Joined: Oct '09
Location: Spain
Age: 60 (M)
Posts: 2851
Posted by hooley99:
Posted by IslandJack:
Wow! Read the whole thing and talk about unscientific (unless I missed something?)
Sorry Hooley, but what you just wrote here is just plain nonsense IMO.
Just about ALL "paint cards" are in all players Ranges. From 7 down, most cards are NOT in most people's Ranges. Of course you will see a much higher % in the cards you eventually get to see at the end of a hand! Where do you get your percentages confirming a "juiced deck" or not? You just grab them out of thin air as far as I can read.
It's the same with all these threads. Starts off with some basic math and very basic satistics, and goes on to completely fall apart when a "point" has to be proven. As far as I can tell, the real Math stops with the card counting and the explanation of what a "juiced deck" can be, and then concludes with a very "emotional" statement with absolutely no basis in mathematics or statistical analysis.
Why?
Yes, I see your point. All hole cards would have to be exposed in order to do a proper analysis.
How about if we just counted paint cards that we see on the board? Surely that would give a fairly clear picture over several hundred hands. In fact, i'm going to go do that now on stars. I'll let you know how it goes.
That´s where the real problem with all these issues pops up. To make ANY kind of statistical analysis, you need a large enough sample size. If you look up the statistics of possible Holdem combinations at a 9/10-man table, you will be more than surprised. It could almost be defined as endless.
It´s commonly assumed that you need 100.000+ hands to start to get a clear picture of whether or not a site is dealing correctly. That´s where site-mining sites come in, or the multi-table regulars with databases like Holdem Manager who have 100.000´s of hands as sample sizes to calculate probability from.
Trying to prove a point with 500 or 5.000 hands as a database means absolutely nothing, as the statistical varience of the game will nowhere nearly be covered.
Joined: Feb '11
Location: Canada
Age: 39 (M)
Posts: 1660
Hi Hooley99,
I did take some time to look at your first article link and as mentioned it recognizes the possibility of juicing but doesn't claim to have proof of who is juicing. Similarly with the article you posted, it indicates a means but not an actual implementation.
It's possible for sites to play unfair, but if you keep track of your play and find that you're profitable, does it matter? In the end juiced or not, your opponent doesn't have an advantage over you and you will still be rewarded for playing smart poker.
Does anyone know of a data mining pool that publishes their results?
Joined: Aug '10
Location: Indonesia
Age: 43 (M)
Posts: 68
Posted by IslandJack:
Posted by hooley99:
Posted by IslandJack:
Wow! Read the whole thing and talk about unscientific (unless I missed something?)
Sorry Hooley, but what you just wrote here is just plain nonsense IMO.
Just about ALL "paint cards" are in all players Ranges. From 7 down, most cards are NOT in most people's Ranges. Of course you will see a much higher % in the cards you eventually get to see at the end of a hand! Where do you get your percentages confirming a "juiced deck" or not? You just grab them out of thin air as far as I can read.
It's the same with all these threads. Starts off with some basic math and very basic satistics, and goes on to completely fall apart when a "point" has to be proven. As far as I can tell, the real Math stops with the card counting and the explanation of what a "juiced deck" can be, and then concludes with a very "emotional" statement with absolutely no basis in mathematics or statistical analysis.
Why?
Yes, I see your point. All hole cards would have to be exposed in order to do a proper analysis.
How about if we just counted paint cards that we see on the board? Surely that would give a fairly clear picture over several hundred hands. In fact, i'm going to go do that now on stars. I'll let you know how it goes.
That's where the real problem with all these issues pops up. To make ANY kind of statistical analysis, you need a large enough sample size. If you look up the statistics of possible Holdem combinations at a 9/10-man table, you will be more than surprised. It could almost be defined as endless.
It's commonly assumed that you need 100.000+ hands to start to get a clear picture of whether or not a site is dealing correctly. That's where site-mining sites come in, or the multi-table regulars with databases like Holdem Manager who have 100.000's of hands as sample sizes to calculate probability from.
Trying to prove a point with 500 or 5.000 hands as a database means absolutely nothing, as the statistical varience of the game will nowhere nearly be covered.
Hope that helps.
I see your point, but we're not talking about hands or card combinations here; were only looking at individual cards. hell, maybe I should just make myself a 52 sided dice and be done with it.
Joined: May '08
Location: Lithuania
Age: 39 (M)
Posts: 10090
man why do you put so much thought on the topic which is absolutely worthless you can read many info about this and that, do plenty of research yourself, but if you are not "insider" you will have no proof- so all you're doing is wasting your time- and besides it's up to you- you can play online or not
Joined: Aug '10
Location: Indonesia
Age: 43 (M)
Posts: 68
This proves nothing as you say, but just for a bit of fun, I counted all exposed paint cards (on the board only) over 100 hands on pokerstars. This is what I got;
454 board cards 179 paint cards (10, J, Q, K, A only)
So that means the paint cards accounted for approximately 39.4% of all exposed board cards. That's pretty close to the 38.5% average.
Joined: May '09
Location: India
Age: 37 (M)
Posts: 4873
Posted by hooley99: And, remember that the total of all 5 �paint� cards (20) represents approximately 38.5% of the number of cards in the deck (52). If you have seen 15 cards, and 9 of those cards were �paint� cards, you�ve been witness to an anomoly�.60% of the cards were �action� cards.
It�s an anomoly because it�s happened once. In time, as you continue to watch the exposed cards, and continue to make the �paint� card percentage calculations, and continue to come up with numbers like 46%, 48%, 54%, 58%, 63%, 65%, and 69% (all exceeding the 52 card deck legitimate 38.5%),
1st of all this is just a theory and not a proof
2nd who is this dm vadnais?
3rd legitimate % value depends on sample size for 100 sample size - its between 24%-53% for 99.7% cases
4th if there was such gross differences, it would become evident on data analysis.
5th i'm not saying believe anything we post but check it yourself, use some mathematics and find it yourself. stop making silly assumptions based on some crazy theories and posting threads making ridiculous claims
Joined: Aug '10
Location: Indonesia
Age: 43 (M)
Posts: 68
Posted by SuperNoob:
Posted by hooley99: And, remember that the total of all 5 �paint� cards (20) represents approximately 38.5% of the number of cards in the deck (52). If you have seen 15 cards, and 9 of those cards were �paint� cards, you�ve been witness to an anomoly�.60% of the cards were �action� cards.
It�s an anomoly because it�s happened once. In time, as you continue to watch the exposed cards, and continue to make the �paint� card percentage calculations, and continue to come up with numbers like 46%, 48%, 54%, 58%, 63%, 65%, and 69% (all exceeding the 52 card deck legitimate 38.5%),
1st of all this is just a theory and not a proof
2nd who is this dm vadnais?
3rd legitimate % value depends on sample size for 100 sample size - its between 24%-53% for 99.7% cases
4th if there was such gross differences, it would become evident on data analysis.
5th i'm not saying believe anything we post but check it yourself, use some mathematics and find it yourself. stop making silly assumptions based on some crazy theories and posting threads making ridiculous claims
I never said that I had proof, and I haven't made any assumptions or ridiculous claims. My original post did not contain any opinion and was entirely objective. I merely posted a question to the community for clarification.
Joined: Mar '08
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 44 (M)
Posts: 6714
Posted by hooley99: I never said that I had proof, and I haven't made any assumptions or ridiculous claims. My original post did not contain any opinion and was entirely objective. I merely posted a question to the community for clarification.
And that's the problem, you speculate, the source you use does not have the info, yet think we might, why would we know more than the OG accuser? He does not name sites because he does not know and by naming sites without proof is slander and may end up in court.
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Australia
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 6483
Posted by hooley99:
Yes, I see your point. All hole cards would have to be exposed in order to do a proper analysis.
How about if we just counted paint cards that we see on the board? Surely that would give a fairly clear picture over several hundred hands. In fact, i'm going to go do that now on stars. I'll let you know how it goes.
Do it - use a program to grab the all the community cards, and open as many tables as stars will allow.. you don't even have to play at them, just open them all up and let it run for a couple weeks or so.
Joined: Feb '10
Location: Portugal
Age: 43 (M)
Posts: 998
I stopped playing on pokerstars cause the fucking site its making more than 5 millions per day in rake and still pushed up the rake this year to keep destryong low staks players like me. I dont believe the rigg the tables, a site that generates millions per day haver much to loose if people find a scam over there. I dont believe they cheat players but thye are a fucking b******t who are destroyng the players just for theyr own benefit.
Posted by kinogomes: I stopped playing on pokerstars cause the fucking site its making more than 5 millions per day in rake and still pushed up the rake this year to keep destryong low staks players like me. I dont believe the rigg the tables, a site that generates millions per day haver much to loose if people find a scam over there. I dont believe they cheat players but thye are a fucking b******t who are destroyng the players just for theyr own benefit.
That's pretty much how I see it too! I agree that the rakes are too high, but that's not only on pokerstars IMO. Why isn't there a poker site offering better rake for their players, everyone would move there, no...? I love SnGs for example but online the rake is too high, long term they're basicly taking the profit you would normally make.
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Portugal
Age: 44 (M)
Posts: 4827
I know what you are talking about, but I don’t know how can we find information about that. There is no explanation about that in the sites I have looked for (PS and Party). I started by looking in terms and conditions, making an extensive search for some key words for this theme and I haven’t found anything. You don’t refer any site, but do you know any who informs of the use of juiced decks? Just for conclusion, I would like to leave a statement about this: I can’t see the point of juiced decks at online poker. It’s online, it’s software work, what’s the point?
Joined: Feb '11
Location: Canada
Age: 39 (M)
Posts: 1660
Posted by hooley99:
Posted by IslandJack:
Posted by hooley99:
Posted by IslandJack:
Wow! Read the whole thing and talk about unscientific (unless I missed something?)
Sorry Hooley, but what you just wrote here is just plain nonsense IMO.
Just about ALL "paint cards" are in all players Ranges. From 7 down, most cards are NOT in most people's Ranges. Of course you will see a much higher % in the cards you eventually get to see at the end of a hand! Where do you get your percentages confirming a "juiced deck" or not? You just grab them out of thin air as far as I can read.
It's the same with all these threads. Starts off with some basic math and very basic satistics, and goes on to completely fall apart when a "point" has to be proven. As far as I can tell, the real Math stops with the card counting and the explanation of what a "juiced deck" can be, and then concludes with a very "emotional" statement with absolutely no basis in mathematics or statistical analysis.
Why?
Yes, I see your point. All hole cards would have to be exposed in order to do a proper analysis.
How about if we just counted paint cards that we see on the board? Surely that would give a fairly clear picture over several hundred hands. In fact, i'm going to go do that now on stars. I'll let you know how it goes.
That's where the real problem with all these issues pops up. To make ANY kind of statistical analysis, you need a large enough sample size. If you look up the statistics of possible Holdem combinations at a 9/10-man table, you will be more than surprised. It could almost be defined as endless.
It's commonly assumed that you need 100.000+ hands to start to get a clear picture of whether or not a site is dealing correctly. That's where site-mining sites come in, or the multi-table regulars with databases like Holdem Manager who have 100.000's of hands as sample sizes to calculate probability from.
Trying to prove a point with 500 or 5.000 hands as a database means absolutely nothing, as the statistical varience of the game will nowhere nearly be covered.
Hope that helps.
I see your point, but we're not talking about hands or card combinations here; were only looking at individual cards. hell, maybe I should just make myself a 52 sided dice and be done with it.
That would be a pretty epic and bad ass die. Possibly even cooler than the gigantic 100 sided die. A poker die would be cool. Everyone rolls two under a box at the start and then add more to the center. That'd be kinda funny. I'd buy one. d52 for the win.
Joined: Dec '10
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 70 (M)
Posts: 206
I have to say that my initial thoughts on the cards that hit the board when I am constantly busted with a lower pair of Ks or Qs the A somehow always hits on the river to bust me.
Now also when I have a set or trips how I seem to be busted with a straight to A and yes the villian always hits the board on the river I have to say that I play on many sites so my conclussion is that the sites that affect me the most are 888 which is the top by far on my list then stars coming a close second, I also have started playing on paddy power poker were I seem to be getting hit on the river more or less the same.
Also paddy power poker uses the same affiliated poker provider as do William Hill poker, and about 4 more so they also must be added to my list.
I have to say that this will be used to increase the speed at which all tournaments conclude to a finish, because if online poker was played with the same outs as in live play then the online games could continue much longer than it does at this time by the site using this method to finish the games more quickly.
Thats my view on this matter and I think it may hold up if questioned.
you can read many info about this and that, do plenty of research yourself, but if you are not "insider" you will have no proof- so all you're doing is wasting your time- and besides it's up to you- you can play online or not 
