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
You guys are going so far into the figures and the likes …. It is far simpler than this!
I have played for the last 3yrs at a site, whose deck was poor, but not as brutal as the big sites. As good as you are going to get unfortunately in this day and age.
Recently, they joined Ipoker ….Groan …I had left sites with this software years ago, clearly one of the big boys and clearly runs baddddd.
2 Players, I have consistently played at heads up for 3yrs, easy games as they were not aggressive until they had the nuts and never bluffed. I would lose maybe 1in 8 to them.
2 months on Ipoker, these 2 guys Im actually games down to them! Just blocks everyyyythinggg.
Just purely down to the change of deck provider. A complete turnaround.
Its simple what you see, the technicalities is just not needed to be discussed.
Geez you are ignorant.
If you focus on all the hand lost 100% of bad beats are included while 0% of the lucky wins are included. You cant think of any reason why that would be skewing the sample???🙂
The question was how does professional players winning prove or disprove the probabilities of the outcomes for me to address your question. That statement does not have any relevance to the question
You could read from the quotes, if you could read, that I was answering a total different question you were asking namely "I asked a very simple question. Do you need a large sample size to determine the probability of the outcomes?"
Cmon man its right above the answer I gave, why do you pretend I was answering a different question?
So in the end you originally said "for 50% of players the all in adj is greater than the total (in your case total losses)" not "50% of the players run above ev and 50% run below it" Those are two completely different statements. If your all in adj is greater than your total you are experiencing a hug number of bad beats. So no, for 50% of the players their all in adj is not gr
All-in Adjusted, often shown as "All-in Adj BB," represents your results if you had won your exact equity in all-in pots, so the adjusted all-in line is the all-in ev line. And yea roughly 50% run above it and 50% run below it. Normal people do just look at total results though, not just hand lost. If everyone would filter for lost hand 100% of people would run below ev. You possibly cannot be that stupid that you dont understand.
btw, have you seen the reply in the math forum? TD did the work for you but here it is:
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
LOLOLOL even math guys can tell you are sunrunning but losing because you are bad at poker.
why many grinders do not want the regulator looking closely at things. A random deck would ruin the way they are doing things, whereas for real poker players it would be the holy grail.
So a grinder is not a real poker player and vice versa?? interesting
Your logic doesnt pan out though, how much you would like to see otherwise.
Grinder would have loved the fair rng of runitonce it was you claimed, now they dont want a random deck?
And for real poker players a fair rng is the holy grail.. so where are the real poker players playing?? Because there they must have a fair rng then.
You guys are going so far into the figures and the likes …. It is far simpler than this!
Exactly, who needs facts an data when you can prove stuff with a gut feeling and a lot begrudgement towards online poker.
Geez you are ignorant.If you focus on all the hand lost 100% of bad beats are included while 0% of the lucky wins are included. You cant think of any reason why that would be skewing the sample???🙂You could read from the quotes, if you could read, that I was answering a total different question you were asking namely "I asked a very simple question. Do you need a large sample
I think maybe you are deliberately misunderstanding my posts, you can not get things this wrong so often.
All-in Adjusted, often shown as "All-in Adj BB," represents your results if you had won your exact equity in all-in pots, so the adjusted all-in line is the all-in ev line. And yea roughly 50% run above it and 50% run below it. Normal people do just look at total results though, not just hand lost. If everyone would filter for lost hand 100% of people would run below ev. You po
That's not what you originally said. You said "for 50% of players the all in adj is greater than the total (in your case total losses)."
As far as running below EV on all lost hands obviously genius but typically not that far below where you were expected to win on the total of all the hands.
I think maybe you are deliberately misunderstanding my posts, you can not get things this wrong so often.
No no, its the way you say it. You use a logic and when I turn the exact same logic against you you claim I misread things. I've used exact quotes every time. You just dont like to see your logic turned on you in an argument that is against a rigged rng.
Like you quoted Galfond to claim poker is rigged while his entire speech was the exact opposite, a statement that rngs arent rigged, poker sites would be idiots if they rig the rng and everyone thinking the rng is rigged isnt ready to be a winner.
But please explain to me, as a self-proclaimed non-authority on poker who seems to speak like he is an authority on poker.
What is the difference between a grinder and a "real poker player"
Just curious, as a 15+ year pro playing poker daily in which category I belong?😃
That's not what you originally said. You said "for 50% of players the all in adj is greater than the total (in your case total losses)."
What do you think a total is? Its your net won. Or in your case net loss. In any case its the bottomline, the green line in your tracker.
Now what do you think the all-in adjustment is adjusting for if not for EV?
Now realize that running below or above ev is exactly 50% each.
So what I originally said and still say is that for 50% of the players their adjusted line (ev line, the orange one in your tracker) is above the green line. Just like for 50% the ev line is below the green line. I havent changed my story once, you just dont understand.
What did you think of the reactions in the math forum though? You've avoided that one🙂
Care to defend your case to the math boys who already seem to disagree with you 100%
It would be very fun to read how you can dig an even deeper hole. Even though you said today that "your work here is done" 😃😃
No no, its the way you say it. You use a logic and when I turn the exact same logic against you you claim I misread things. I've used exact quotes every time. You just dont like to see your logic turned on you in an argument that is against a rigged rng.Like you quoted Galfond to claim poker is rigged while his entire speech was the exact opposite, a statement that rngs arent r
I dont know why you can not decipher what is being said. I even explained the Galfond thing about 3 times after u first misquoted me. And you have still brought it up again!
I think I also explained there is 2 types of grinder. So once again, its repeating myself but I will do it this once (Galfond, I simply cant repeat myself 3 times, its there if you want to go back and read it).
There is grinders like me, originally live players who are not interested in figuring out how to manipulate a silly computerised deck, want to play poker and are looking to change regulations in order to play proper poker. At present we accept a reduced profit. The lack of belief in the deck, results in not playing high stakes. Playing high stakes would be insane when you dont believe in the deck.
Then there is the online only pros, many who are below average players who aggressively support the rigged deck, because if it were a real deck they would have to find a job. There sheer volume results in their ViP status, having the algorithm working in their favour. The sites reward these (ever heard of reward schemes to keep customers spending?) These players do not have an interest in pure poker, are just in it for the money and are happy to make it with a deck in their favour.
So the sites as regulation stands, protect their biggest players and the poor casual players in order to maximise profit.
So in answer to your question whats the difference between a grinder and a good poker player? There is no relationship, it just depends on which of the type you are above.
There are undoubtedly good players who are grinding higher stakes, have sold out poker and ignore how they are now making money. But that’s people in life isn’t it. Many of us just want to play clean.
What do you think a total is? Its your net won. Or in your case net loss. In any case its the bottomline, the green line in your tracker.Now what do you think the all-in adjustment is adjusting for if not for EV?Now realize that running below or above ev is exactly 50% each.So what I originally said and still say is that for 50% of the players their adjusted line (ev line, the
You said total followed by " in your cases losses". So logically (yeah I know logic is for foreign to you) the opposite of my losses would be someone's winnings. You get it now genius. An all-in adjustment that is as large as someone's winnings would mean they had an extraordinary amount of bad beats and 50% of the players do NOT have an extraordinary amount of bad beats.
So either your second statement is a lie to cover up your first statement which you pulled out of your ass, or you can't even express yourself coherently.
I didn't just pick bad beats I picked all the hands I lost. You can look at the screenshot yourself.Here are the numbers compared to the hands I won. I was a favorite on 527 hands and an underdog on 481. I won as an underdog on 130, my opponents won as an underdog 161. Although they had more chances to win as an underdog they won at a 3.53% higher rate and the EV difference is
Let me add to this for comparison what should have been obvious but there are too many metal midgets here.
If you total the amount of chips I won in all the all-in hands I won, that total is approximately 14 800 000. My total all in adjusted differential for all all-in hands is a little over 3 000 000 (and for the geniuses who still haven't figured it out a positive all in adj means you got unluck). My total all in adjusted differential for all the all-in hands I lost is a little over 11 000 000. That means my all in adj for all the all-in hands I won is (3 000 000 - 11 000 000) = -8 000 000.
The approximately 11 000 000 adjusted differential constitutes over 100% of my loses of the all the all-in hands I lost. The -8 000 000 adjusted differential constitutes 54.5% of my winnings of the all the all-in hands I won. That 54.5%' is how a normal ratio (and associated graph) looks like between winnings or loses and all-in adjusted differential.
So have we moved on to more interesting topics or can amazing still not figure out why he runs under ev when he filters for only lost hands?
I see that TheWaddy is almost at the the point he has to admit he is just **** at poker.
So you are saying that there is 2 type of grinders? people who were brought up in super soft live games and were able to win and then move online and get their ass handed to them and then the online guys who of course cheat. Because why else wouldn't you be able to beat them? No way some whippersnapper who reraises AJ can beat me.
man man man its a bit pathetic no?
I dont know why you can not decipher what is being said. I even explained the Galfond thing about 3 times after u first misquoted me. And you have still brought it up again!
To decipher it would mean you can't continue to make absurd arguments.
Realize I asked him a yes or no question if he still claims/believes you need a large sample size to estimate the probabilities of the outcomes. The reply I got was an endless blah blah blah without giving an answer.
So have we moved on to more interesting topics or can amazing still not figure out why he runs under ev when he filters for only lost hands? I see that TheWaddy is almost at the the point he has to admit he is just **** at poker.So you are saying that there is 2 type of grinders? people who were brought up in super soft live games and were able to win and then move online and g
Below is what you are representing here. This is just about a typical example I can give you. You, as an online chancer, will probably discredit the most decorated WSOP player of all time as thatÂ’s what you do. I get you will do that.
I remember when I was a staked player having this conversation with my pro mentor. Tom Dwan, the biggest online chancer in history putting Helmuth all in with 10 10. Helmuth had been too vocal in the fact he wouldnt be all in preflop with anything other than AA, KK, QQ, certainly not AK at this time.
Dwan could still not work out what poor shape he was going to be in and when he sucked out, said to Helmuth his play was ‘standard’. It as written in stone what he would be up against and did not have anything other than an online brain to figure it out. This makes him a distinctly average player.
The commentators on it mention Helmuths view on online players. Dwan drifted away from online games to live and now appears in debt, suffering mentally before the age of 40.
They simply cant work out the difference between online and the real thing, as they have never had too.
To decipher it would mean you can't continue to make absurd arguments.
Realize I asked him a yes or no question if he still claims/believes you need a large sample size to estimate the probabilities of the outcomes. The reply I got was an endless blah blah blah without giving an answer.
I dont think he reads any replies before repeating himself and asking the same questions.
Let me add to this for comparison what should have been obvious but there are too many metal midgets here.
The "metal midgets" in the Probability Forum await an explanation of your posts...
There is grinders like me, originally live players who are not interested in figuring out how to manipulate a silly computerised deck, want to play poker and are looking to change regulations in order to play proper poker. At present we accept a reduced profit. The lack of belief in the deck, results in not playing high stakes. Playing high stakes would be insane when you dont
I asked for a difference between grinders and real poker players and you start off here:
"grinders like me, originally live players who are not interested in figuring out how to manipulate a silly computerised deck". So the real poker players are the ones that do want to manipulate a deck and the grinders dont? Dont say I misunderstood you again because this is exactly as you write it. You called yourself a grinder.
You also, very clearly, dont play high stakes because you dont trust the deck. You arent rolled for it. To beat high stakes first you have to beat midstakes which you dont. Not because you are not good enough of course, that would be silly. Because the entire dck is rigged and everyone making a living of poker is in the whole scam. What a complete derogotary way to think about online pro's.
Saying many of the online pro's are below average is insane. Then what are you?
So microstakes do have an interest in playing real poker but high stakes crushers dont., man you are truly delusional as well.
Also for someone not interested in how to figure out a silly computerised deck you've certainly came to the wrong thread 😉
So the sites as regulation stands, protect their biggest players and the poor casual players in order to maximise profit.
Any poker player would classify you, amazing & johnmir etc as poor casual players. Must be nice having that favored rng you sell-out😉
You said total followed by " in your cases losses". So logically (yeah I know logic is for foreign to you) the opposite of my losses would be someone's winnings. You get it now genius. An all-in adjustment that is as large as someone's winnings would mean they had an extraordinary amount of bad beats and 50% of the players do NOT have an extraordinary amount of bad beats. So ei
I didnt backtrack anything, its all the same. You can read it back if you like but you cant read. I can speak very coherently and every winning poker player would easily understand. Every not-braindead fish would too. You somehow dont and thats telling for you
Also, you still dont know what an all-in adjustment line is, its the orange ev line.
Ive said your net losses because you suck and are losing. For most real poker players it would be their net won. Either way, its their bottomline as Ive already said. You chose to not understand it.
You say something very stupid again by "An all-in adjustment that is as large as someone's winnings would mean they had an extraordinary amount of bad beats"
WRONG. you dont know your poker terminology. or your poker for that matter.
The all-in adjustment is the ev line. If thats the same as your winnings that would mean you run perfectly at expected value. This means no extraordinary amount of bad beats of suckouts. Do you finally understand this or do you honestly have the mind of a ******ed 7 year old?
If you think the all-in adjustment line is different from the ev line, what do you think the all-in adjustment line is adjusting for?
So have we moved on to more interesting topics or can amazing still not figure out why he runs under ev when he filters for only lost hands? I see that TheWaddy is almost at the the point he has to admit he is just **** at poker.So you are saying that there is 2 type of grinders? people who were brought up in super soft live games and were able to win and then move online and g
Its extremely pathetic but that wont stop them..
And why would anyone reraise AJ?? must be to manipulate the deck. Those guys arent real poker players, they are just grinders. But wait, waddy said that he was a grinder... This guy just doesnt know how to stick to his own story:p
The reasoning its quite clear. As long as these riggies play in an environment where they can win (soft live, pre-black friday) its all good. But when they dont improve, and they show no desire to, and they cant beat a game thats harder (like online) than it must be rigged. 1 thing is 100% sure. Its not their fault, period. And no overwhelming amount of evidence will get them off this idea. And no lack of evidence for their argument will make them think twice.
Realize I asked him a yes or no question if he still claims/believes you need a large sample size to estimate the probabilities of the outcomes. The reply I got was an endless blah blah blah without giving an answer.
You can read my answer back, in fact anyone can. To see I have a clear enough answer. But your brain doesnt understand so it must be nonsense. Keep thinking that.
There is not set sample size like 25k is not enough but 26k is.
A sample size that can be attributed to variance is non-telling, if not than it is telling. This should be understandable from a guy who made pictures of a maths textbook to show what a genius he is. But you forgot the chapter about input im afraid.
But hey dont worry about me, your case has been posted in the math forum, why dont you chime in there because even they immediately noticed what a bunch of bullshit you've posted.
And at least I answer questions, when your mind cant think of any more conspiracies to answer mine you dodge them time and time again.
I dont think he reads any replies before repeating himself and asking the same questions.
ahhh look... the poor little broke riggie buttbuddies are helping eachother in their warped fantasies. How adorable. Now go punt of another stack at 2nl.
Also interesting you mention Tom Dwan and naming this 1 example means online players "cant figure live out". If 1 example is enough I say fish2013 (Mikita Badziakouski) who does extremely well on both areas and was firstly an online grinder. In fact, pretty much all high stakes crushers of the present are also winning, very comfortably, in the live games. Now how could this be? Why do these guys still perform so well live even though their favored RNG has gone? I wonder... might they actually be good poker players? What are your thoughts on this?
The "metal midgets" in the Probability Forum await an explanation of your posts...
He wont, we all know he wont.
Theres not enough magic in the world that would make sense of his attempt of maths.
Its like all riggies, they have a big mouth but when push comes to shove they never deliver. They dont even want evidence. Deep down they know its not there. They just want to vent off after another losing session at the micros. They want to believe its because of the big bad poker world that they arent successful. Its not that guys, its your ineptness and a total lack to admit a mistake and learn something.
Below is what you are representing here. This is just about a typical example I can give you. You, as an online chancer, will probably discredit the most decorated WSOP player of all time as thatÂ’s what you do. I get you will do that.I remember when I was a staked player having this conversation with my pro mentor. Tom Dwan, the biggest online chancer in history putting Helmut
ah come on this is just too good. come on man you let the mask slip this has to be a troll no other explanation.
For all that read this and are maybe sitting on the fence and in the undecided category.
Consider the style of the ones who believe and the maturity they use to back up their case;
My original post; I started off my posts as stating I was a small stake winner of around £30k, a modest profit of over 23yrs experience. So your perceived grudge as Im a loser is incorrect.
DonJonnie; I doubt it very much
Slugant: ahhh look... the poor little broke riggie buttbuddies are helping eachother in their warped fantasies. How adorable. Now go punt of another stack at 2nl.
DonJonnie: I see that TheWaddy is almost at the the point he has to admit he is just **** at poker.
BobtheSlob; I'll take "Things rigturds tell themselves to justify their huge losses in Poker" for 200, Alex!
They resort to aggressive and untrue personal statements. Sites make untrue statements too and act in a similar manner when you try and reason with them. Place your trust in who you like, but these are the type of people you are up against.
This is online poker and types it attracts when its not properly regulated.
It attracted you, what does that say?
I do like that you use the words "use to back up their case"
this is coming from this guy:
You guys are going so far into the figures and the likes …. It is far simpler than this!
Its simple what you see, the technicalities is just not needed to be discussed.
A total refusal to back any claim up. Add to that a total inability to back things up.
If players are undecided lets just take a look at what opinion lies where:
Amateur poker players, often losing and struggling in today's games: Rigged
Winners, hard working poker player and the hero of all Phil Galfond: Not rigged
You choose in which category you wanna be.
The phrase from me "the poor little broke riggie buttbuddies are helping eachother" was obviously a reference to amazing who said the same thing in different words when BobTheSlob was agreeing with me. You either didnt get that one or you deliberately didnt quote that one. Which is quite biased. But then again, thats what I come to expect from the riggie side.
You also missed this one, you mention Tom Dwan and naming this 1 example means online players "cant figure live out". If 1 example is enough I say fish2013 (Mikita Badziakouski) who does extremely well on both areas and was firstly an online grinder. In fact, pretty much all high stakes online crushers of the present are also winning very comfortably in the live games. Now how could this be? Why do these guys still perform so well live even though their favored RNG has gone? I wonder... might they actually be good poker players? What are your thoughts on this?
ah come on this is just too good. come on man you let the mask slip this has to be a troll no other explanation.
C'mon dude, every single one of the newish rigturds is a troll. They are all way over the top.
Like I already said, it's probably Monteroy and/or his buddies. Years ago he admitted to motivating some of his stakehorses to post as rigturds in here.
I get where you're coming from, but poker "isn't" rigged, it's just the nature of the game, especially online. The swings can be brutal, and when you're playing lots of hands per hour, those suckouts seem to stick out way more than the times you’ve gotten lucky yourself. It’s easy to let short-term results cloud your judgment, but the long-term game is where skill and strategy shine through. The thing is, poker is full of variance. It's a huge part of the game. Some days you'll lose with aces, and some days you'll hit a straight flush on the river. That’s just how it goes. If you’re playing on solid, reputable sites or through trusted poker clubs, there’s no "rigging" going on it’s just probability and your ability to manage those ups and downs. If you’re feeling like things are constantly off, maybe review your play over time. Track your hands and see where you might be leaking chips. Trust me, accepting the variance is part of being a successful player, and over time, skill will always win out.
C'mon dude, every single one of the newish rigturds is a troll. They are all way over the top.
Like I already said, it's probably Monteroy and/or his buddies. Years ago he admitted to motivating some of his stakehorses to post as rigturds in here.
Yeah they are just too on the nose. That being said JohnMir I am sure is for real.
It attracted you, what does that say?I do like that you use the words "use to back up their case"this is coming from this guy:A total refusal to back any claim up. Add to that a total inability to back things up.If players are undecided lets just take a look at what opinion lies where:Amateur poker players, often losing and struggling in today's games: RiggedWinners, hard worki
Very simple. Exactly how it is with me, you adapt your game for online or live. Live I play correct poker. Online I adapt to what the deck is quite obviously setting up, recognise it and fold. Live I will build a pot with strong hands. Online I will keep it small ball, due to high likelihood of runners. And many many more adaptations. Very simple answer.
Notice how I answer the question without untrue personal insults. Tho my answer will undoubtedly attract these…..
I didn't just pick bad beats I picked all the hands I lost. You can look at the screenshot yourself.Here are the numbers compared to the hands I won. I was a favorite on 527 hands and an underdog on 481. I won as an underdog on 130, my opponents won as an underdog 161. Although they had more chances to win as an underdog they won at a 3.53% higher rate and the EV difference is
I asked an actual mathematician to have a quick look at this post, and he said:
"The sample is probably too small, but, more important, the degree of favouriteness is absolutely vital.
The calculation he needs to do is the confidence interval. If the statistical data from the actual results varies from the normal distribution prediction such that it could only occur by chance 1% of the time you accept that there is a biased deal going on."
Go for it.
Very simple. Exactly how it is with me, you adapt your game for online or live. Live I play correct poker. Online I adapt to what the deck is quite obviously setting up, recognise it and fold. Live I will build a pot with strong hands. Online I will keep it small ball, due to high likelihood of runners. And many many more adaptations. Very simple answer. Notice how I answer the
Not really an answer to the question how online HS crushers perform well live, since they dont play "correct poker" live and smallball online. They use the same strat
But im with the general consensus here that you must be a troll, theres pretty much no other way around it. A person who truly believes what you and amazing are thinking wouldnt even be able to turn the pc on.
Kudos for you for not personally insulting anyone. Although you did claim every online pro is basically a scammer who knows the rng is rigged and would like to keep in that way. So they are in on the entire fraud. And thats the only reason they win. They arent smart, talented or hard-working. In fact, according to you they are below average. Since im part of that group that is also what you call me, so maybe you are not so clean on your insults as you like.
I might call people an idiot from time to time, but I never called an entire group of winning and successful players a bunch of below average fraudsters. Also, you're an idiot.
