Explain The Math To Me. My Level Is Only Algebra...
There is a poster in the massive rigged thread who has posted for roughly 8 months and swears they've proven online poker is rigged. These are their cites:
I don't know if online poker is rigged, but I can't believe I can only win 44.8% of my equity if the RNG outcomes aren't skewed.
And on top of the fact I have lost more than 50% of my EV, my average all-in equity is 51.63% And that's with about 9% of my all in hands having 3 or more players in the hand. So not only do I have a huge EV advantage (basically 2 to 1) but my equity is above 50%. And I have people here saying that's just normal variance. WOW
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.
And let's add another breakdown. I find it unbelievable that my all in adjusted differential on all the all in hands I lost can hover around 0 for over a thousand hands.
Since I suggested it, here are my results.Positive Equity Ultimately I consistently underperformed my equity when it was positive.
Tell me what I am looking at, mathematically, please...
6 Replies
I'm not a HEM user, nor really an online player these days, so for now I have more questions than answers.
1st image: is the complaint that they weren't dealt AA enough? (From what I can tell, they were dealt AA 24 times in 13324 hands when it shoulda been closer to 60.)
2nd image: does Avg All-In Equity refer specifically to the times they were all-in with a caller? If so, there's no column for the number of all-in hands, nor a distinction between being all-in before/after the river, and thus no data that can be mathematically analyzed. Besides, the row with by far the most hands shows them winning 54% of showdowns—slightly outperforming AAIE—so idk what the complaint even is. They outperformed more in the next largest sample. Are they saying it's rigged in favor of hero?
3rd image: what is this supposed to show us? That they're bad at poker?
4th & 5th: Does +/- equity actually refer to EV (otherwise what does it mean to have negative equity)? So what's the problem here? I'm seeing that they won when they were supposed to and lost when they were supposed to. In +EV all-ins they won 397 times and lost 162 times; what am I missing?
1st image: is the complaint that they weren't dealt AA enough? (From what I can tell, they were dealt AA 24 times in 13324 hands when it shoulda been closer to 60.)2nd image: does Avg All-In Equity refer specifically to the times they were all-in with a caller? If so, there's no column for the number of all-in hands, nor a distinction between being all-in before/after the river
1st image: You should get dealt AA 0,45% of the time meaning 60 out of 13324. But remember this is specifically a filter for AA where it was also All-in or bad beat. So this is not the entire AA spectrum since you dont always get all-in with AA nor do you always get bad beaten. Cases where you won a little with AA are not included in this filter.
The filter below only shows 542 hands out of 13324. You can see in the top part that he exluced bad beats and suckouts so obviously the below part will see him running bad, he skewed it that way.
2nd image: Yes it shows him having an avg all-in equity of 51,63% yet won at showdown is 52,91%. This player must be furious that he is running so good :p
3rd image: I agree fully with your conclusion.
4th & 5th image: You are not missing anyhing.
Well maybe a bit of filtering from the player in question.
The 4th image shows a filter of ALL lost hands where he is mad about running below EV. A player will always have this when filtering for all lost hands since it involves 100% of bad beats and 0% of lucky suckouts.
Do the math guys think its reasonable to use a filter of only lost hands to gather statistics to use in sample distribution and variance calculation to "prove" the rng is rigged?
And do the math guys here think its fair to use a 25k hand sample, something which a grinder makes in half a month to conclude the fair or unfair dealing of a poker rng.
Especially because when you look at a variance calculator for a standard 6max game with a winrate of 0 over 25k hands the 70% conf. interval is between -6.32 & +6.32 and the 95% conf. interval is between -12.65 & +12.65...
With those numbers I wouldnt see this as much significant evidence.
Thanks, I legit wasn't sure if I was totally misinterpreting everything. Usually a rig theorist points to runbad, not "I ran good and still lost". Not that all-ins are the only way to run bad, but still, if you're gonna present data to make a case, this ain't it lol.
Ah right the AA's were only all-ins, so what I thought was the only real grievance turns out to be something I imagined. Hero appears to have run below EV in that tiny sample − not far below EV considering how small the sample is.
And do the math guys here think its fair to use a 25k hand sample
To be fair, it depends. If one lost every single all-in then that would be a very significant sample, whereas if they ran 1% below EV then no. But often in these discussions the goal posts move from, "The rig is so blatant and obvious to the naked eye!" to, "The rig is subtle so that it doesn't show in the data, those clever bastards!"
Do the math guys think its reasonable to use a filter of only lost hands to gather statistics to use in sample distribution and variance calculation to "prove" the rng is rigged?
But without cherry-picking there would be no rigged thread!
Haha I agree. But you would be surprised what is contributed their as "evidence".
And the arguments that accompany those posts are often even more hilarious.
Shitpeddlers will never go to places where they have to prove something using facts or data so they will remain in the tragic riggie thread or as I call it their safe space. Looks like The Wally has gone full unhinged. Even doing the looking around and calling for witnesses routine, ****ing hilarious though.
The riggie master himself used the excuse of they don't need to get involved in another discussion elsewhere. Either they are trolling, addicts in denial or just downright stupid, take your pick.
My work is done, should be a VIP poster arriving shortly. I won't bother you folks itt any longer but hope you enjoy the discussion.
