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

This quote still makes me laugh. No No, not just bad beats, also all the other hands I lost. What?? Winning hands??? No of course I dont include those into my research lolol

Amazing wont be able to figure out what "degree of favouriteness" means so i'll break it down for him:
DONT FILTER FOR ONLY LOST HANDS!!!

GL with the rest amazing and dont forget to post in your thread in the math forum where your case has been spoken about. So far, not 1 person found even 1 thing where they agree with you.

Here is the problem, pots sizes vary. That's why it's difficult to determine a normal distribution. I don't see any other way than running a Monte Carlo simulation on a live game with a physically shuffled deck. Almost impossible to compile that data but there actually is a way. WSOP shows all hands and hold cards at the featured table. Theoretically you can compile years and years of all-in results. But that's a lot of manual work and I would never be willing to do that (or expect someone to do that). The best alternative would be to run a Monte Carlo simulation from online sites and segregate the results by each site. That can be easily compiled with Holdem Manager, which is what I suggested.

As far as sample size, you have to consider EV variance in comparison to sample size. If someone runs 90% below EV even with 1187 all-in hands, that's impossible. If it were 20% or even 30% less than your actual EV, okay that can happen. Over 50% is suspicious. Like I said previously, with a fair coin you cannot flip heads 80 times out of 100. Theoretically yes but it won't happen in anyone's lifetime.

By the way, the first group of hands where I indicated I won 44% of my EV, I included all in hands with 100% equity. If I didn't use those (which I shouldn't have) I would have won under 40%. I estimate about 37% of my EV. When I actually decide to reimage my HD and reinstall the trial version I'll check it.

You can call me an idiot, thats cool …but I will have to point out whilst calling me an idiot you simply always take things I say literally without fully understanding what is being said.

I said players adapt their play to be successful in both genres. I gave a few examples of how I do that, though you have chosen to take this as thats how everyone would adapt.

It was a mistake to give someone like you an example of an adaptation of mine, I just pre empted your next predictable question.

I will give my answer just to you ….. They adapt their play heavily due to the differing odds of live hands and online hands. Like Daniel Negreanu in the clip I put up …. A3s never loses in his experience online (his words were its automatic) so he went with it …hes folding live, hes not a donkey afterall.

Do I think hes a scammer and fraudster for correctly predicting what would happen? No, hes just playing online and uses his experience and knowledge from hundreds and thousands of hands to use to his advantage.

You do have a nasty habit of proclaiming what my views are towards people, whether I’m a winning player etc without any knowledge of fact.

Did you read that the mathematician said "the degree of favouriteness is absolutely vital"
That means no even if the sample is small but telling it still his to be a fair unfiltered sample. So if you run 90% under ev over all 1187 hands that would be shocking and significant. If you filter for only 1187 lost hands where you run a lot under ev that doesnt prove anything. Just like filtering for only won hands doesnt prove you have a favored rng.

Funny you make the comparison to a fair coinflip. You are right, if you flip a coin 100 times and its 80% heads the coin must be rigged, theres no way around it. But here's what you did in your poker analysis. You filtered for only heads and then exclaim "look its all heads, this cant be fair". To analyze the coinflips you do take into account all 100 flips without any filter. But to analyze your poker results you do filter is so the sample and outcome is skewed towards your narrative. Without realizing it, you've hit the nail on the head about whats missing from your poker sample; a fair and unbiased input.

So its best to take the things you write not literally? OK, I will try to your words figuratively from now on. I certainly hope you wont take all comments too literal than as well..... 🙂

Now hold on a second 😃😃.... I am 100% sure you weren't supposed that comment from Negreanu about A3 never loses so literal. Why do you take this literally while this was clearly tongue-in-cheek even though your own statement are supposed to be taken non-literal??
Do you honestly think that online Negreanu will never fold A3 because in his words "it never loses"?? Cmon man you cant possibly believe that. That sentence was 100% clearly facetious because he was caught out 5bet-bluffing, but hey you always have some chance. Especially the A3-A5s hands are pretty much made for this stuff. Also, the fact that you see 1 hand of Negreanu and immediately make this over-the-top conclusion that A3 must never lose online is quite presumptuous. Its literally 1 hand and 1 comment. If I show you one hand of Negreanu folding A3 online, would this be enough evidence to say A3 never wins??
But since you put so much value to 1 funny comment I can give you three serious ones from the great Phil Galfond. This is 3 times as evidencial as the 1 from Daniel!!!
1. "No major site is rigging their RNG"
2. "Poker sites would be idiots to rig their RNG"
3. "If players really think the RNG is rigged, they are not ready to be winners"

When you say odds differ in live and online hands. Do you honestly think for example flushes are being hit more online then live? If so, you are paranoid. Do you think Linus when facing an overbet on the turn with a draw thinks to himself "Live I wont call because I never hit it but online i'll give it a go"? If so, again, you are paranoid. No top pro does this.

I wanst supposed to take you literal so I guess you dont really mean it:smirk. But let me reply to your own exact words anyway:
You are the one that said we dont need evidence or facts in the whole RNG debate and are claiming the RNG is rigged without those facts. But when I make a presumption that you are a bad player based on everything you say its wrong for me because I have no facts??? You were exactly the one who said we dont need facts!

Furthermore you made the accusation that online pro's are below average players who are happy with the rigged rng.. They dont play good poker, they play according to the rng (which according to fellow riggies only leads to an even worse rng btw) and thats why they make money. They are complicant to the entire scam.
Now thats what I call a bold stament based on.... you guessed it... ZERO FACTS!

Its also a contradictory statement because you and your fellow riggies have said time and time again that the rng is favored to the fishes. I am one of those professional poker players who you think are benifiting from the rigged rng.
Now why would I as a long-term winner want an rng that favores fishes? I want their money ASAP. If an rng is helping out the weakest it would be disadvantageous to the pro's, now why the hell would I want that?

I think you would need to weight the samples as well based on total amount of chips won or lost on the all-ins and have samples from similarly sized tournaments, with similar starting stacks, so the data isn't skewed.

yeah but amazing and waddy are fairly low effort clowns.

they just spew the most obvious nonsense.

John though John has put in some effort.

months and months of nonsense on Gypsy team, spreadsheets, streams.

I just cant imagine anybody wasting all this time on it.

His story makes sense too. He is a rather active dude who likes tennis then he has some kind of accident and is bed bound. He starts to play more and more poker and just cant beat the game.

Since he cant go outside and has at least a mild case of cabin fever, way too high of a an opinion of his own skills and huge chip on his shoulder he starts working out increasingly kooky theories.

Checks out to me.

I mean most of his "life" has been confirmed as a lie. That and he said so many contradictory statements. Every week there was a new hobby he was elite level in 🙂
The latest one was he was a black belt in karate all of a sudden hahahah
The thing is, im not sure Johnmir knows its all lies. I think he might be genuinely ill. Not the 3 year-long muscle injury. The everlasting mental illness. One look at this excel sheets tell this, for the comedy connoisseurs its very much like always sunny where charlie "discovers" pepe silvia.
The reason he wont go out is because Putin will draft him. Safest bet to stay indoors and collect the welfare from the great mighty leader.

I am not sure the others are trolling but it looks that way. Negreanu laughing and making a joke after his 20bb All-in with A3s won against Ajo (29% equity btw, so not strange) shouldnt even be evidence of riggedness for the most paranoid riggie. But waddy brings it like it solidifies his view. Yea.. it must be troll.

For starters, you could stop analyzing everything in absolute value of chips. Because in a tournament stack 100.000 blinds 500/1000 or stack 1.000 blinds 5/10 are no different whatsoever but in holdem manager it will rely heavily on the bigger stack.
Easy solution is put things relative; Analayze everything in terms of bb.

But the most important part remains which sample you use from the start.
Did you read that the mathematician said "the degree of favouriteness is absolutely vital"
That means no even if the sample is small but telling it still his to be a fair unfiltered sample. So if you run 90% under ev over all 1187 hands that would be shocking and significant. If you filter for only 1187 lost hands where you run a lot under ev that doesnt prove anything. Just like filtering for only won hands doesnt prove you have a favored rng.

Funny you make the comparison to a fair coinflip. You are right, if you flip a coin 100 times and its 80% heads the coin must be rigged, theres no way around it. But here's what you did in your poker analysis. You filtered for only heads and then exclaim "look its all heads, this cant be fair". To analyze the coinflips you do take into account all 100 flips without any filter. But to analyze your poker results you do filter is so the sample and outcome is skewed towards your narrative. Without realizing it, you've hit the nail on the head about whats missing from your poker sample; a fair and unbiased input.

That Pepe Silvia episode was amazing. I think i need to rewatch the early season of always sunny.

By the way your screen name on here, is that a nod to atmosphere?

It definitely is. One of my favorite rapgroups of this decade

The only thing that could put Johnmir in the troll category is the following.
He does make extensive excel sheets and preaches a nearly 100% certainty of his findings.

But when he makes a hypothesis like "when you push ax the next ax should be folded because it never hits" or "you played 2-3 80% allins, next premium should be folded because it will be a bad beat"... he says them like he has 100% confidence in them.
But when you ask him to challenge those hypotheses he seems scared and has zero confidence in them.
If he was truly convinced of his algorithm why wouldnt he take those bets on? In his mind he is 100% right and he desperately needs the money. There is no reason for him to weasel out, based on his own statements its a freeroll for him.
It only makes sense if on some level he does realize he is making it all up. Which makes him a part-time troll at the least.

Guys, i'm commenting some older phrases. Excuse me.

They are not even able to consider a prepared (!) and finalized analysis - and it's not my responisibility, man! It's is their responsibility - with all the data, transformed into MS Excel (international format!) and with all the calculations commented – and this is just the shame. They are not simply professional.

Yes, the gambling sphere is just unregulated.

And yes, we have got a huge number of players, who defend this, because there are two groups of players, who
1) win online but they can win much more than 30% ROI and they are not satisfied, cause they feel like they are wasting their lifetime
2) win 30% ROI online, but they would never win in a random game. And they know it, many of them tried to play offline, didn’t manage to do anything there, while telling fairy tales about “different gaming offline”. And they are simply happy with the situation.

This second part of players are not that “well-mannered and deeply thinking” and they simply start to behave totally normal way for people with their personality – insulting other players, making unprofessional comments, always providing aggression to anyone who represent different point of view.

Read those comments –
“You are a clown”, “Poor silly John”? This is a comment addressed to a statistical report? In fact, it’s just a shame.

Now let’s think, how many players can play poker really well? 10%? 20%? Okay, 30%?

And how many players are not good enough? Other 70%-90%?

So we have here what we have.

In normal situation those "average" players would follow rules of integrity and "ethics" not because they understand why it's important, but because they would have no choice. They couldn't go against the "norms of the community".

But while Supervision authorities let all this go. While they let casinos fool players and, at the same time, let them organize, according to their profit, an atmosphere close to - "the worst players can be the most successful". The forums almost (!) totally consist of this Type 2 players, who bring aggression and incompetent disrespectful comments even (!) to well-thought, complicated statistical reports, which they are not even close to understand but calling a bullshit. Typical low intelligent, wild behavior.

In any other shpere, they would get fired from their jobs for this kind of comments (incompetence), and would be excluded from the company/community. But here - they are heroes. And noone would EVER point this "Hey man, this is disrespectful what you say, be attentive!".

Pretty expectable, yes, they are the majority on the forums.

Interesting detail of the situation with me, presonally -

I think, it's good that guys manage to win online. Really. But they are THAT MUCH PERSONALLY SPOILED - just winning is not enough for them. They want more. They want to insult others, make fun of other correctly behaving people. Pure mess. And total disappointment.

And this is what I can't accept actually - because it is not only my problem (If it was just my problem, I wouldn't care that much, cause I don't know guys in a real life).

I provided numbers, and provided the evidence. But even in my case they managed to turn this all into a pure circus. But I can imagine what many other guys feel, who spent all their life playing. And these guys, at the same time, simply can't prove rigging, cause it's impossible to prove without special abilities in data analysis. It's not enough to be a good player to provide the evidence.
And they got simply laughed and got insulted by a bunch of spoiled, mentally ill animals.

Burkeman, look.
Your statement sounds really correct. But since you use “we” (“just want to see hands”😉 I have to comment what most people want to see here.

I announce on two different forums (2+2 and Gipsy Team) the dependency on iPoker –
The software deals flops according to the hand of a player, which he folded on a preflop, to provoke this player participating in a postflop.

After this, in only 500 (!) hands we got this –

But it’s not enough, in 100 hands more we got a sequence that approximately happens once in 60 000 000 flops. I hit 31 of 47 flops.

What would normal, adequate, not mentally spoiled poker players (yes, it sounds slightly funny…😉 type –
They would type here in the ****ing chat – “Yes, guys, John, the game on iPoker looks rigged”. Because you can't find a more comprehensive proof of rigging. It's simply impossible, cause the chance of rigging is close to 100%, literally.

But all you just kept silence. Like rigging of the card game is totally normal for you. And, man, yes – it is not just normal for most part of players here. IT IS COOL that the game is rigged for most part of players. So we have what we have now.

More than that, some players decided to insult me as an answer to my info! Lmfao, man. I mean, am I in the zoo?
You can remain silent, if you don’t like the news. But, lol, INSULTING in this kind of situation? Could guys be more spoiled here? Simply personally? I ask about the personality of people, their mental state in real life?

Still. I saw that Donjonnie, who do not agree with me, still say that I provided some materials. And it’s at least fair. Thank you for this.

And the key question - guys, those of you who win online. You are satisfied with the results. You are not going to accept any proofs of rigging. Now it's obvious.

WHAT are you doing here? Make fun of cheated people? Sorry, are you totally dead really? Are you killing children for fun? Breaking windows of cars on the street to spend your free time?

Because your participation in this thread is totally senseless.

You should try sending that stuff to Curacao :p

Johnny if your analysis of the rng is finalized and certain why wont you stand behind your product?
You are 100% sure of something yet are refusing any bet whatsoever on it. This doesnt make sense.
You've said you've analyzed all the data and there is only one conclusion. You even named some specific parts of the algorithm claiming "they happen everywhere".
I am willing to do something you say has 0% chance. Now if I thought someone was doing something with 0% chance I'll be so happy to take a bet against him, you always weasel out.
Now Johnny, if even you dont have faith in your own analysis, how can you expect other to believe it?

But maybe you finally do have some faith in your own conclusions so I have an idea;
I know you dont have any money but how about this:
Let me try to disprove the rules of the algorithm you laid out and declared finalized and 100% certain.
If I cant I'll leave this forum forever, the entire 2+2 community, after I said I was wrong after all.
But if I can disprove your 100% solid finalized evidence that you leave after saying that your evidence wasnt solid after all..

You would be "betting" on something you have declared as proven, finalized and absolutely certain on numerous occasions.
Seems like a freeroll for Johnny.

And we wont have to bet big sums of cash since I know you dont like that.

We will simply bet our honour. Now the question is, do you have any?

Again if you read this and are sitting on the fence/undecided on whether the Rng is fixed;

Only players who believe in it are aggressive and resort to personal childish comments … they dont come from the ones wanting change.

They seem to feel threatened by anyone trying to call for an improvement in regulation, hence the aggression. Why wouldnt you want further protection, even if you felt it random already? Whats to lose?

You will see this pattern of behaviour on any given poker forum, on any other platform.

You will notice the moderators of any poker forum, allow this to happen. I cant think of any other forum for whatever, that would allow this behaviour without appropriate action.

Ask yourself why sites when questioned on randomness, make the untrue statements ‘ it is technically impossible for a deck not to be random ‘ and ‘ it would not benefit us financially’. Clearly a deck that helped retain players and maximise rake would benefit them financially. Why lie?

Ask yourself why WSOP poker pros, apart from those who just appeared after been successful online, rarely play online.

Ask yourself why poker pros who made it in the real world, want online players at their table.

Ask yourself why Phil Galfond (whilst saying he felt online poker can be rigged, but they would be stupid to do so) invested £10m in a poker site with an honest RnG, lost it all in 18mnths.
It wound up very quickly. The aggressive bunch here said it was down to other reasons like not retaining grinders, but wouldn’t you think you would know how you were going to do this before handing over $10m?

The only mistake he could not foresee due his stubborn belief in honest RnGs, was that an honest deck would not retain custom. He very very quickly found that out. 18 months, $10m gone.

Tom Dwan, took his online game into the real world. Did not adjust. Made very basic errors you simply cant make in the real game. Before the age of 38, hes bust and suffering mentally.

The aggressive bunch here say grinders are the bread and butter of online sites and are the cream of poker. Ask yourself if this is true, why have all sites drifted into twister, spin and go etc, games that have no poker, last 3 minutes and have variance no-one can question as they are total crapshoots?

888 poker even scrapped all their Sit and go tables for this nonsense version.

Show me a grinder making a living at spin and gos!!! And these guys are telling you sites do not have an interest in catering for casual players and fish.

Does that sound like a lie to you?

You will just have to ask yourself why the agggression, why the lies.

And why wouldnt online poker pros support the idea of properly audited decks, with the question of is poker rigged, the question here, being totally eradicated.

Why would they prefer the ‘ you prove its rigged, we dont want proper regulation ‘’????

Odd behaviour don’t you think. Lastly, consider the replies this gets!

These "PROS" do 10%-30% ROI per table. And call this "professional poker". What level of poker gaming should you have to make 30% ROI on MTT? 10% above avarage amateur? ))

A special case is Pokerstars. Multitable SNGs are popular there.
Watch how these guys play 7-15$ limit there. They fold everything and wait while everyone get 15 BB stack.
Then they start to push hands, rofl. The whole world speaks about "it's impossible to get a good ROI without postflop on MTT". They play directly opposite. All - win. No one says a word. "It's online poker".

Yeah, these guys put an effort to study the game. True heroes of poker. While me, personally, was refusing playing, because I had to study the game, watch my hands, analize why I lost the previous tournament, calculate chances to join the buble, calculating my ICM Share before the final table and after I joined it - these guys just played 10 tables without any studing of the game "worked VERY hard" clicking the buttons.

They are interested in the scam to continue, since you can earn money knowing nothing about anything including the poker gaming itself. I show 31 of 47 flops been hit - they do not even understand what does this mean. It's more like a reaction of newcomers who didn't even study the chances in game.

Anyway, I think I understand how we could influence on the situation in case of iPoker. I need to find some free time for this.

I'm reading page 3753 at the moment.
And I just noticed one of your phrases

You got a real evidence. Someone announced dependency and proved it with a chance close to 100%.

And now you "accidentely" suggest

What is the point?
The game is rigged? It's is rigged, obviously.

But the problem is that you will never avoid the room where you simply win money, man. And it's not important if it is rigged or not, since any evidence is not important for you. And you have already proved that!

I would bet on that I calculated the variance of 66% flops been hit of 47. But don't like this in general. Don't like to get money "for nothing", like some online-"poker" "pros" used to earn. Money for a bad job, yes?

To have a viable online poker site, you need a mix of grinders to both start and sustain games and you need the recreational players to both continually deposit money and feed the grinders (because the deposits have to get raked in order for the site to make any profit)

That's it. Any site that has failed, essentially failed to sustain a critical mass of players to sustain an ecosystem. Again, the RNG has NOTHING to do with it. You seem to think this somehow supports your view of sites being rigged and it absolutely, positively, does not. You can have it rigged or random it does not matter if players don't deposit enough and grinders don't get the games running to churn enough rake to cover all expenses and yield a profit

Investing $10m into anything doesn't really mean anything without context. People blow millions of dollars on failed ventures all the time. You make it sound like nobody would ever risk millions on a business venture unless they were absolutely sure they'd print money lol...That's not how it works. It's a risk, one well worth taking, provided you have funds, vision, drive, and acumen to make it work. Failure before success is but a natural course of order in the business world

Agreed Atmosphere is dope. I saw them live at a rhymsayers entertainemnt concert once. best concert I have ever been to. Tickets for like 25 Bucks and a line up of atmosphere, brother ali and blue print.

I dont think that is troll like behaviour at all. I mean you have to see that Johns believes as is often the case with riggies, is essentially a house of cards that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. But he needs it to be true otherwise he would have to face not being a good poker player and that cant be because is ego cant handle it, therefore when his theory doesnt work out int he wild goalpost need to be moved or other outside factors have to have been interfering.

Its all very fragile and needs to be protected by any means. I think likely he just has always been a bit weird. you noticed how he was kind of unable to pick up social clues and never realised when someone was making fun of him, he seems to have weird ideas about there actually being people supporting him. I wouldn't be surprised at all if people that know him personally just go yeah yeah sure John and hand-waive him away whenever he goes on tangents. which he in turn takes as them agreeing with him.
Thats what I would do because aside from hims weird crusade and believe that he is this amazing poker player all evidence to the contrary be damned he seems like a solid dude.

John if you are ever in my Neck of the woods I will buy you a beer and show you how rigged tennis is. I am not holding it against you that you are a bottom 10% tennis player that benefits from the rigged tennis ball and racket racket. True top 1% players like me that are unable to win matches due to the rigging are of course unhappy with the rig but its understandable that you as a benefactor of this scam would defend it.

To the Waddy I can just say mate you were fun for a while but you are becoming way to obvious you cant just say the polar opposite of whats actually going on is happening and not even provide anecdotal evidence. It is just too over the op. Nobody is that dense.

Dont just say things like live players are happy when online players join their table. We actually play poker we all know the opposite is true. Say something like just like last week me and billybob were playing 2-5 and one of these hoody wearing nerds joined the table playing like a fish. typical online fish plays like raising before the flop and reraising with a hand that wasnt AA. Then make up some story about how you stacked him when he overplayed AK and the whole room clapped while you turn over to billyb ob while basking in the glory and tell him: well thats why I call Ace King Anna Kournikova. Looks good but never wins!

Oh and regarding that Phil Galfond site nonsense it failed because 1. Poker is a dying market 2. they didn't have deep enough pockets and 3. their marketing plans didn't work out because they underestimated the level of stupidity of the average punter and marketed it wrong. How do I know that? Because I know a b unch of people that worked over there but hey dont let facts get in the way of a good story.

jesus man tone it down. You have to be trolling nobody this much of a moron.

How does Phil Galfond know the business very well? He knows poker very well but wasnt very well versed on the business side of things that is literally the point you dunce.

But since you are either a pretty low effort troll or so unbelievable definitions defyingly thickheaded I will leave you to make up more idiotic theories.

So if an amateur level player makes 10% ROI, what type of player has -1.1% ROI???
The answer: a professional level player of course

LOLOLOLOL
And this is on an average stake of 43 cents HAHAHAHAHAHAH

You say with your words that you believe poker is rigged and you've proven it. But your actions say the exact opposite.
You say your algorithm is proven close to 100%.
Why wont you take any kind of bet on it then? I am willing to bet I can disprove your theory in a week. If you truly thought your algorithm was so certain you have taken on a bet with by now. But even you know deep down that you are living in fantasyland.

I know you dont have any money so lets bet on honour.
Let me try to disprove the rules of the algorithm you laid out and declared finalized and 100% certain.
If I cant I'll leave this forum forever, the entire 2+2 community, after I said I was wrong after all.
But if I can disprove your 100% solid finalized evidence that you leave after saying that your evidence wasnt solid after all..

You would be "betting" on something you have declared as proven, finalized and absolutely certain on numerous occasions.
Seems like a freeroll for Johnny.

And we wont have to bet big sums of cash since I know you dont like that.

We will simply bet our honour. So the only question remains John...

Do you have any honour?

Dont weasel out again.

Did I really get told to tone it down by DonJonnie!???

You say Galfond would not know anything about the business side of poker, but your first reason you say he failed was poker was on the downturn…

He was in no position to spot this was he! Damn he will be disappointed no-one pointed this out to him!:p

You then go on to point out MY thickheadedness and MY idiotic theories….

Yes you did. LOL

In the end I think the best way to determine what a normal distribution is, is to compare the all-in adjusted differential to the total amount of chips the player bet in all-in situations where their equity was greater than 0% and less than 100%. In other words:

total all-in adjusted differential / (total all in net won - total all in net lost)

So even if a player played in numerous tournaments with different starting stacks (thus potentially skewing the all-in adjusted differential higher or lower because they started with more or less chips than other samples), dividing by the total amount of chips bet will give a percentage and normalize the differences between samples. That would require all-in results to be segregated by all in hands won and all in hands lost (while excluding all in hands with 100% equity) otherwise you get the net won or net lost, not the total bet. If people want to post their Holdem Manager data for their last 1187 (or slightly greater) all in hands here, we can compare them.

Are you quoting yourself going back and forth in a maths discussion... yes you did LOL

You are making yourself go through hoops with your approach. There never is a requirement for all-in hands to be segregated by hands won and hans lost unless you want a graph that screams "look at me im running bad".

Easy solution is put things relative; Analayze everything in terms of big blinds. Not in chips, not in skewing formulas you came up with. Just in big blinds.

But the most important part remains which sample you use from the start.
Did you read that the mathematician said "the degree of favouriteness is absolutely vital"
That means no even if the sample is small but telling it still his to be a fair unfiltered sample. So if you run 90% under ev over all 1187 hands that would be shocking and significant. If you filter for only 1187 lost hands where you run a lot under ev that doesnt prove anything. Just like filtering for only won hands doesnt prove you have a favored rng.

Funny you make the comparison to a fair coinflip. You are right, if you flip a coin 100 times and its 80% heads the coin must be rigged, theres no way around it. But here's what you did in your poker analysis. You filtered for only heads and then exclaim "look its all heads, this cant be fair". To analyze the coinflips you do take into account all 100 flips without any filter. You also suddenly didnt feel the need to segregate between flips won & lost. But to analyze your poker results you do filter it so the sample and outcome is skewed towards your narrative. Without realizing it, you've hit the nail on the head about whats missing from your poker sample; a fair and unbiased input. But looking at your last post you have no desire whatsoever to work with an honest sample.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25/pr...

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25/pr...

Whenever you're ready, Amazing3338