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

So as Slugant explained the winrates online are mainly smaller because of a higher reg to fish ratio.

The regs generally are also stronger.

Obviously it is more common to lose over a 1k hand sample the lower your winrate is. Since online you play tougher opponents you will lose over a 1k sample more often.

I also have no idea how you got to the conclusion that live regs never lose over a 1k hand sample.

Live you get something like 25 hands an hour I suppose so 100 hands is 40 hours.

For a full time live player to lose over a week is a somewhat regular occurrence.

You just have to get coolered like twice with how deep stacks are live and there you go.

You are describing a hypothetical with completely hypothetical results..
You say you have no proof but you claim do will lose/earn more money even though all proof is missing. You cant state the outcomes like facts when they clearly arent

You say these online fish I showed would have lost even quicker live???
These are online fish with lossrate in the thousands!!!! I have played a huge amount of live poker in my life but almost never witnessed those numbers.
You are claiming they would lose 3x/4x quicker live than the lossrate of for instance -2310bb/100. That claim is not even close to anything real. If you truly believe it I think you have bigger problems. You realize for that to be true he would have to be shoving every hand for 100bb AND be called each hand AND lose each hand.
How likely do you think this really is?

The fact that you cant see somebody who says live and online are equaly fair doesnt make it true. Because you probably havent looked very far. Pretty much all HS regs for instance.

I dont think you are necessarily unlucky, I think you suffer from comfirmation bias.

If a winning live reg could play 1k hands per day I bet they win 90% of their sessions. Online it won't even be close

I would take that bet in a heartbeat

Even good winning live regs get their shares of JJ
To make up for that you need to make 20bb/100 over the rest of the sample.
Not undoable by any means but it wont happen 90% of the time, for that there is simply too much variance in 1k hands, even in a live fishy setting.

Here are some stats of a whopping 20bb/100 reg

Losing after 1k hands has a probability of 30%
And this is with a very conversative 120 st.dev which in live fishy games would actually be a lot higher so the variance would be even more prominent.
And a 20bb/100 is not just a "winning reg" but an extremely winning reg

And regarding your feeling online when it comes to opponents hitting more draws for instance, you can check easily if this is happening to you.
You say you have 4 million online hands, thats a great big sample to analayze.
If you are willing to do the analysis on your hands might I sugges this.
Import all hands and create a filter, lets say "opponent has a gutshot on the flop and sees turn"
They should be hitting them on the turn 9% of the time according to basic math
If you show in your huge sample that its a way bigger number you have proof in numbers that something might be going on

Right now it seems you are talking solely on "feel" (yet presenting these feelings as facts)
Yet with not that much work you can actually see the facts and numbers yourself.
And these numbers wont be distorted and it might give you a little piece of mind regarding the fairness of the online rng. Enough motivation to do the analysis I would reckon.

Im looking forward to see these results 😉

You guys are obviously free to believe whatever you want. The one thing I've noticed over the years of playing is most people don't have very good observation skills so they're not able to pick out patterns they may see. They're just not aware of them. I have pointed out many times for example on ACR back in the day they used to have all the bots. So I told the guy hey we're playing with a bot right now we were three-handed he said how do you know? And I said watch him raise and what does he raise to? The guy says he's raising full pot. I said correct I said now straddle, ACR used to have a straddle option, and I told him to straddle and I said watch what the bot raises to now and it wasn't full pot and he was mystified that he didn't figure that out himself. And I said well that's what I'm saying most people do not have the awareness of the observational skills to see stuff. you guys will just rely on some type of statistical program to say okay over this giant sample what happened. Yes well that'll probably occur over that giant sample. But in that giant sample you will run into patents and streaks that will skew all the numbers until everything evens out. So for example pretty much every single day that I play online one guy picks the magic seat, always a losing player, plays almost every hand and can't lose. This happens every single day. I'm saying it's impossible to have one table where you just play pretty much every hand and when and it's a different losing player every single day. Now of course you guys will say oh but over the long run he's losing, yes he is but he's not losing for that one day on that one table. I'm saying it's virtually impossible to play a hundred hands an hour on one table play 95% of them and just win for 3 hours straight. Okay sure somebody could do that once in awhile. You can't have a different losing player do that everyday and when but that's exactly what happens online. But then you check the stats and go oh it's perfect because he lost at the other tables he was at. And I'm sure he did but what is that got to do with the one table you're at. It just makes no sense to me that this is something you could consider random because if you went to a live game of poker I would bet you a massive sum of money that you would not find one losing player every single day at a table winning you might get a guy who wins and then quits an hour later and is up money sure that happens all the time. But he played 25 hands in a live game he didn't play 200 hands. I mean the chance of a losing player playing that many hands and playing 95% of them and still winning at the end is got to be close to zero. I don't care what the variance calculator says the variance calculator is not taking into account that the guy is playing 95% of the hands it's just saying that if you are an idiot you still have a 27% chance to win or something like that. It doesn't calculate that okay if you already idiot and you play 95% of the hands what are the chances you can win

That was a tough post to read and it didnt make a whole lot of sense

The variance calculations I've shown you are the variance stats of a true +20bb/100 winner.
An "idiot who plays 95% of hands" doesnt have this true winrate.

What is your point here? You want fish to lose every single table every single day because they are bad? If poker worked that way we all be out of a job.

I do agree that people arent good at picking up patterns, mainly because of their own comfirmation bias.

Therefore I dont just believe stories about certain players hitting every turn, I believe the data and numbers shown to me.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason you dont show those numbers.
Even though you have 4 million online hands and you said 4 times that it happens "every single day".
In the time it took for you to write that post you could have actually checked if your assumption that (certain) opponents are hitting draws/boards more frequently than they should is actually right or maybe your observation skills are biased.

Why havent we seen it yet?

Especially this. If you can show that a different 95% of hand-playing losing fish wins 3 hours straight every day I will eat my hat.
Ive played over 10 million hands online and the times I witnessed it I can count on one hand. Yet you claim (without any evidence of course) that this happens every day.
Without any backing I think its a bizarre statement

How can you have evidence? I would have to get a hold of a fish's results. They're not going to give them to me. I'm just telling you when I sit at a table and I see a terrible player doing it I see these guys win over and over. Currently there is a complete Muppet playing on one of the sites I play on who is winning on every table he plays between three and five hundred dollars at 50 p l o. This has been going on for two straight weeks. I've actually reported the guy because I cannot believe what I'm saying. He plays three and four tables at a time many hours out of the day and plays almost every single hand dealt to him and every single table this guy is on he has four or five stacks every single day that I log on. It is virtually impossible for a terrible player to do this for two week period straight. And I would go on a limb and say this guy's playing six to eight hours a day. I've actually reported him because I cannot believe what I'm saying

you out of all people are asking for evidence?

What do you not understand jungmit? You have the evidence!
You watched it all online, thats what your basing your assumption on. Everything you watch online is in hand histories you can import and show.
You dont need their entire database, you have 4 million hands!
They hit every straight draw at your table, well, than its in your database.
If you've seen a player winning 2 straight weeks on every table he plays you can show it. You dont need their hand histories, you've got your own.
You see a terrible player playing 6-8 hours a day with big stacks on every table. Maybe you are not a good judge of what terrible is?
Right now, your lack of showing the goods on your stories is terrible. Namely 0%.

I don't play on a site that allows huds. I prefer to play on sites that don't allow tracking software so there's no way for me to get the information unless some bad player was willing to give it to me. And I never said they hit every single straight draw. All I ever said was I believe bad players lose slower online and good players winslower online is to keep the game going much longer. If a winning player had a true win rate online playing a thousand hands a day it would be very quickly that the games would end because bad players would be losing massive sums of money. The reason they can survive live is because they're only playing 25 hands an hour so if they play for two or three four hours they're only playing 100 hands. Online sometimes they're playing two tables and they're playing 200 hands in 1 hour. So if they play for 3 hours online it's 600 hands that's like six days at the casino. I would be hard pressed to believe that a losing player could go to a casino six days in a row and show a profit every single day

A HUD wont be a factor but those 4 million hands you've played all came from untracked site without hand histories. Man, talk about bad luck
A few posts above however you were talking about you are playing on ACR.
I know for a fact they have hand histories and huds so you could gather evidence from there.
But as I see it, you will stick to stories instead of facts. Thats fine, but this will never demonstrate anything.

The 4 million hands are over the course of the last 20 years. I never even used the HUD for the first 10 years of playing. Since then I have used the HUD off and on but I generally don't even play Texas hold'em that often I play other poker games. So yes a HUD would kind of be not even enough information to prove anything. I mean most of the sites that I've played on in the past were sites where you could not use a HUD. I prefer games where you can't use a HUD cuz it attracts less of the nit rigs. Currently I haven't used a HUD for the last two to three years even on the sites that I could use them on. I just don't even like playing with one because it makes me play different when I'm thinking about red lines and turn bets and turn bluffs and I just prefer to play an exploitative style so I don't even like the HUD even if it just tracked my own stuff I just prefer to not even have it

so the 4 million figure is just you estimating how many hands you played.

In reality you have no idea how many hands you played.

I think its not the only thing thats estimated while in reality there is no idea :p

Thats the beauty of playing totally untracked sites without hand histories (even though they rarely exist and last time he was playing acr which does have them)

You can just yell anything and when asked for some proof you can just claim its not your fault you cant provide it

jungmit

Isn't that why you should use a HUD whenever you can?

If everyone else is using a HUD, (or at least a pen and paper), and they all know something you don't, and if there is a way to change their strategy to exploit someone who doesn't know what they know, wouldn't that be an explanation of why you lose more than you should with your strategy that you think depends on a random deck, and something to be avoided?

However, you might discover that the deck is random and therefore you aren't as good a player as you think you are. The people who use HUDs study the hand histories to see where they went wrong in certain situations, or who played badly, or how they can win more from certain types of players, etc, etc. You don't have that option to learn how to improve your game, and hence your game has probably stagnated in comparison to theirs, with that being the reason you lose more than you think you should.

It is well known that simple memory isn't necessarily the best thing to rely upon, and that people think they see patterns where they don't exist. Using HUDs wherever they can be used is so much better as a learning tool in a game as complex as poker for money.

At least use a tracker.
GG doesnt allow for a personal made HUD but at least you can import the hands in any tracker and see for yourself.
You've said you played on ACR. They definitely store hand histories that you can import in any tracker. But its clear you refuse because you dont want to know the outcome (i.e. it turns out they are not gunning for you)

So did you and opponents get AA every 100 hands? No? Than the example is void.
And the sites dont tell you they are using a FAIR number generator. The site specifically says they are using a RANDOM number generator, what makes you conclude it isnt random?
And what makes you think rigging the deck to get more AA does mean its fair? Of course its not. But thankfully, with an RNG that doesnt happen.

Fair enough. So is this feeling of it being rigged a recent thing that popped up after you played for 20 years or did you perceive it to be rigged from the start.

So what you are saying is that a site will rig its games and cheat its customers but draws the line at lying to them via email?

Do you think customer support agents are like vampires that you need invite into your house for them to able to cross the threshold just that they are unable to lie so they use they say it in a round about way?

A fair game is one that is free of manipulations of any kind. So its covers people colluding too.

The reason these emails are written like this because they are canned responses. I worked in customer support for a poker site. We get all kind of crazies emailing us. People who think the games are rigged, people raging because they got outdrawn complaining about bad beats, people threatening to come to the office and teach us a lesson all kind of crazies.

So what you do is roll your eyes grab one of the bad beat or rigged game templates personalise it a bit and send it out.

Chronology has always been difficult for the riggies
Its like Waddy claiming the stars deck was rigged ever since black friday even though he also claimed he quit stars 5 years prior to that 😃

Where does ChatGPT get its information from?

AI Overview:

ChatGPT gets its information from a massive and diverse training dataset that includes publicly available internet text (like websites, forums, and Wikipedia) ...

It's important to remember that ChatGPT does not access a real-time database of facts; instead, it uses patterns learned from this static training data to generate responses, which means its knowledge has a cutoff date and it can reflect the biases and inaccuracies present in its source material.

Types of Information Used:

Publicly available internet data:
This includes a vast amount of text from websites, blogs, forums, and sites like Wikipedia

***

When more people complain about the possible riggnicity of online dealing than praise its correctnitude, it's pretty dolgarned likely that AI will become a riggie, too.

1. of course they look at millions of hands. Why would anybody look at specific accounts? This whole point is just gibberish.

2. Bullshit. Thats not what that means at all. You are just making this up.

3. Bullshit. What sources? Where are these statements? What exactly did they claim? Legally that would be considered fraud. The real issue would be to find a court with standing, means and will to prosecute. You are just making **** up again.

4. Thats is not how things work you are making **** up again.

5. Bullshit you are making things up again.

I get why people make these rigging claims up. You just cant accept you suck at poker so you make up stories to safe yourself from the embarrassment of having to admit to yourself that you are bad at a game you tried to learn.

I dont see why thats such a big deal but what ever.

But why would you make up these ridiculous claims?

Whats the goal?

You claim that only a few accounts are being targeted by saying

Yet you also claim the sites do this:

If the rng only affects 0.01% of profiles (i.e 1 out of every 10.000 profiles) how on earth would that manage an "eco-system balancing" ???

The whole post is full of self-contradictory stuff and no shred of evidence anywhere

But since you've actually seen this you can deliver this evidence easily
Please show me an elite player run -50bb/100 over 200k hands..
I'll be waiting 🙂

I stick to sites that don't allow trackers

Except you played on ACR so you didnt

Wow, so many words just to say "I'm horrible at poker, I should never have played a single hand of real money poker but I want someone else to be at fault for it!"