The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition
Bad beats are part of the game. I understand that. But after absorbing more than my fair share on Poker Stars I switched
I calculate the deviation chances. I was supposed to hit 32.4%, but I hit 80% (4 of 5 hands)
So again you cherry 5 hands out of a whole sample.
The 80% doesnt mean anything unless its applicable to your sample.
Let say I throw a dice 100 times, and there is a sequence where I throw 6 five times in a row. I isolate that sequence to say "look its all 6's, the dice is rigged". WRONG, because if i apply that hypothesis to rest of the throws it doesnt hold up, therefore choosing 5 hands/throws in a row doesnt mean anything.
Not even close to be random. Just an algorithm decide to "deal some flops in time". It's not any uniform distribution.
If its not random, its fixed. So what is the fixed algorithm? Give us a formula. And not "look I flop a pair with 82 lolol what are the odds" Specify the formula and how multi-tabling (across sites) affects is. (again, saying "multitablers get winning waves is not enough, its just a statement. Proof that multitabler hit the board 20% more times than 1tablers for instance)
But I can agree with you - a Gambling supervision authority must check this, if they do this on a regular basis. And have send this materials to Curacao ( rofl)
so if the "evidence" you've provided is as solid as you think it is (ive seen you call it 99.99999% certain).. Why havent they done anything yet? Do they might think its not so clear-cut as you claim after all?
Its here for one reason only, to feed your delusions. So you dont have to acknowledge that you are a bad player and Linus is a great player. So you can just say its not a fair game.
My observations show, that extremely low skilled players manage to win average limits (not you, i don't know you, but i know other guys). How? Lol, I saw that. Guys win everything on a final table, getting AK vs AQ on a buble. And, at the same time - I can't GET ANYTHING on a buble of SnGs. Simply useless. So, I suppose they (rooms) favoring players who play more games. Cause,
If this is true the rooms should be favoring you like crazy. You have terrible results, play the microstakes and you have played since 2006. That is a lot of hands, way way more than the average fish or low skilled player that you claim are running well. You have played 11k tournaments at ipoker, thats quite a lot. Yet you show a negative roi%. Again, your observations (about who is skilled and that some players are being favored) is wrong.
I am ready to play you. I challenge you and you declined. I am even willing to play 1table while you can multitable so you can benefit from the multitabler winning wave.
You need to relate your quality to your results instead of your warped views.
But man, I don't wanna waste so much time preparing a full analysis of the gameplay. I will try to predict well basing on a logic - "after a good decision, the software will provoke me to make a bad decision".
I think you are far past the point of not wasting time.
Does the software provoke you to make a bad decision or do you make the bad decision? Its not like the software is pressing the raise button for you now?
And Linus, who makes more good decisions than anyone, why is he never then provoked to make a bad decision next?? Because he keeps on making good ones. Because he is a talented hard-working player, completely unlike yourself.
Well, not only software can do that. If i see someone shoving 42o i recognize them as a fish too.
While I play normal poker - I show profite. But not when I start to fold good hands in time
So you havent played normal poker in over 9 years. Because those results end in a loss.
Well, it's imporant here if those "many tables" players win more? I mean, if the do 10% ROI per table, while playing 20 tables - their profite is 20 * 10% = 200% ROI. And if you play 4 tables and make 30% on each of them - you will only do 120% ROI. It's also important.
But again, it's just thoughts.
Why do you say "IF they do the 10%.." and "its just thoughts"?
Are you still certain about your algorithm? It seems like it all of a sudden isnt as 99.99999% proven as you claimed before.
This is a very profitable 89% allin on a heads-up of 9max SnG. Now can you check how the second SnG starts for you?
For me it starts with - AQ vs QQ
Yes, it's the only the 5th hand of a tournament.
But John, you know the algorith. Why did you go allin with AQ?? You must have known you were behind??? Also, does the 5th hand still counts as the start of a tournament, where does the start end?
This is the easiest thing to check for you!
GOOD END = BAD START of the next SnG tournament
OK, now this is an hypothesis someone can check.
So If i or anyone can show you situations where they had a good end to a sng and not a bad start of the next one... does that mean the hypothesis is disproven and you will forget it? Because this is a very easy one to check and to disprove
I play cash games exlusively but I am willing to bet with you to see if you are really certain about your RNG views.
I will play sng's and if i can disprove your simple rule that states "GOOD END = BAD START of the next SnG tournament" you will pay me $1000. If I cant disprove it because I keep running into this rule that you believe in I will pay you $1000.
So lets say I win a sng by having a good end spot by getting AK > AQ and I start the next sng and I get AA > QQ in the first 5 hands... That 100% disproves the golden rule you are claiming true and therefore I would win the bet.
Do you believe enough in your rigging views that you will take me up on this bet? Do we have a deal? And if not, why? You say this rule applies so it should be free money for you...
I love how John is absolutely the normal run of the mill " i cant beat poker so it has to be rigged" riggy but with so much more words.
John did you know tennis is rigged? I am a 1% professional level tennis player yet i keep on losing.
It has to do with the ball manufacturers making balls that jump in weird ways.
not everybody gets those of course if you play 3 or more times a week or spend money on expensive rackets they give your opponents normal balls.
There is of course more to the way this is done but that is teh gist of it.
This one statement shows a common fundamental misunderstanding of basic principles; which might go some way towards explaining why Johnmir has wasted so much of his valuable time.
When someone is said to have past stats that show they have achieved a 10% ROI per table, that means they will expect to achieve an average of 10% ROI per table going forward. It does not mean they did or will achieve 10% ROI on each and every individual table they have played or will play.
10% ROI means if they invest $100 playing one table, 20 times in a row, or $2000 total on 20 tables at once, they expect to achieve winnings of $10 per table played, on average. That means they both expect to win $200 total for their table investments of $2000 total. That means they expect to achieve an average of ... 10% ROI per table.
It should be totally obvious that the 20-tabler does not expect to win a profit of 20 x 10% = 200% ROI. As 200% ROI on his tables investment total of $2000, (20 x $100 = $2000), is $4000 and that would mean he stood up from his 20 tables with $6000. Instead, he would expect to lose his $100 on many tables but win something on a couple or more and stand up with $2200; being an average of ... 10% ROI per table.
As for Johnmir's statement of, "And if you play 4 tables and make 30% on each of them - you will only do 120% ROI", if you play 4 tables and make 30% on each of them, then you have achieved ... 30% ROI per table; not the 120% ROI Johnmir wrongly thinks. Not that it's highly likely that this achievement will continue going forward, but it's obviously a far better ROI than the 10% ROI player achieves playing his 20 tables; where Johnmir wrongly thinks he's achieving 200% ROI.
I think Johnmir doesn't understand that he's mixing up money won and ROI, as well as actual and expected results. If the 4-table player won $30 on each $100 SNG table, he would win $120 money, and he would be a 30% ROI player over those four games. The 20-tabler would expect to win $200 money, and he would be a 10% ROI player over those 20 games if he did. Strangely, it could be argued that the $120 money winner is a far better player than the $200 winner, in terms of ROI, but, again obviously, it's better to be the 10% ROI player than the 30% ROI player, in money won terms, if the former is playing far more games than the latter. Indeed, it would be better to be a 1% ROI player than the 30% ROI player, in money won terms, if he played 121 games instead of only the four above.
Finally, if our 20-tabler 10% ROI SNG player played a total of 25,000 $100 games he would have won $250,000. If he also played one $100 MTT and happened to return $10,000 in it, his actual ROI could be said to have increased from 10% ROI to 10.4%, ($259,900 / 25,001), whereas if he lost his $100 MTT, his ROI could be said to have remained at 10% ROI, ($249,900 / 25,001). Our one-table-at-a-time 10% ROI player would only have played 1,250 games and won $12,500 in the same time period. If he also played one $100 MTT and happened to return $10,000 in it, interestingly, his actual ROI could be said to have increased from 10% ROI to 18% ROI, ($22,400 / 1251), whereas if he lost his $100 MTT, his ROI could be said to have remained at 10% ROI ($12,400 / 1251).
E&OE
I love how John is absolutely the normal run of the mill " i cant beat poker so it has to be rigged" riggy but with so much more words.
John did you know tennis is rigged? I am a 1% professional level tennis player yet i keep on losing.
Man thats harsh being a top 1% player that loses all the time..
You should try a different court, maybe you win there. Wait no, you still lose there? Man, all tennis courts must be rigged exactly the same way
And did you know if you hit the ball back better than others the ATP flips the doomswitch and you go on a losing wave even though you are much better than your opponents... sickening stuff!
100% confirmed absolutely no skill involved in tennis. Just imagine being a player, or even worse a coach, in this game. What a fraudster you would be then! Shilling for the ATP, just dispicable.
Guys, I will be right back, but I can't type that much, lol.
We discussed how they deal hands to get more action on the tables, here is an example.
Just watch how it works -
Can you see that all of our hands are matching between each other?
75 - T7 - K7 - QT
So, almost any flop with give something to several players at once, if the software wants it. This time, yes, the flop is "soft".
Just in case you wanna know how it works. HF in games 🍰 ))
If someone really wants to know how it works
"So, almost any flop with give something to several players at once, if the software wants it. This time, yes, the flop is "soft"."
doesnt quite explain it to them.. try again. (btw you realize that only 1 ten left in the deck means other cards will come up more frequently right?)
Also, will you dodge me on my algorithm bet or not?
And how do you feel about tennis being confirmed rigged? A top 1% tennis player like donjonnie cant even win, that is 100% proof!
If someone really wants to know how it works
doesnt quite explain it to them.. try again. (btw you realize that only 1 ten left in the deck means other cards will come up more frequently right?)
Also, will you dodge me on my algorithm bet or not?
And how do you feel about tennis being confirmed rigged? A top 1% tennis player like donjonnie cant even win, that is 100% proof!
Man, I will answer everything later.
And by the way - 2 tens left in the deck, not 1. You meant sevens, right? Yes only 1 seven left, and the deck the board looks normal ))
I just try to illustrate that the software put players on a very similar hands to provoke more "unreadable" and "action-like" game cone (hands).
Donjonnie have to gather statistics of the game and prove that those balls jump upper/lower then the balls of other guys who buy expensive rackets (btw, I do play with Winson Pro Staff RF97 Autograph - Roger Federer's racket type 😃, so it's all awesome for me :P)
Easy!
Man thats harsh being a top 1% player that loses all the time..You should try a different court, maybe you win there. Wait no, you still lose there? Man, all tennis courts must be rigged exactly the same wayAnd did you know if you hit the ball back better than others the ATP flips the doomswitch and you go on a losing wave even though you are much better than your opponents...
Thank you for your insights.
It is true that I lose on all courts i have played on. That alone is obviously proof that tennis is rigged.
How can a top 1% professional level tennis player lose on all these different courts if it wasnt rigged? laughably !
I mean I never one a game in my life. But I dont judge my skills based on results but based on how i feel about my skills.
Of course John stays silent on this as he benefits from the scam!
Man, I will answer everything later.And by the way - 2 tens left in the deck, not 1. You meant sevens, right? Yes only 1 seven left, and the deck the board looks normal ))I just try to illustrate that the software put players on a very similar hands to provoke more "unreadable" and "action-like" game cone (hands).Donjonnie have to gather statistics of the game and prove that th
yes, ment 7s i.s.o. tens. 1 hand doesnt illustrate it. If i show 1 screenshot with actually different hands, does that illustrate the opposite?
You know the tennis brand is not Winson but Wilson right? Easy mistake for a top class tennis coach.
You say donjonnie has to prove the statistics of other guys who buy expensive rackets..
But you dont prove that the board runs out different for other players, you just show your own statistics.
So why does donjonnie have to prove that other tennis players are being favored.
We have to trust you purely on your observations.. donjonnie observation is that even though he is a top 1% players he keeps on losing (just like you). Why does he have to use statistics from other players while you dont provide any of this?
And since you ignored this already 2 times, i will keep asking:
will you dodge me on my algorithm bet or not?
Thank you for your insights.It is true that I lose on all courts i have played on. That alone is obviously proof that tennis is rigged.How can a top 1% professional level tennis player lose on all these different courts if it wasnt rigged? laughably ! I mean I never one a game in my life. But I dont judge my skills based on results but based on how i feel about my skills. Of co
He is 100% proven shilling for the big tennis companies.
You might be better than Djokovic and Alcaraz but we will never know, no until the game is fair. Which it isnt. That they are more talented and hard-working might play a very little role in this but the biggest part is the obvious rigging.
Guys, I just played 4-th game (ONLY 4 GAMES IN A MONTH).
Explain me. Is it hard to understand, pro players do not understand this -
My last hand of the previous tournament - 0% equity bluff
0$ EV ICM and -100% EV ROI for this tournament. I lost
And now I show you EVERY hand one by one in the next tournament.
Hand 1. I folded preflop
Hand 2. I folded preflop
Hand 3. I folded preflop
Hand 4. I folded preflop
Hand 5. I join flop on 22
So it's THE FIRST flop of me after that huge mistake on the last hand of the previous tournament. The software immediatly corrects my mistake with a profitable all-in. So that I will play close to Zero ROI.
I mean, guys.
I understand, it's not obvious. But if SOMEONE SHOWN YOU THIS. What is hard here? Is it any complicated idea?
I'm a bit angry now, cause I have to play this **** to show you that the game is not random and is predictable. But what for am I wasting the time? Isn't it enough to check in game a premitive idea that weak players are supported by the room in a crazy way AND IT IS PREDICTABLE.
Please either give up the game of poker and get back to your other work where you presumably have demonstrable and provable skills, or else turn your attention as to how you can win at a fair game of poker by reading books and strategy forums and websites; perhaps even paying for some coaching if you want to be serious about it instead of treating it as a pleasurable hobby wher
Mike, do you mean here, that I should leave the chat while some guys earn money here and others are fooled with the room? I mean it's all cool in online poker and guys who try to win according to their gaming level, waste their lifes, spend years of disappointment - who care about these guys. Right?
I'm a bit angry now, cause I have to play this **** to show you that the game is not random and is predictable. But what for am I wasting the time? Isn't it enough to check in game a premitive idea that weak players are supported by the room in a crazy way AND IT IS PREDICTABLE.
take the Slugant bet and make easy money.
Johnmir, we know you are not a weak player, but you seem to be suggesting that the room supported you after your failed bluff by giving you that set of 2s. Are you saying you are a weak player, or did you simply trick the system into thinking you were a weak player?
I think if you can successfully trick the system like this, you could make millions and that's not an exaggeration either. Maybe you can register for a micro stakes tournament and bust on purpose with a crazy bluff and then register for a high roller and crush it!!
I understand, it's not obvious. But if SOMEONE SHOWN YOU THIS. What is hard here? Is it any complicated idea?
Because its not applicable to every sample and therefore wrong.
What you show is just 1 instance and then say "this happens all the time"
So what if I show you someone who makes a mistakes like that but DOESNT get rewarded with monster hands afterwards...
That means your theory is wrong. Would you throw it in the bin if someone showed you this happening??
For this piece of algorithm im also willing to bet you a $1000. So you can earn 2k if you take on the algorithm bet, but so far you ignored 3 of them.. why?
Do you suddenly lack confidence in the rules of your algorithm?
Do you perhaps like losing money over winning money?
Is that what prompted you to shove 54o there because it seems like the play of a terrible player?
Is that why you are shilling for Big Tennis because you need the money you lost at online poker?
Guys, I will answer to the previous messages a bit later, just commenting the latest -
Man, I’m not used to do bets on something… This suggestion could be interesting, but I’m surprised with your “tradition” to bet money on every “event”/”deal”, lol.
I just don’t like that. I admit, it could be funny. In my situation, when I work not too much (yet, still can’t coach too often) I think it’s irrational to accept any bets, really. This is a real life.
Johnmir, we know you are not a weak player, but you seem to be suggesting that the room supported you after your failed bluff by giving you that set of 2s. Are you saying you are a weak player, or did you simply trick the system into thinking you were a weak player? I think if you can successfully trick the system like this, you could make millions and that's not an exaggeratio
Haven’t heard you for a while )) Nice you are back!
For sure I was supported, man, you are an experienced player (if I understood right), do you really think it was an accident? )) I mean, yes, it’s not a proof, but after all I said in this thread – it looks funny, really.
Look, I just try different stuff and collect “history” to predict future hands in streams. I calculate my EV$ ICM after each tournament to forecast software’s reaction on my current EV ROI (sorry for a complicated idea, but software of the room is an economical model… It works according to a concrete “efficiency” of players in game).
This time, yes, I made an incorrect decision. And the software immediately corrects it by that set vs two pair, because the aim of the software is to keep all the players close to 0% profit – so everyone’s bankrolls will slowly melt down cause of the room’s commission. Look, TeflonDawg says –
For example, if a site wanted to rig the deal for max profit, then they'd make everyone break even, forever and ever, always. No player profits, everyone sifts their money like sand thru rake. 100% of deposits churn into rake.
And this is EXACTLY what is going on right now on iPoker/Partypoker/Pokerstars.
Do other sites make it? Well… Me personally – I don’t know, cause I haven’t analyzed their software like I did for these 3 rooms.
Btw, the idea of changing the limit (from 0.2$ to 1000$) is really cool )) The problem is that room controls the bankroll growth speed… I haven’t shared my Pokerstars statistics, yet. But my “try” to fool the software ended with losing 20 of 21 allins on prefinal table of MT SnG and I decided not to waste time trying to win vs online casino by using “forbidden tricks”. It’s better just to play several tables normally, get some 10-30% ROI, like my friend did. But not trying to play “irrational” in terms of the software.
Yes, I agree with you, it’s just an example. Only one hand/case. But it still looks crazy after all we discuss. So far, I can upload you my history of these 4 tournaments and you will see – that 54o bluff was the first significant mistake on these monthly distance.
To be fair, I just wanted to illustrate the idea. 1 case is not enough.
For this piece of algorithm im also willing to bet you a $1000. So you can earn 2k if you take on the algorithm bet, but so far you ignored 3 of them.. why?
Lol, man, if I start to describe ALL the dependencies I know about the game you won’t manage to find so much money 😃
I’m not used to bet money on something, that we can just check? What for should we do it. I can understand the idea of playing HU game to check the level of gaming – it’s reasonable. But here, we can just find the truth.
Is that what prompted you to shove 54o there because it seems like the play of a terrible player?
Is that why you are shilling for Big Tennis because you need the money you lost at online poker?
If you wanna to hear a fair answer – look, I just play this 0.2$ SnGs to watch how the software works now, to predict it’s behavior on streams, because I do know, how the software reacts on decisions.
In that case, I just wanted to stop playing for a while (needed to prepare for a coaching session with my tennis pupil) and I just went for some fast move like “win or die”.
In fact, it’s not important what I do on the table now, I just need a history to predict next.
THAT IS WHY, I play 0.2$.
Lol, in fact, I find pupils really easy, man. No kidding. More than that, tennis is a crazy professional sphere (it’s one of the reasons why I moved there, but not to another kind of sport) – there are a lot of weak coaches working. And it’s really easy to compete, if you are good. I usually get the client with a 50% chance (I record this statistics) when 10+ coaches pretend on this client. I mean, I’m expected to get 1 pupil in 10-15 tries (7-10%), but I get 50% of clients. I just can’t work too much.
I mean, I don’t even need to shill for tennis! But this sport is cool! Welcome 
Yes, I agree with you, it’s just an example. Only one hand/case. But it still looks crazy after all we discuss.
No, its looks crazy after what you discuss, only you. How can 1 isolated hand look crazy? If I show you shoving 54o 1 hand (and I can) does that prove that you are a donkey? Defenitely looks crazy after all we discuss
I just play this 0.2$ SnGs to watch how the software works now, to predict it’s behavior on streams, because I do know, how the software reacts on decisions.
So you shoved 54o in that sng to ensure a good beginning at the next sng?? interesting. But why are you still playing 20 cent sng's to watch how to softwark works and to predict its behaviour. Why do you still need to do that? Months ago you've send your reports to commissions and forums but now you are still working on predicting behavior. Were those reports not finalized yet? Why did you send unfinished reports out there with claiming 99.9999% certainty? If the reports were finalized, why are you still playing 20 cent sng's, you dont need to still find out how the software reacts.
The proof that Tennis is rigged is EXACTLY as strong as the proof that poker is rigged.
Both games have 1 player that belongs to the top1% players (you in poker, donjonnie in tennis) but keep on losing. The only explanation is rigged poker rooms (all of them) and rigged tennis courts (all of them as well)
Man, I’m not used to do bets on something… This suggestion could be interesting, but I’m surprised with your “tradition” to bet money on every “event”/”deal”, lol.Lol, man, if I start to describe ALL the dependencies I know about the game you won’t manage to find so much money I’m not used to bet money on something, that we can just check? What for should we do it. I can unders
You played poker for over 17 years, played millions of hands (not all at microstakes!!) and you dont like to "bet on something", is that why you are losing at poker, because you dont like to bet?
I've actually done pretty well in poker so I am willing to bet you on all dependencies, you could make shitload of money here John, just take on the bet. I dont have a tradition of betting on stuff, but when i am certain and the other is certain why not put your money where your mouth is. Otherwise it just seems like you dont even believe what you are claiming. And since you were an elite financial risk analyst you would know that if you are 100% right on this its just free money for you. You are willing to play million of hands for a loss but not willing to make a simple bet (on something that you truly believe in?) to make some easy money?
You have set in stone some "golden rules" in your algorithm
GOOD END = BAD START of the next SnG tournament
MAKE BAD DECISION = REWARDED BY GOOD SPOTS SOON AFTERWARDS
You claim this is always true and I dont think that holds up. So I am willing to bet on it. I know you dont, likely because even though you are top 1% poker player, financial analyst & tennis coach somehow you have no money.
So lets change the bet John, not for money but for truth (and perhaps a bit of honour?)
If I can show proof that the above 2 golden rules are being broken you never post on this forum again and dont speak of poker being rigged (because your theory has been disproven). If I cannot I guess you knew the algorithm after all and I will never set foot on this forum again except for 1 final post where I have to conclude that you were right all along. If you are still 99.999999% confident in your algorithm im sure you will take this on, for truthfinding reasons as well
So, do we have a deal?
Thank you for the kind words Johnmir! I am almost exclusively a live player nowadays, but I got my start online.
The 0% ROI theory is fascinating. I will remain a neutral observer!
How do you know this????
The data proves he is a weak player
Now you know, and knowing is half the battle 😉
wow!! That is compelling I must say. This does not bode well for Johnmir
Thank you for the kind words Johnmir! I am almost exclusively a live player nowadays, but I got my start online.
The 0% ROI theory is fascinating. I will remain a neutral observer!
Lucky you! I would try myself in offline gaming. Hope to reach the clubs ))
0% ROI is a dream for rooms. In real it differs from -50% to +50%, but we need more info about players accounts to check this.
And you are totally right, this topic looks not too "profitable" for good players. So it causes negative reactions. It's strange though, since all the good players are not interested in supporting of the weak players by the room.
Good luck there!
Slugant, couldn't believe that while I couldn't have played offline, I went down to low limits to test the software.
Thankfully the misunderstanding was solved here -
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...
Yes, this is what happenes, when you don't play "optimal" and try to fool the software
Guys, this message is pretty long, excuse me. To keep a convenience of reading just skip irrelevant (for you) parts of it!
Btw I want to state John that no poker player speaking in here wants to be scammed and will take real evidence seriously.
…
but when I look at this all I see is an activist that because he got bruised in the past wants to make sure others can't enjoy the game.
perhaps even paying for some coaching if you want to be serious about it instead of treating it as a pleasurable hobby where you don't mind paying a bit for the competitive enjoyment poker can give.
Mike, Mark.
According to the way you speak, you seem to be a civilized, well-mannered people.
And I expect you to understand, that phrases like “others can’t enjoy the game” and “pleasurable hobby where you don’t mind paying a bit for the competitive enjoyment poker can give” – are not applicable in case you can see a significant information from me in the thread of rigging while speaking about a fraud in the sphere of gambling.
It’s not a joke for many people. In case for you playing poker – is just fun. For many other people, it’s a way to reach their dreams. To find a way to earn money for their life projects.
And (!) if you do not understand the idea/logical base of my analysis you can not assess its relevance.
If you insist on that you can assess the relevance of my analysis. Then just point my mistakes there, or, otherwise, admit, that 99.999 999 992% probability of rigging the game to the favor of the room is enough, to approve this conclusion.
I’m ready to listen to your concrete arguments regarding that 99.99…2% probability was calculated incorrectly.
Until this moment, please, pay attention to that it is not any important what I am aiming, because if I’m right, irrespectively to my aims, millions of people all over the world are totally disappointed with their years of efforts in trying to reach their goals in life. And the reason of this disappointments - outlaw turns of mean criminals who are closer to animal than to what we used to call "a human".
So again you cherry 5 hands out of a whole sample.The 80% doesnt mean anything unless its applicable to your sample.Let say I throw a dice 100 times, and there is a sequence where I throw 6 five times in a row. I isolate that sequence to say "look its all 6's, the dice is rigged". WRONG, because if i apply that hypothesis to rest of the throws it doesnt hold up, therefore choos
Look, in your example of throwing the dice a probability to hit “”6” 5 times in a row is 1 / 6 / 6 / 6 / 6 / 6 = 0.013%
But a probability to get this part or longer (5+ «6» in a row) on a distance of 100 throwings = 0.9%, approx. (you can check this with a help of Deep Seek AI. I calculated this in MS Excel)
In the example of 4 top pairs of 5 flops a chance to get 4 or 5 top pairs with an average chance of the flop hitting of 19.6% is 0.62% (for “6” 5 times in a row it was 0.013%).
But I do not calculate this.
I calculate exactly what you say – what are the chances to get a segment of 4+ top pairs on a whole distance of 28 hands played in the tournament.
It is 8.5%. I calculate the way you explain it.
When I say “it is not random” I suppose, it is not a uniform distribution. I register violation of the “expected process of cards dealing”. And I can see that card dealing process applies to some algorithm. The question is -
isn’t it enough to speak about law violations if the card dealing process submits to some algorithm and is not applies to uniform distribution of the cards dealing process?
Yes, it is.
so if the "evidence" you've provided is as solid as you think it is (ive seen you call it 99.99999% certain).. Why havent they done anything yet? Do they might think its not so clear-cut as you claim after all?
It’s impossible to know, because The Curacao Gaming Control Board just ignored me. And The UK Gambling Commission replied with –
“Due to confidentiality, we will not be able to provide you with an update or a tailored outcome.”
If this is true the rooms should be favoring you like crazy. You have terrible results, play the microstakes and you have played since 2006. That is a lot of hands, way way more than the average fish or low skilled player that you claim are running well. You have played 11k tournaments at ipoker, thats quite a lot. Yet you show a negative roi%. Again, your observations (about w
Here it’s important, that my results are terrible ONLY on microstakes, where I didn’t intentionally play optimal poker.
I have got a life time profit on 7$+ limits and my observations regarding other players are based on a period of playing 2018-2019 where I managed to make +profit.
Thank you for suggesting the challenge.
I do not play poker at the moment for other purpose then discussing the situation in online poker. I wouldn’t even play offline now. Cause it’s simply doesn’t comply with my current priority.
Does the software provoke you to make a bad decision or do you make the bad decision? Its not like the software is pressing the raise button for you now?
And Linus, who makes more good decisions than anyone, why is he never then provoked to make a bad decision next?? Because he keeps on making good ones. Because he is a talented hard-working player, completely unlike yourself.
About “does the software provoke you to make a bad decision”.
Watch at this example, please. Do you really think that Linus wouldn’t lose this tournament/cash buy-in on having AQo here? I seriously doubt. Just your opinion?
Seriously, it is close to be impossible to fold to aggression here. Especially if you play vs a newcomer (0.2$ limit here).
Again. I’m not sure that Linus does online as good as he would have done offline. Hard to say, I just don’t know. To be fair, I simply don’t know what is going on there on HS.
Last time I tried to play normally was 7$ SnGs on Pokerstars in August of 2019. And, once again, I lost almost all the equity on the final tables of these SnGs. That moment I have already known what is going on, so I just stopped playing and went to the lowest limits to test Pokerstars software, then the room was closed for Russians and I moved to iPoker. That’s all. I do not work on my gameplay at the moment, cause I can’t see reasons for this before I am able to play offline.
Why do you say "IF they do the 10%.." and "its just thoughts"?
Are you still certain about your algorithm? It seems like it all of a sudden isnt as 99.99999% proven as you claimed before.
This part of my message -
But again, yes, the gaming level is "probably influence" but I have heard some opinions, and I totally agree -In case you start to bluff too much, steal chips of players the software starts to generate too agressive flow of "beaten" hands to this player. I mean, If you play online, you shouldn't bluff too much. And this is totally wrong, it's a bad play in a fair game. So it's
Is applicable to the topic #3 of the list))
we discuss different topics of the online gaming
1. Statistics of gaming process
2. Verbal description of the algorithm (I'm going to stream this) - how they distribute hands between players
3. General questions regarding accounts and "who win"/"who lose"/"who is good"/"does the room prioritize accounts"
All this is different stuff.
General questions regarding accounts are always “my assumptions”. I can’t know that.
But John, you know the algorith. Why did you go allin with AQ?? You must have known you were behind??? Also, does the 5th hand still counts as the start of a tournament, where does the start end?
Look, the algorithm describes how the software “changes” positive and negative hands to a player.
I missed with AQs, because I was streaming and playing at the same time, explaining crazy amount of stuff before the start of the game, showing different tables, and I simply didn’t manage to play concentrated. And I have to solve this when I stream games for 2+2. In easy words - I just missed, misused the knowledge of algorithm.
Why I missed –
On the 4th hand of this tournament I got AKo. And I fold it, cause I can't 100% know if it's a software trap here
(don't ask me why, please, the answer - I didn't want to collect a comprehensive hand history before streaming for Gipsy Team and I didn't know if the software will use the AKo hand to take me off this SnG tournament)
And I see, that my AKo was the best hand on the table, right?
Now let's see my "Detailed description of Red Star Poker room software algorithm (ENG RUS)"
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...
"On a high level of the software agression the same logic works for premium hands - we push these hands every other time after a trap." it means, that if this AKo was "good" the next premium hand I get - I MUST fold.
More then that, my own description contains a special comment -
"The strategy on the table.
a) An important gaming moment: it's incorrect to fully rely on opponents logic. If the player limps on a very weak hands, then, in a trap moment of the tournament, he will get dealt exactly a premium hand irrespectively how weak hands he used to join the game with before"
Now watch my move, I got a new premium hand AQs right the next 5th hand -
Rofl, they limp, I got the second premium hand in the tournament after a very profitable all-in in the end of the previous SnG. Lol and I push? Cool.
I broke my own rules TWICE. Anyway, it was just impossible to comment a pretty complicated logic and analyze everything on the table at the same time. I just lost concentration...
More than that, on the video before they took their decisions I say "Probably I have missed, guys...". So after I pushed, even before she called me on QQ I admit that i'm probably missing now (but the situation on the table doesn't look ANY dangerous. I still understand - likely it's a mistake).
OK, now this is an hypothesis someone can check.
So If i or anyone can show you situations where they had a good end to a sng and not a bad start of the next one... does that mean the hypothesis is disproven and you will forget it? Because this is a very easy one to check and to disprove
Mike, Slugant.
You live in a modern world. A pretty complicated technologies are implemented in different spheres.
Here in this thread I’m talking about economical model of the room. It is really complicated.
Here is a part of Red Star Poker’s software algorithm description (the list of factors which influence on a card dealing process) –
9 (!) different lines of information are used to predict the start of the next game.
You suggest me to provide some simple hypothesis to check. I suggest you - GOOD END = BAD START.
Now let's imagine some player has already lost 3 tournaments in a row and played 20% allins (TT vs QQ, for example) at the end of each of these 3 SnG's.
And then he plays one more (4th) SnG and finish it with a profitable all-in like JJ vs 99 (81%).
Will the software kill him in the start of a 5th SnG? Most-likely not! He has already got a very low EV$ ICM. And the software will keep helping him, cause the aim of the software to keep his profitablility close to (-10% ; 0 ] ROI.
But, if you track this "good end = bad start" you will see how often it really happens. I just tried to suggest you something, that you can analyze.
If you can't analyze this - you just watch my streams, lol. And you relax. Because the main aim of this discussion is to find out if the game is predictable or it's not.
Yes, I do. More than that, I don't just believe, I know how it works.
No, we haven't!
Because you suggest - "and I start the next sng and I get AA > QQ in the first 5 hands... " Yes, the situation you describe is probable. But it's critically rare.
I'm not used to turn all the discussions into the money, more then that, those conditions you suggested = 100% loss of me, because, yes, you will meet these cases, rarely but you will. I just know it. The real algorithm is more complicated 😵
I love how John is absolutely the normal run of the mill " i cant beat poker so it has to be rigged" riggy but with so much more words.
)) Lol.
I can beat poker! I just don’t wanna take part in something which is not interesting in terms of poker gaming. This is just an arcade game, you know. I want to play a real poker game.
This one statement shows a common fundamental misunderstanding of basic principles; which might go some way towards explaining why Johnmir has wasted so much of his valuable time.
Mike… 😀
First of all, thank you for the explanations.
“shows a common misunderstanding of basic principles”
I started with –
I just misuse the term “ROI” at the end of my sentence. And tried to stress that 20*10%>4*30%.
Doesn't look like BASIC PRINCIPLES MISUNDERSTANDING 😃 Man...
It's just a ( winnings - total bets ) / total bests * 100% value.
Yes, ROI is stable and is 10% and 30% for both of these players (respectivly)
“which might go some way towards explaining why Johnmir has wasted so much of his valuable time”
This is a special phrase. I wanna stay here.
Because, in case you didn’t get all the best marks while studying in school, then you committed mistakes in some exercises.
If you committed mistakes in some exercised means you commit mistakes everywhere else. Did I get your logic the right way?
If I didn’t, could you, please, show me concrete mistakes in my analysis below?
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...
And right after we find these mistakes, I will be ready to come back to a question of wasting the time I spend preparing the analysis.
I think Johnmir doesn't understand that he's mixing up money won and ROI, as well as actual and expected results.
What do you mean by the phrase “as well as actual and expected results”. I ask this, because we didn’t discuss this topic regarding the profit of a player according to the number of tables opened simultaneously.
In case you mean EV and FACT ROI definitions - this is exactly what I talk about in the phrase
Since I use these terms regarding the winrate term, most-likely, I do realize it regarding EV ROI and FACT ROI. More then that, I am the one, who know how to calculate EV ROI for any tournament played (not many know the methods of calculating this – there are several algorithms of calculating).
At the moment I play SnGs before streaming and calculate EV ROI of each tournament played to forecast accurate behavior of the software towards my account.
And did you know if you hit the ball back better than others the ATP flips the doomswitch and you go on a losing wave even though you are much better than your opponents... sickening stuff!
Do you know that it’s a crazy stuff!
Watch John McEnroe Wimbledon matches, lol
“you cannot be serious!”
“the whole stadium saw that ball was on the line!”
Man, it’s a problem on ITF Futures matches, where young (junior) players try to earn ATP points to start participating in official well-paid matches! And some referees help “special” guys to join ATP… The ball is “in”, but they confirm “it’s out”
This is serious 😃
How can a top 1% professional level tennis player lose on all these different courts if it wasnt rigged? laughably !
I mean I never one a game in my life. But I dont judge my skills based on results but based on how i feel about my skills.
Of course John stays silent on this as he benefits from the scam!
No, man, I must say something untrue about you!! Not just stay silent.
If I benefit from this, I should say it the way Slugant does… I can’t remember…
Ah, do you remember that match where you played with your girlfriend being drunk?
I mean you played with a wrong side of the racket there! NO A PRO WHO WILL EVER PLAY THE WRONG SIDE OF THE RACKET!!
You lie to us about EVERYTHING else, because you didn’t tell us about that match vs your girlfriend being drunk!
Been down the rabbit hole lately reading through a bunch of threads on whether online poker is "rigged" or not. Some people swear by RNG and regulation, others are convinced every bad beat is proof of foul play. I figured I’d collect some of the more interesting discussions here in one place:
�� “Is Ignition Poker rigged?” – Lots of mixed opinions, especially about anonymous tables
�� “Online Poker: Just unlucky or something deeper?” – A deep dive into RNGs and variance
�� “Do poker sites favor bad players?” – Classic debate, but with some solid counterpoints
�� “Graph of 100k hands – Variance or BS?” – Some eye-opening stats in the comments
But the years before on stars, were you testing out their software too.
Because over 4k tournaments on stars you have even worse results.
It somehow seems like everything about you that is tracked is played to "fool the software" and all the untracked hands are top level winning hands. Well, you're not fooling anybody but yourself.
Then just point my mistakes there, or, otherwise, admit, that 99.999 999 992% probability of rigging the game to the favor of the room is enough, to approve this conclusion.
If you are 99.999999992% certain why arent you putting your money where your mouth is? And when can we see this livestream of you predicting boards/hands with this 99.999999992% accuracy?
I calculate exactly what you say – what are the chances to get a segment of 4+ top pairs on a whole distance of 28 hands played in the tournament.
whole distance of 28 hands cmon man, even you cannot take a sample of 28 seriously. Youve played millions of hands, you know 28 hands dont mean anything. And if getting 4+ toppairs in 28 hands makes you think poker is rigged you are really clueless about probability calculations.
It’s impossible to know, because The Curacao Gaming Control Board just ignored me. And The UK Gambling Commission replied with –
“Due to confidentiality, we will not be able to provide you with an update or a tailored outcome.”
So we can actually know, its not impossible. Because if you delivered truly compelling evidence they would have done something. We would have seen action taken against iPoker/playtech (and all the other sites that are rigged the same way according to you)
Watch at this example, please. Do you really think that Linus wouldn’t lose this tournament/cash buy-in on having AQo here? I seriously doubt. Just your opinion
Of course he would. But its about 1 hand is it? This is just a cooler, they happen to me daily. To anyone who grinds hard, its part of poker. If you flop a set over set and win is it because the software is rigging against your opponent? You have serious trust issues if every cooler or bad beat makes you believe poker is rigged. Its part of the game. The fact that you think you can make your point with 1 screenshot 2pair vs a set makes apparent how astonishingly little you understanding you have about poker.
If you havent played serious in over 6 years, how can you call yourself "a professional level player" and a "top 1% player"? Do you wish to take these words back or do you still see yourself this way?
You dont know. Someone else could have had AA but folded it to fool the software. What makes you think you are the only one at the table that has figured out this complex algorithm?
Now let's see my "Detailed description of Red Star Poker room software algorithm (ENG RUS)"
Lol, you cant quote your own stuff and provide it as evidence. Its no wonder that you agree with yourself
Yes, I do. More than that, I don't just believe, I know how it works
No, we haven't!
Because you suggest - "and I start the next sng and I get AA > QQ in the first 5 hands... " Yes, the situation you describe is probable. But it's critically rare.
Just like i figured. I guess somewhere deep down you know you are making this up too. If you truly believed in your stuff you would stand behind it. But this is whole one big show to make others think Johnmir is not a terrible poker player. ALL the pokersites are just against him. And you know perfectly well this isnt the case, you are just another bad poker player. Its nothing be ashamed of, they are many like you. But the mental gymnastics you do to give the impression you are actually really elite are really embarrassing.
You know you dont have the RNG figured out, the moment you are asked to put your money or reputation where your mouth is you walk away.
I offered to bet on honour. The one with a disproven theory has to say the other was right. Given that all that you do is trying to convince other people, how can you not take this offer? Because you know its malarkey.
Because now all of a sudden the situation can happen but its rare.
No no no Johnny you said: "GOOD END = BAD START of the next SnG tournament"
You didnt say "GOOD END = BAD START most of the time, but sometimes not"
You are weaseling out because you know damn well everything you do and say is based on a lie.
Guys, while I keep gathering statistics for my streams (to predict the software's card dealing) I have already played 8 more SnG tournaments -
(here is a hand history - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Jx2g1fx...)
After this "comfortable" explanation
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...
Where I demonstrate to you, that in 10 of 11 tournaments played, the software generates flops to other players according to my folded hand. And the software does it with a valuable splashes which are expected to happen in average on distances many times bigger than the distance of each of tournaments.
Since I check my ability to forecast in game situations generated by the software, I fold on a preflop strong starting hands. So, a proven dependency of rigging the flop cards to provoke a tight player to play a postflop appears even strongly then it was before.
I wouldn't waste time for a repeated calcuation of this effect. But the results of observation are too visible to ignore it.
So, I kept monitoring the frequency of my folded on a preflop non-paired starting hands matching with a flop, which was dealt to other players who joined it.
And this is what iPoker's software deals
In total, on a distance of these 8 tournaments, I played 111 hands of this type (preflop fold -> flop is dealt to other players). And my folded hand matched with the flop 49 times. 44.1% in stead of 28.8%.
The probability of this deviation is 0.04% (4 cases of 10 000 tests)
But even this is not comparable to what you can see in the table above.
On the distance Red Star's software turned the matching of my folded hand with the flop cards on such a strict way, that I hit 31 flop of 47 - 66% hits on a distance of 47 hands 😵
Just in case you are not fluent with the theory of probabilities - it's 0. 000 008% chances to meet this in a random game (8 cases in 100 million tries).
I didn't even manage to calculate a chance to observe this 47 hands segment on a total distance of 111 hands cause it's necessary to generate around 60 000 000 rows of 111 game cones. I haven't got such a fast PC.
I can only give you a conservative assessment (guaranteed value), that the chance to obverve this "accident" of 66% matches with 47 flops on a distance of 111 hands played is not more then 0.00018%, and it is expected to happen once in approximately 60 million hands.
In easy words, the room is openly rigging the game.
The statistical report -
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...
Yeah you are so sure if this algorithm but wont take an honour bet
Its because you have no honour
