hand analysis where a five card board was flopped. They can't include partial boards because that sections analysis is specifically for a full board. Since you are such a math buff, explain to me how you would get a sampling of hands for analyzation if no sampling was accurate because it may not be the exact same on the next sampling? Your adamant defense of a unproven theory is amazing to me.

I have said it many times, but it bears repeating: If you, or anyone can prove this theory with a sampling of even a third the size of this one, please do so. Even if you can't do it yourself, I challenge you to research the net for such proof. My information came from rec.gambling.poker a google newsgroup that in the past, before spammin went crazy, was one of if not the best place to get information on the web. Make sure wherever you dig this information up, that it is credible (RGP, 2+2 etc.). I will even place an open proposition wager on this for anyone interested, up to 100 bucks. Put your money where your mouth is.

Twizzybop- you have got to be kidding me. That is only refering to the particular section of hand analysis where a five card board was flopped. They can't include partial boards because that sections analysis is specifically for a full board. Since you are such a math buff, explain to me how you would get a sampling of hands for analyzation if no sampling was accurate because it may not be the exact same on the next sampling? Your adamant defense of an unproven theory is amazing to me.

I have said it many times, but it bears repeating: If you, or anyone can prove this theory with a sampling of even a third the size of this one, please do so. Even if you can't do it yourself, I challenge you to research the net for such proof. My information came from rec.gambling.poker a google newsgroup that in the past, before spammin went crazy, was one of if not the best place to get information on the web. Make sure wherever you dig this information up, that it is credible (RGP, 2+2 etc.). I will even place an open proposition wager on this for anyone interested, up to 100 bucks. Put your money where your mouth is.
 
Last edited:
twizzybop

twizzybop

Legend
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Total posts
2,380
Chips
0
Your adamant defense of a unproven theory is amazing to me.

LOL Unproven?? I haven't even scratched the surface yet to even remotely start to disprove it. Like I said "We will have to agree to disagree"

But I have done a tiny sample once just for giggles. I sampled out of 170 hands, so yes it is tiny. That a pocket pair was dealt once out of every 7 hands. Those yes were both the seen and unseen. Doesn't mean alot of anything, however I have also witnessed out of 4 straight rounds in hold-em, pocket aces were dealt 3 of those 4 times. Still doesn't mean alot of anything.

However being that I am going to be off line for awhile. Bet you will be celebrating :)
I will however answer this about sampling. It does give some sort of idea about the general subject. The more sampling done abut the subject, the more idea one can get.
Reminds me of the saying "That no 2 snowflakes are alike"
There was sampling done to try to prove this theory, yet however you can't compare a snowflake that fell in say Chicago in 1912 to a snowflake that fell in Moscow in 2000.
See how the massive sampling can be done but not proven or disproven in either direction.
 
robwhufc

robwhufc

Cardschat Elite
Joined
May 25, 2005
Total posts
5,587
Chips
0
Whilst i don't believe poker is rigged (unless i'm on a losing run), I don't see how this analysis proves anything. One of the "rigged" conspiratists arguments are that there are more "action hands". Analysing one person's hands doesn't show what his opponents had when he was dealt big hands (i.e everytime he was dealt AA, someone else on the table may have been dealt KK). I'm sure even the most ardent conspiratist wouldn't expect an individual's hands to be anything other than average.
 
R

rk92559

Guest
Joined
Jul 10, 2005
Total posts
40
Chips
0
Yo, Twizzy..give it up man, All that data coming from someone that doesn't play online poker, and using someone elses stats to blatantly show its never juiced, should crush any opinion you might have.I play both, mostly online, about 600 hands a day or more. In the last 3 months, won over 7,000 in mtts. But I am clueless about what I think is suspicious about online poker?? You probably play alot online too, but you have to bow to someones superior knowlege, that doesn't even play online....go figure.
 
K

kobe5632

Guest
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Total posts
13
Chips
0
rat

what are u talkin about rat i didnt understand any of that so cool
 
Last edited by a moderator:
R

Red2121

Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Total posts
35
Chips
0
NAH!

HMM! A LOT HAS BEEN SAID TO PROVE THAT ONLINE POKER IS RIGGED> I DONT TINK THAT IT IS AT ALL BUT I GUSS WE WILL NEVER!! KNOW
 
diabloblanco

diabloblanco

Guest
Joined
May 30, 2005
Total posts
1,198
Chips
0
Twizzybop- you're exactly right, agree to disagree and move on. I'm bored with it at this point. People should Google the damn thing and research it themselves. You'll never agree its legit and ill never agree its rigged.

Rk- Twizzy=female just so you know. And what does my being a cash game player have to do with anything. If you knew anything about me you would know that I used to play online then quit about 2.5 yrs ago to focus on live play. I liked it enough and was proffitable enough that I kept doing it. I don't need to have an online pissing contest with the likes of you to prove what topics I am qualified enough to speak on. You have still failed to do the one thing that would lend credence to your busted conspiracy theory, provide one shred of proof that you're right. Remember I have an open $100 prop bet that you or anyone else can't do it. Ill even make you a special deal. Agree to the folowing terms for a real wager:
1.) If you don't use pokertracker you have to buy it and start.
2.)Pick a site of your choice
3.) 600 hands a day, 5 days a week, that's 3000 hands. 10 weeks and 30,000 hands later, you post your results. If you prove its rigged, I lose...if not, you lose. Ill wager as much as you want. Also, if I lose, in addition to the prop I will pay for your poker tracker (if you don't already own it). Should be a lock for you rk, take the bet. Any stakes your bankroll can stand. To paraphrase Amarillo Slim Preston...If something is worth arguing over, ill just shut up and bet on it.

What's funny to me, is that the most knowledgeable members of this forum are the ones on the right side of this discussion. That also holds true for every other forum I have or do frequent. If this one wasn't as civil as it is, you tin-foil-hatters would have to be wearing fire proof suits for all the flames you would be getting. I'm starting to think civility is the reason you guys are still digging your heels in on this subject. Maybe if you got told to STFU or provide evidence, or called a fish enough times, or just mocked, laughed at, and ridiculed you wouldn't still be sticking to your guns. Its a lot easier to talk shiat about me and what I don't know and how my posted information is BS than it is to be flamed by an entire board.

Tell ya what. Venture out to one of the older, deeply rooted poker communities online, register, then make your very first post about online poker being juiced or rigged. You will be flamed, told to use the search function as n00bs have posted this a billion times, and generally flamed to hell and back again. Don't let it deter you. You must fight on and champion the cause, for it is just, and good. Even in the face of adversity or certain defeat be steadfast in your beliefs, do not falter.

This is comical to me.

P.S. RK- if you take my proposition bet you will have to have the cash available at the start of the hand tracking period to have a mod/admin keep in trust and I will do likewise. I don't know you, and you don't know me, that just keeps it clean. Waiting to hear from you:)

Diablo
 
R

rk92559

Guest
Joined
Jul 10, 2005
Total posts
40
Chips
0
In which posts did I say I thought it was absolutely rigged?? I have said over and over, I don't think they are rigging every game, but I do think they juice the flops. I don't need a poker tracker download to tell me 3 sets of quads, and a straight flush in 60 hands seems a little much! 2 of those quads were mine, why would I bitch about rigging if it was to my benefit?? Thats what all you so called "informed posters" overlook. The minute someone has any suspicions of rigging, or juiced flops etc....all of a sudden they are whining losers, blaming their bad play on the site. And the "informed posters" know all about how sites do everything, even if they can't say for sure either way. The RNG party was using, has already been found to have repeating patterns, that is admitted. (Read the article on TRNG on pokerchamps), then go back in archives of your major forums, and see how many "informed" people wrote scathing remarks to anyone that mentioned it might. Anytime you are playing on a computer programmed game, there is always room for suspicion. Slot machines , poker machines, video Keno etc...use the same rngs, and you win when they allow you to. I don't know what nickel and dime poker you are playing, or where. What Casino do you frequent?? But from here, I can tell the cards are marked, the 2 guys at the end of the table probably are colluding, the dealer is favoring the pretty girl at the table!! That would be hard for me to prove, because I am not there, nor have been there, So my opinion would be based on what I am told, or conclusions I come up with on my own.Very much like yours! If you like, I can aquire the number and cash amount of the MTTs I have won or hit final table at and maybe that would lend a little credibility to my posts. And I do not hide where I play, or what city I am from, (Hell?? and Smokey card rooms??) real poker rooms do not allow smoking. Lets see, all I have heard from you is how much money you take off everyone. Where? How much?? Ever won anything you can document?? Anyone can say they are an expert and really rake in the chips from donkeys....but if you have no proof, your no better off than the people claiming online poker is rigged.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top