The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

This has been discussed a few times in this thread since 2017. Search the thread for posts with "issuu" in them.

thats great news. but i activley posted the link for the user above me, caus he still questioned if rigged or not.

if even in this thread its already " common knoweledge" than plz mark him with the above.

No harm intended. just logic in progress.

Actually, I said nothing about whether it was rigged or not. But if you think it is you shouldn't play.

You seem to have misunderstood what the conclusion was about that paper. It's nonsense.

You lecturing people here about a scandal they were around for and actively telling people not to play there, is rather rich. 2+2 posters were all over this. What isn't helpful is people dropping "rigged" accusations with nothing to back them up - the more that happens, the more people tune them out, and the less likely they are to listen when someone provides real evidence of an issue.

You seem to live in a strange world where anyone who doesn't believe an accusation without evidence must therefore not believe in any scandals, and because scams have happened, everything is a scam. There is no logic in that.

Sorry i read it myself, i didnt need any conclusion when im able to get my own conclusion. I wrote a step by step guide to read the 120 pages file in a decent time for anybody to do. did you read it your own before ? again just curious.

But lets talk about your point. Why is it nonsense? Samplesize? flaws of argumentation ? flaws in logic construction of arguments? what is the nonsense you refer to. again serious curious question. since i would disagree to nonsense.

i didnt try to lecture , more like remind. When you read my posts in total, i think the reminding part becomes a bit more obvious?! if that makes sense. And yes 2+2 Forums have done a great service to the cummunity. No question about that. Total respect. 100%

well, we all live in a strange world. Dont we ? Do you live on moon or mars already bro? Why cut the other people out of the world. We in this together, remember? Not sure if i got your point right on this. Scams happend, as you pointed out 2+2 even exposing a big one . So again my question, what makes you think its different nowadays , even with advanced software( possibilities ?

why cut out the part of the sugesstion how to improve o.p. hosts integretiy with anual unannounced visits or software controll etc. ? Transparency?

all the best

I actually said. everything suggest we are beeing cheated. so what makes you sure we dont get cheated ?!

I have zero idea what you're trying to say about this post from 7 years ago. If you have a point, let me know what it is, but if it's just to pull a single post out of context and try to dissect it, that seems rather unproductive.

by sceptichuman k

https://issuu.com/ionutapahideanu/docs/statrep_-_online_poker_-_rigged_or_

Issuu

Online poker - rigged or not? A case study: Pokerstars

…phd work

LOL

well as i stated i looked up what your critisim about his paper was. i found the quoted line. as your first ever statement on issuu. So how did a debate happen, like you
(or ther other mod, maybe im wrong on this, but who brought it up doenst matter)
suggested to me when i brought up the paper in this thread again,

" was debated many times in this thread"

when litterally 2017 this quote is the first thing you said regarding to issuu.

ok, got my point cowboy ?

also i asked you directly some question why you believe nonsense, no response to any of them.

On another note you left out so many topics in my thread, not that i expect you or anyone to address any of them, but when we talking and debating here, why not do it ? 😀

best to all of us and merry xmas

Hey, sceptic. This 'paper' or whatever you call it is a ridiculous waste of time on the author's behalf. It takes a laughable sample size into account, the only purpose that it serves is that it provides insight into the mind of a losing poker player. Absolute LOL at taking this piece of s*** seriously, and calling it a paper or 'phd work'.

I didn't read the document but sample size isn't the be all and end all. It only makes the standard deviation smaller. If you are 5 standard deviations away from the mean with a 500 hand sample size or 5 million hand sample size the odds are the same.

No, um...cowboy, I don't. Probably because you didn't make one. Yes, you found my post that was near the end of the discussion of that paper. If you scroll back from that post, you'll find that NewOldGuy raised quite a few issues with it. And there have been discussions about it since then, when others have debunked various problems with it. What you think that post of mine shows, well, I'm not really to sure.

I didn't (and don't) really see the need, given that others have already pointed out numerous issues with the paper.

Because I have better things to do, and because your points are all over the place and rather difficult to address. Even if I were interested, I wouldn't know where to start with something like:

And to you.

Is there anyway an algorithm can just auto-delete/remove posts that state ...

"There is something strange going on because..." and then gives a single hand example.

and keep any posts that state ...

"There is something strange going on because..." and then posts good statistical data with a >200,000 population sample.

- just wondering.

Well after 7 months and 12000 additional hands since I first used Hold'em Manager my all in adjusted differential increased from 1 363 369 to 2 531 360. That's 45.6% of the amount I lost and is almost exactly the same as what it was 7 months ago. Their results are consistent LOL.

Well, if you play on Pokerstars (different rooms algorythms of player's bankroll management work according to slightly different logic) your final table allins will always be under EV (5%-10% unlucky circumstances) to controll your bankroll (if you manage to show a high ROI level). So, these huge allins will influence on an overall result.

This proves nothing, cause 5%-10% - it happenes. Just a bad luck ))

If you wanna controll your "luck factor" - try to pay attention to your prefinal (on a buble) and final table allins.

But this is not the way you can prove PS is rigged. The are much more effective ways to prove it.
At the same time, if you play 1 table (not a regular player, who generate a huge activity in a room, so software let him get an additional positive ROI) - you can just stay more calm being aware of what is going on by prefinal and final tables allins monitoring.

First of all it's GGPoker.
Second I'm winning 60.9% of my equity which is more than 5 to 10 %

If you tell me your average allin value and % of allins-won-fact. I will tell you estimation (i got a calculator in Excel for this, was useful for investigations regarding rooms RNGs btw))
Number of allins = 1059, right?

Have never played on GG... Can't tell anything about it's RNG.
I specialize on Pokerstars, Partypoker and Redstar's RNGs ))

So since this is the second time I am using Holdem Manager I was able to break down the all in hands quicker. I won 57.48% of the all in chips. If I won my equity it should have been 67.21%. My opponents won 29.67% above their equity.

I was the favorite in 571 of the 1059 all in hands. Opponents were favorites in 470. Even if my equity was 49.9% in a multiway pot (like the first hand with pocket 10 against A9h and Qc6h, another suspicious all in) I counted it as my opponents were favorites. 18 hands were 50%.

Opponents won 480 hands and chopped 34 times (15 times at 50% equity, 7 times as the favorite at 50.18% (average) and 12 times as the underdog at 36.5% (average)). Not one time did we chop when they were a significant favorite but we did chop 12 times when I was. Opponents also won 3 hands when the equity was 50 50.Even when I calculated everything in their favor they won 10 more hands than their 470 favored total. I won 542 hands, 29 below my 571. Then top that off with me winning only 60.9% of my all in equity, I have a hard time believing the probabilities aren't skewed.

A set which is part of an opponent's straight is a GGPoker classic. That and the card that gives you 2 pair, a set or a straight that completes your opponent's flush.