Joined: May '09
Location: India
Age: 37 (M)
Posts: 4873
ok before anyone gets excited this is not a rigged thread
just posting results of a hand analysis done by a player on pokerstars and posted on 2p2 'forum (any1 interested can google themselves- 'is pokerstars rigged') i've no idea about the credibility or accuracy of the results. the person who did this has a good profit and ROI on pokerstars but has no rep on the forum.
************************************************************** for preflop allins sample size - 35291 Expected number of hands won: 18179.1053 Hands won: 18967
Standard dev: 87.64167106 Actual deviation: -787.8947 ****************************************************************
though a single study doesnt prove there is a problem with RNG, but deviation is significant around 9 SD. definitely means further analysis from other souces is needed.
it's too late for me and will check this thread tomorrow, hopefully things dont go out of control
Joined: May '08
Location: Lithuania
Age: 39 (M)
Posts: 10090
so what's your point- if this is not "jokerstars is rigged" thread, then what do you want to hear- yes the deviation is way too big, so what does that mean? are those numbers credible- maybe/maybe not...i told several times there is no point to try proving that a site is rigged- unless you are "insider" and really know there is something fishy...other than that- we can all wait and hope that full tilt story doesn't happen to riverstars
Joined: Mar '08
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 44 (M)
Posts: 6714
No problem there IMO, 2-3% out, actually quite close. As he has a good ROI/profit, not looked, you can assume he is getting it in more often than some with better hands, so there will be a higher deviation. As, a fish who goes AI with any PP would only go to prove RNGs are rigged.
Joined: May '09
Location: India
Age: 37 (M)
Posts: 4873
Posted by B1gfoot: As he has a good ROI/profit, not looked, you can assume he is getting it in more often than some with better hands, so there will be a higher deviation.
actually no, this standard deviation is based on his data and z score (absolute dev/standard deviation) shouldnt be that higher just because he's getting in with marginal hands.
but like u said he might be trying to prove RNGs are rigged as he's looking for a stake after a breakeven stretch. more he claims to be gud in statistics but claims site is rigged only after 1 analysis, no statistician wud do that.
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Australia
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 6483
Has anyone actually been following the 2+2 thread? What are people saying there.. ?This is the only large(ish) sample I've ever seen to come any where near 9 SD.
Joined: May '09
Location: Spain
Age: 49 (M)
Posts: 1331
Hi guys!!
SuperNoob, i don't see the problem in the deviation of the sample. Why? (if i understood well your post) For a RNG deviation analysis (in a system like a deck) we need a extremly huge number of hands. how huge? +billions.
In post like this is when i wish to have a better english.
SuperNoob, i don't see the problem in the deviation of the sample. Why? (if i understood well your post) For a RNG deviation analysis (in a system like a deck) we need a extremly huge number of hands. how huge? +billions.
You don't need that many samples to determine a significant deviation. 9 SD is a huge difference, that makes me think there was something wrong with the analyses, or indeed with the RNG.
I suppose that such a large deviation should show up for everybody, which should be easily reproducible.
Why aren't the people that start "rigged-threads" jumping all over this?
This is exactly the argument we use against them, that their claims are unsubstantiated. Here someone has gone through the actual trouble to measure it in a significant way, and yet no one comments...?
This might turn out to be the vindication for the "rigtards"... (although the argument against them wasn't based on whether a site was rigged or not, just against the unsubstantiated nature of their claims, so they are still wrong, even if it should turn out that they were right...).
More likely the results aren't calculated properly, or were doctored.
Joined: May '09
Location: India
Age: 37 (M)
Posts: 4873
Posted by jessthehuman: Has anyone actually been following the 2+2 thread? What are people saying there.. ?
dont think they took him seriously and there been no new posts i've seen results of bigger samples (around 1 mil) all of them within 2-3 sd, either this is outlier or an intentional/unintentional messed up hand analysis
Posted by Chartoule:
SuperNoob, i don't see the problem in the deviation of the sample. Why? (if i understood well your post) For a RNG deviation analysis (in a system like a deck) we need a extremly huge number of hands. how huge? +billions.
no you dont need that big sample, it can be easily assessed over smaller samples. but u need multiple samples to make a definite conclusion. many samples of thousands of hands is much better than 1 sample of billion hands
Joined: Aug '10
Location: Germany
Age: 52 (M)
Posts: 2219
There are so many possible combinations after allin situations and i saw so much sucks/60:40 or better that i can´t not longer believe in expected longterm winnings. Every situation is different, how many players are involved in a hand , odds/outs etc. and so i´m not interested in longterm statisctics.
Joined: May '09
Location: India
Age: 37 (M)
Posts: 4873
Posted by aatje: SuperNoob Quote:
many samples of thousands of hands is much better than 1 sample of billion hands
Are you sure this is true....??
So if you have 50 samples of 50.000 hands = 2.500.000 hands ( so a 2.500.000 hand sample)
You say thats better then a 1.000.000.000 hand sample ...?
its statistics, not simple arithmetic and thats one of the reasons you cant understand it's not possible for the sites to rig the software to the extent you people claim and get away with it.
regarding your question - already answered in above posts(which u have ignored) - reproducibility
it's a common misconception among people that u need millions of hands to assess effectiveness of rng. big sample is used because it tests effectiveness over a longer time period. what u need is many samples to get definitive result.
Joined: Feb '12
Location: Netherlands
Age: 67 (F)
Posts: 46
Posted by SuperNoob:
Posted by aatje: SuperNoob Quote:
many samples of thousands of hands is much better than 1 sample of billion hands
Are you sure this is true....??
So if you have 50 samples of 50.000 hands = 2.500.000 hands ( so a 2.500.000 hand sample)
You say thats better then a 1.000.000.000 hand sample ...?
its statistics, not simple arithmetic and thats one of the reasons you cant understand it's not possible for the sites to rig the software to the extent you people claim and get away with it.
regarding your question - already answered in above posts(which u have ignored) - reproducibility
it's a common misconception among people that u need millions of hands to assess effectiveness of rng. big sample is used because it tests effectiveness over a longer time period. what u need is many samples to get definitive result.
Why aren't the people that start "rigged-threads" jumping all over this?
Because they don't have a clue what you are all discussing
1. Indeed i dont know how it exacly works you are right on that 1
2. The other thing about the other thread sry might have misses that before... yes i play a lot online but 90% live play on 888 or unibet as i said in another tread about Unibet today. I do still play poker on Unibet and yes i play slots and some games but like i said 90% live casino and the rest is for fun because i maybe have a little bigger BR then most here not saying i am rich though so its easier for me to play and maybe loose some...OK ?
Joined: Mar '08
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 44 (M)
Posts: 6714
Must admit, I too have been waitng for some riggers to jump all over this..ah well, you gave them a great chance. But variance is simply a bitch, probability and statistics prove it IMO. I can't find the thread, so if you would be so kind to post his ID, it would be apreciated, as you do have a point, however just A point, just want to see if he is a manic so I can go , yep, there's the answer.
Joined: May '09
Location: India
Age: 37 (M)
Posts: 4873
Posted by B1gfoot: I can't find the thread, so if you would be so kind to post his ID, it would be apreciated, as you do have a point, however just A point, just want to see if he is a manic so I can go , yep, there's the answer.
thread is in probability section, is pokerstars rigged? see page 107 his userID at 2p2 is AngeloRaj id at pokerstars -clementmugbe ft-angeloraja
Joined: Mar '08
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 44 (M)
Posts: 6714
Seams his data is mainly from MTTs, not cash games, and would not say he is a manic to be fair. I'm coming to the conclusion he has ulterior motives and his data is not creditable. Wish I had my HH to check, would be interesting to see reg users from here posting data, I could at least have faith in the results.
Joined: May '09
Location: India
Age: 37 (M)
Posts: 4873
Posted by B1gfoot: Seams his data is mainly from MTTs, not cash games, and would not say he is a manic to be fair. I'm coming to the conclusion he has ulterior motives and his data is not creditable. Wish I had my HH to check, would be interesting to see reg users from here posting data, I could at least have faith in the results.
Joined: Feb '12
Location: Netherlands
Age: 67 (F)
Posts: 46
Posted by B1gfoot: Must admit, I too have been waitng for some riggers to jump all over this..ah well, you gave them a great chance. But variance is simply a bitch, probability and statistics prove it IMO. I can't find the thread, so if you would be so kind to post his ID, it would be apreciated, as you do have a point, however just A point, just want to see if he is a manic so I can go , yep, there's the answer.
Was obvious SuperNoob wont make a tread to attack online poker but just hoping for a newbe or "rigtard" to say something well...stupid...and then yes jump all over it.. I knew this already when i read the first post...he was hoping people would jump up and yell...PROOF !!... but no such luck...
Maybe people you call "rigtards" arent that stupid or you chased most away already
Joined: May '09
Location: India
Age: 37 (M)
Posts: 4873
Posted by aatje: Was obvious SuperNoob wont make a tread to attack online poker but just hoping for a newbe or "rigtard" to say something well...stupid...and then yes jump all over it.. I knew this already when i read the first post...he was hoping people would jump up and yell...PROOF !!... but no such luck...
Maybe people you call "rigtards" arent that stupid or you chased most away already
for him 
