BankrollMob Forum

BankrollMob Forum » Poker Forum » PokerStars on Rivers


Page 3 of 4Go to page: « Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next »

   0   
hummmmmm 60 sngs at 0.02$ a piece if my maths right thats a whole 1.20$? id be more angry about playing that many torts and only earning 50cents lol u must be the most patient person i have ever met! try larger buyin torts and the game play will be a hell of alot better considering your playing 990 ppl for a first place prize of maybe 7$? in my oppinion thats probably worse then playing the 25$ freerolls. the 1.10$-3.30$ tournys are really easy money and worth playing

     
   0   
lol dont know what i was talking about here Tongue Big Smile

     
   0   
fcumred you're just an embarassment mate. Check it out, google it - people analysing over 1million hands on stars, party - and other sites. All the results ALWAYS show within 2 standard deviations of expected results. What this means is I win you lose.

You can spout the same old rigtard action flop BS all day long, but the empirical data that suggests this doesn't happen screams so much louder than your crappy rants. You just can't argue with scientific evidence with vague speculation. I'll laugh at you every time. I'm not even arguing with you- I showed my girlfriend too - she's not even into poker - but she still laughed at all your asses.. Why ? Because she knows that arguments have to be rational and evidence must be scientifically emprical. Not a couple screenies LMFAO.

It's such a joke they way you all think a couple stuipid screen shots somehow prooves your dumbass theories.

I know I haven't posted the data, because I'm not allowed - it breaks forum guidlines. But I seriously promise you, if you just stop talking BS for one moment and actually google what you are talking about - you will see all the results always and I mean ALWAYS suggest that the deal is legitimate. I'm sorry, you lose.

Edited by jessthehuman (18 June 2011 @ 02:15 GMT)


     
   0   
Posted by arsenej1:
hummmmmm 60 sngs at 0.02$ a piece if my maths right thats a whole 1.20$? id be more angry about playing that many torts and only earning 50cents lol u must be the most patient person i have ever met! try larger buyin torts and the game play will be a hell of alot better considering your playing 990 ppl for a first place prize of maybe 7$? in my oppinion thats probably worse then playing the 25$ freerolls. the 1.10$-3.30$ tournys are really easy money and worth playing


thx for the tip man, I would like to play on those buy in but I just don't have the bankroll, I quited depositing a while ago, it just doesnt pay for me Sad the only time I play online now is just when I don't have nothing to do so i just play freerolls and micro micro micro micro buy ins when I get something out of a freeeroll.

     
   0   
if u like freeroles, not sure if ur country allows partypoker accounts? but id say the have the best by far! 1500$ every sunday with usually under 900ppl. abuncha 250$ 20pointers with 6-700 ppl everyday and lots more! easy money there too just sit and watch ppl push for the first half hour and your golden lol

     
   0   
Posted by arsenej1:
if u like freeroles, not sure if ur country allows partypoker accounts? but id say the have the best by far! 1500$ every sunday with usually under 900ppl. abuncha 250$ 20pointers with 6-700 ppl everyday and lots more! easy money there too just sit and watch ppl push for the first half hour and your golden lol



Any requirements for the 1500$ freeroll?

     
   0   
Posted by smokim:
Posted by arsenej1:
if u like freeroles, not sure if ur country allows partypoker accounts? but id say the have the best by far! 1500$ every sunday with usually under 900ppl. abuncha 250$ 20pointers with 6-700 ppl everyday and lots more! easy money there too just sit and watch ppl push for the first half hour and your golden lol



Any requirements for the 1500$ freeroll?


20 points ! i guess . . .

     
   0   
@ fcumred
If it was anyone else I would have ignored this thread but seeing this coming from u who has made pretty intelligent contribution to forum in the past im putting in my thoughts as well
First of all I have never playd at pokerstars so I don’t knw how the river is there or if there are too many action hands.
Nor do I say that rigging the software is totally impossible but I do believe its unlikely as more rigging you do more complex it wil make the calculations for the software and more stress it will be on the server and more likely it will go unnoticed.

But regarding you saying its not possible to prove anything, I have to disagree. as long as you have a large sample of hands and time/ sources/ brain to analyse them you can test most of the things , though many times you will not get 100% accurate results but you will get pretty close to answer a particular question. And it'll be hard job doing it most of the times.
Below just an example how to test for rigging of software for more action -

First you need a large sample of hands to analyse the data. ( we only taking ring games sample cos generating action flops in tournaments wont be generating extra rake for site unless its a rebuy/addon tournament, but if you wanna analyze u can use them too)
Obviously analysing this big sample will be difficult, so you can limit the size by using what is called random sampling.
Random sampling is method to eliminate selection bias based on principle that a small sample selected randomly ( not haphazardly, these two are different terms in statistics) from a large sample is representative of the large sample. based on what is to be found there are formulas to calculate the required smaller sample size along with confidence interval / standard devoation for which the results are valid but would be hard to calculate for this analysis.
You also need a control sample ( doesn’t need to be big) e.g. sample hands from an ideal random rng (which would be hard to obtain). hands from live games/ hands from an automatic reliable card shuffler would be acceptable too

Then after you have your sample. You need to analyse each hand and give it an action score.
For that you need to define criteria for this scoring system. e.g. in HU a hand where both opponents are sure to go allin could be given 10 and a hand where both would surely fold can be given 0 score . inbetween scores can be given accordingly.
Criteria can be based on what type of rigging you expect the software to be doing. And obviously you need a good knowledge of poker to do that , more rational your criteria are more accurate results you will be getting.

Next you need to plot separate graphs ( action score on x axis, no of hands on y axis) for 2 player/ 6 player/ 10 player- preflop/ postflop/ turn/ river
Or any other graphs based on your individual criteria.
If it was complete random you should be getting a bell shaped curve with both minimum action and max action score on either end. ( atleast I expect it to be if you have the scoring criteria right enough)
But if it was rigged you would see what is called skewing, e.g. if software was rigged, the bulk of the graph would be at right side instead of being at the center (known as negative skew / left skew)

Now to remove subjective bias, 10 people/ groups of people can be asked to analyse the hands similarly but with their own scoring criteria based on their poker knowledge and experience. Then either their graphs merged or scores averaged out for individual hands to make a final graph.

And if someone can put this scoring system into code in a software then all the hands can be analysed.

More complex you make it more hard work it will require and more closer it will be to actual results.

Of course its tough and time consuming but its pretty close to provable

     
   0   
Posted by smokim:
Posted by arsenej1:
if u like freeroles, not sure if ur country allows partypoker accounts? but id say the have the best by far! 1500$ every sunday with usually under 900ppl. abuncha 250$ 20pointers with 6-700 ppl everyday and lots more! easy money there too just sit and watch ppl push for the first half hour and your golden lol



Any requirements for the 1500$ freeroll?


i do believe its 20/25 points...called sunday bikeride with tonyG...take him out and u get a 640$? ticket to the monthly million....problem is tony rarly shows lol

     
   0   
could you please define bad beat....
maybe you're right and have an impressive streak of bad luck,
but with a little more insight into the hands played someone might
actually help you with spotting weakness in your game.

I have just seen tooooooooooo many people complain about
bad luck and rigged online poker when in the end they have
just played badly.

And A10 vs. 93 is not enough info to judge a hand

------------
Posted by jessthehuman:
fcumred you're just an embarassment mate. Check it out, google it - people analysing over 1million hands on stars, party - and other sites. All the results ALWAYS show within 2 standard deviations of expected results. What this means is I win you lose.


If You throw a Dice, which has 6 possible outcomes then I believe we were told in school that you had to throw it at least 100 times to start seeing the results you would expect by doing the math first, that is an almost equal appearance of all 6 outcomes.

In Poker there are almost 2.6 Million possible combinations of 5 cards with a 52 card deck.

I havent studied math, but i think that 1 million hands might not be a big enough sample to have a statistical value, because not even all combinations could appear in this sample. Someone with a decent mathematical background might solve this question for us.

Seriously - I play so many hands of online poker - for over 2 years now I've played probably over 3hrs a day on average of online poker and generally playing 3-6 tables at a time..

Same problem here.... comes down to 900.000 hands played and might therefor not represent the math. ( I assumed you play 100 hands an hour on 5 tables for 3 hours on 300 days a year for 2 years )

The other thing that You would not recognize in such an analysis is if there are "preferred players". While the overall outcome could still be statistically OK the software could feed the donkeys from time to time to keep the loosing players playing. Rake maximizing bets could be preferred this way in huge pots without changing the stats after 1 million hands. They would prefer the donk move in expensive hands and let the good cards win a little more in small pots.

This way you would get a rake maximized, rigged game and still see stats that look natural.

I'm not saying it is this way. I only doubt that your example proves that it isnt this way.

Edited by kraemer (18 June 2011 @ 23:52 GMT)


     
   0   
Kraemer that is ridiculous.

You're completely missing the point of what is being tested. Basically - look at it this way - over 1 million hands you might have XXX amount of hands for example that went allin 70% vs 30% so you can see how many times the 70% hand won (should be close to 70%) obviously.

It has absolutely nothing to do with how many possible combinations you can make with a deck of cards. I am really not sure how you thought your silly dice story, combined with the total combinations that can be made with a deck of cards, somehow invalidates the studies done using 1 million + hands of online poker..Incredible.

Also - even *IF* you're correct (you're not, you just have a very poor level of understanding). Then look at it this way - whilst we NEVER can absolutely prove it isn't rigged - but you obviously will dismiss every 1million hand sample that says otherwise, why on earth has NO ONE ever been able to produce 1 million hands that show it IS rigged ??? You would think, if it WAS indeed rigged, at some point, in 1 million hands, it would show up.

"The other thing that You would not recognize in such an analysis is if there are "preferred players". While the overall outcome could still be statistically OK the software could feed the donkeys from time to time to keep the loosing players playing. Rake maximizing bets could be preferred this way in huge pots without changing the stats after 1 million hands. They would prefer the donk move in expensive hands and let the good cards win a little more in small pots."

This is so incredibly dumb it is not even funny. Either it is rigged and the outcome is being modified and in which case by its very definition it MUST be able to be exposed by an empirical measurement / analyses of hand histories. Or it isn't. You can't have your cake and eat it too sweetheart - this should have been taught to you in primary school sweety...


------------
Posted by kraemer:
Seriously - I play so many hands of online poker - for over 2 years now I've played probably over 3hrs a day on average of online poker and generally playing 3-6 tables at a time..

Same problem here.... comes down to 900.000 hands played and might therefor not represent the math. ( I assumed you play 100 hands an hour on 5 tables for 3 hours on 300 days a year for 2 years )


What on earth is wrong with you ? Did I ever suggest this was proof it wasn't rigged ? My whole point mentioning this was to say, I play a LOT of fucking poker. And how come - I never ever seen any of this crap that you rigtard muppets babble on about.

------------
Posted by kraemer:
I havent studied math


believe me, it is obvious.

------------
@SuperNoob - you're absolutely correct - and this is what pisses me off so much. Is it IS provable. The problem is, I am yet to meet a single rigtard that has even the most basic understanding of mathematical concepts. So when people DO do these long/complex analyses, the rigtad of course is completely incapable of comprehending the results. And just calls BS. And on we go. If just a single rigtard had the intelligence and dedication required to actually do this analyses, then they could tell all their rigtard buddies.. (of course, they would just shout he was a "shill" all along and he's older posts were just to build trust).

Edited by jessthehuman (19 June 2011 @ 03:04 GMT)


     
   0   
I won't play turbo anything in holdem. It's an invitation to a coin flip fest inherent in it's very nature. I was given $25 on PS and have almost doubled it. Cashed in micro buy in mtt's and played 50/fifties to increase my bankroll. When I first started off variance hit and my bankroll went down I played tighter to compensate and adjusted my hand range to suit. Paying strict attention to position helps as well. I don't use any electronic aids when I play...need somene to teach me how to use one. I learned to read boards and watch my competition intently. Not much else I can do. Pick your games wisely, play an A game,and you may acquire the desired results.

It's only a bad beat if your all in on any street before and including the river. IMO bad beats are the result of a failed expection caused by acting on incomplete information. Would one go all in after the river when they could possibly know they're beat? Not likely. I've learned the hard way that in holdem aggression is folly without synconicity. A lesson well learned!

Edited by rbdflyboy (19 June 2011 @ 05:01 GMT)


     
   0   
You're completely missing the point of what is being tested. Basically - look at it this way - over 1 million hands you might have XXX amount of hands for example that went allin 70% vs 30% so you can see how many times the 70% hand won (should be close to 70%) obviously.


Obviously not. Probability is only true for "large numbers". And the number has to be large compared to the possible outcomes. What if in 1 million hands You have XXX = 3 ????

If You were right then it would mean that if my sample was only one hand we would split the pot 70/30
. But one of us takes the pot ( or split 50/50 ). So the game would be rigged, because You have 100 and 0 percent ( or 50 / 50) instead of 70/30 whereas in your example it would "obviously" be close to 70/30.

Just one hand is an extrem example, but it prooves that there is a minimum sample needed to expect meaningfull results.

See: Your chance of rolling a 6 with a dice in 6 throws is 100% (mathematically) because You get 6 1:6 chances. But this doesnt mean You roll a 6 with only 6 tries everytime. It can take much longer. A sample of 6 throws is not statistically relevant. Not rolling a 6 in 6 tries doesn't proove the game is rigged, while not rolling a 6 in 100000 tries is a very strong indicator.

My question was if 1 Million hands in poker represent a sample that allows to expect statistically correct results.

So: Please help out my poor understanding by posting a mathematical method of figuring out the minimum sample needed for a certain number of outcomes. Because then I can see if 1 Million hands really make up a meaningful sample. Just getting louder isn't an argument

You would think, if it WAS indeed rigged, at some point, in 1 million hands, it would show up.


You insist on 1 million hands being a correct sample. OK. I got that point. But now please come up with some arguments and math. If I roll the dice half the times of its outcomes ( 3 times ) I am not getting a good statistic. Why should I get a good statistic when i play half the number of outcomes in poker ?


What on earth is wrong with you ? Did I ever suggest this was proof it wasn't rigged ? My whole point mentioning this was to say, I play a LOT of fucking poker. And how come - I never ever seen any of this crap that you rigtard muppets babble on about.


You did !
You would think, if it WAS indeed rigged, at some point, in 1 million hands, it would show up.


But it is not about what You think! It is about if a statistic is mathematically correct or not. And I believe mathematicians have a way of calculating the necessary size of the sample. Do this for poker, post it here and You can proove Your point.

Just because 1 million hands sound a lot to You it doesnt mean it represents a "large number" which is needed to expect the outcomes to reflect the math

You're completely missing the point of what is being tested. Basically - look at it this way - over 1 million hands you might have XXX amount of hands for example that went allin 70% vs 30% so you can see how many times the 70% hand won (should be close to 70%) obviously.


And here's once again why this must not be true:
The other thing that You would not recognize in such an analysis is if there are "preferred players". While the overall outcome could still be statistically OK the software could feed the donkeys from time to time to keep the loosing players playing. Rake maximizing bets could be preferred this way in huge pots without changing the stats after 1 million hands. They would prefer the donk move in expensive hands and let the good cards win a little more in small pots.

This is so incredibly dumb it is not even funny. Either it is rigged and the outcome is being modified and in which case by its very definition it MUST be able to be exposed by an empirical measurement / analyses of hand histories. Or it isn't. You can't have your cake and eat it too sweetheart - this should have been taught to you in primary school sweety...


What You dont understand is that without any variance in the winning percentage You can generate a big difference in the expected value. The game would still be rigged

Say you are calling small stack all ins seven times and a big stack (has you covered) allin once. You always have aces and are up against kings. You should be winning about 7 in 8 times. What if the 7 winners were always against the small stacks, just for the software to steal your chips against the big stack. Would not show up in your analysis as rigged, but still it would be rigged. You get the expected 7/8 outcome but you would not get your expected value. And in the end this is what counts in poker. It's not how many hands you win but how many chips !

And by the way, I dont need to have a cake and eat it. I'll take the whole fucking bakery !

Edited by kraemer (19 June 2011 @ 13:04 GMT)


     
   +1   
You know what is the biggest problem with most of the people is - they start making assumptions without understanding the actual statement first.

We are comparing winning percentages here not individual hands.
If you wanna make things complicated obviously larger samples of hands will be required but that can be avoided with individual hand analysis/complicated scoring system which are more feasible.

Posted by jessthehuman:
You're completely missing the point of what is being tested. Basically - look at it this way - over 1 million hands you might have XXX amount of hands for example that went allin 70% vs 30% so you can see how many times the 70% hand won (should be close to 70%) obviously.

It has absolutely nothing to do with how many possible combinations you can make with a deck of cards. .


kraemer, you need to read this again and most important understand it
If we round off values, then there are only 100 values for winning % when both players went allin.
Im sure u can find required no of hands with x% win rate when the chips went allin in 1 million hands.

And regarding sample size calculation -
For a sample of hands collected randomly without any selection bias the formula for sample size required is -

n = {(t^2) x p x (1-p)} / (m^2)

Description:
n = required sample size
t = confidence level
p = estimated winning probability
m = margin of error/ confidence interval

The confidence interval (also called margin of error) is the plus-or-minus figure. For example, if you use a confidence interval of 4 and you get winning percentage of 60% you can be "sure" that between 56% (60-4) and 64% (60+4) that hand will win.

The confidence level tells you how sure you can be. the 95% confidence level means you can be 95% certain; the 99% confidence level means you can be 99% certain. Most researchers use the 95% confidence level.
confidence level at 95% (standard value of 1.96)
confidence level at 99% (standard value of 2.58)

So for hands with expected win% 50-50 ( lets ignore split pots) when both players went allin, confidence level - 99% , margin of error - 2

t = 2.58, p = 0.5, m = 0.02
Plz note max value of n will be for p = 0.5

Required sample size n = { 2.58 x 2.58 x 0.5 x 0.5} / (0.02 x 0.02)
n = 4160
Definitely u can find 4160 hands with 50% win rate in 1 million hands.

Posted by kraemer:
The other thing that You would not recognize in such an analysis is if there are "preferred players". While the overall outcome could still be statistically OK the software could feed the donkeys from time to time to keep the loosing players playing. Rake maximizing bets could be preferred this way in huge pots without changing the stats after 1 million hands. They would prefer the donk move in expensive hands and let the good cards win a little more in small pots.

Say you are calling small stack all ins seven times and a big stack (has you covered) allin once. You always have aces and are up against kings. You should be winning about 7 in 8 times. What if the 7 winners were always against the small stacks, just for the software to steal your chips against the big stack. Would not show up in your analysis as rigged, but still it would be rigged. You get the expected 7/8 outcome but you would not get your expected value. And in the end this is what counts in poker. It's not how many hands you win but how many chips !


Like I said you can do individual hand analysis, bit time consuming but will give desired results.

Posted by kraemer:
I havent studied math


It couldn't be more evident

     
   0   
wow supernoob....ill be the first to admit i was kicked out of high school the first 3years, then went back the forth and dropped out. if my math teachers could explain math the way u put it in your last post maybe id be doin somthing other then cutting up animals for a living. Cool
gotta say u come off as a complete genious to me Blink

     
   0   
well, never thought this thread could generate such a discussion. got to say I really learned a lot with some of u. I stoped posting a while ago but been reading all of them. Still think theres something about pokerstars but I'll just pllay tighter and bigger buy in the next time. Blink

     
   0   
Thank you SuperNoob - when I first read the reply to what I wrote I groaned, but you have done such a great response I don't have to bother.

Seriously, if there's another mob member of the year, I'll vote for you, not just because of threads like this, but I also really liked your response in the "hating doctors / stomach ulcer" thread. You give very solid advice and very well written posts.

Big +1 from me Thumbs Up

------------
Posted by kraemer:
What You dont understand is that without any variance in the winning percentage You can generate a big difference in the expected value. The game would still be rigged



Totally incorrect- I repeat - you cannot have your cake AND eat it too. By this I mean - the poker site cannot have legitimate deals AND also rig the deals. There is no possible way to do this and hide it from ALL types of analyses.

For example - if this is done by giving donkeys lucky cards on the turn or the river - then the EV value of hands on the flop would not match the actual value presented on the river/show-down. Or if this is achieved by dealing better cards, then the card-distribution won't match the correct probabilities (eg; too many AAs in 500,000 hands dealt,etc).

The point is , it really doesn't matter how they "achieve" it, I can promise you there would be a way to statistically determine whether it is being done or not. I challenge you to provide any example, that could be effectively hidden. You will not be able to do so. It is completely illogical (and mathematically impossible) to think that you could.

------------
Posted by kraemer:

Say you are calling small stack all ins seven times and a big stack (has you covered) allin once. You always have aces and are up against kings. You should be winning about 7 in 8 times. What if the 7 winners were always against the small stacks, just for the software to steal your chips against the big stack. Would not show up in your analysis as rigged, but still it would be rigged. You get the expected 7/8 outcome but you would not get your expected value. And in the end this is what counts in poker. It's not how many hands you win but how many chips !



If this is what you believed - then you would analyse your sample hands to see how often you won against big stacks vs how often against small stacks. You could compare this to general data regarding how often your allin was vs a big stack/small stack. This is my point (which you don't seem to be able to comprehend for some reason) - whatever your hypothesis is (regarding how they rig their software) you can devise a test for it. Always. This is the brilliant thing about scientific approach - as opposed to the rigtard approach - of just talking s**t.

Edited by jessthehuman (20 June 2011 @ 03:26 GMT)


     
   0   
ty arsene and jess
its just basic statistics, nothing genius in that. anyone who has been into some research will know this stuff.
honestly if i had time and a large enough sample of HU hands, i would love to do a comprehensive analysis myself ( might take a year or more though considering other more important commitments lol )
im sure pretty interesting results will come up especially in hands which didna reach showdown.

     
   0   
^^ I could quite easily write the computer software to analyse any type of pattern anyone was interested in, if somebody wanted to give me the hand histories..

The reason I am hesitant to pursue something like this is; I've seen it done on other major forums, discussions like this escalate until somebody actually goes to the effort of doing it and the rigtards just ignore/dismiss it anyway.

I would honestly completely totally lose my fucking s**t on here - if rigtards etc provided me with a significant sample of HH and I took the time out of my life to program the software/tests etc and then in the end I was just told I was making it up, or the results were insignificant etc.

The sad truth is, on EVERY single forum somebody has actually followed through with this research, when the results are published, not one rigtard even admits they were wrong or even admits there is anything to the analyse. Invariably it always comes down to one of two, or both, response
A) Why should we believe the data/findings ? (this is normally from the slightly more intelligent rigtard, who can comprehend what the results are actually saying
B) That proves nothing, my theory "xxxx" could not be tested in this way (this is your average complete idiot rigtard, that totally fails to understand scientific/mathematical/empirical analyses.

     
   0   
Posted by jessthehuman:
The reason I am hesitant to pursue something like this is; I've seen it done on other major forums, discussions like this escalate until somebody actually goes to the effort of doing it and the rigtards just ignore/dismiss it anyway.


and yet they come demanding this , proof of this, proof of that. sad really

     
Page 3 of 4Go to page: « Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next »

BankrollMob Forum » Poker Forum » PokerStars on Rivers

 
Forum Rules | Support & FAQ

Disclosure: BankrollMob may earn a commission based on the advertisement material on this site. #AD

© 2022 BankrollMob.com - All Rights Reserved CONTACT | ABOUT | PRIVACY & COOKIE POLICY | TERMS & CONDITIONS | NEWSLETTER | AFFILIATES | REPORT SPAM | ADVERTISING