|
to buck22......
Im not a proclaimed winner and nor do I claim to be consistant winning player (cuz things can change) but as of right now I am fortunate to be a very endowed (bank roll wise) player that has won and cashed in many tournerys live and online ... my 2008 run online speaks for itself (over 200k in winnings with over a 500% roi) 2009 online has been completely horrible ( i have cashed a fair amount of times but nothing to write home about) anyway ive pretty much given up online til a more fairly/honest regulated means is established... but as i said to your challenge earlier... I will play you HU live (Live play there would be no excuses about poker skill)... just pick a venue and let me know... but I from what I read eldave is more than willing to give you a game of it... so good luck with whatever you choose..... |
Quote:
I agree with you that a posters poker skills are basically irrelevant to this debate. That is why I don't understand why all you guys who say its rigged always feel the need to tell us how good you are, or how many live tournaments you cashed in or how much money you've won live. Just because you win live and lose online doesn't mean online poker is rigged. I played for many years live before I discovered online poker. I was a winning live player but was losing in my first 18 months or so online. Instead of saying "it must be rigged because i'm losing", I realized it was a totally different game and therefore required a different strategy to win. I honestly don't see how anyone can have any success online playing the same way they do live. |
Track the threads VA - the only reason it comes up is because the non-riggeres inevitably state the riggers only hold their view because they are losing, don't know poker, etc. i.e., it is always a response to an attack. No one comes in to the thread and says I'm great so I know it is rigged. We are only responding to "you suck."
|
I wasn't just talking about this thread. I'm aware that this thread started years ago and there's been attacks back and forth many times. I was just saying that I've heard people on many different forums and threads state that online poker is rigged because they've won for years live and lose online.
I guess I'm not as smart as everyone else here, because I honestly don't KNOW whether its rigged or not. I don't have near enough info to make even an educated guess. I personally don't think its rigged, I've played well over a million hands on different sites and I haven't seen anything that makes me very suspicious. I stopped posting on this thread awhile ago because I think people on both sides are attempting use anecdotal evidence as "proof". Everyone seems to loose perspective as to how many hands are dealt every second on these sites and how microscopic any of our results are compared to the big picture. One player might play 100k hands on a site and their stats might look just right. Another player might play 100k hands on the same site and his stats might look very very strange. So person #1 says its legit while person #2 says its totally rigged. Neither person considers the fact that their stats over any given period of time are probably .0000001% of the total hands dealt by that site over said period of time. I do agree that stats should even out over time for any given site. However, just because they even out for the site doesn't mean they are going to even out for every single last player on the site. To expect that is absurd. I'm not trying to kill the debate, but I think both sides should admit that they don't KNOW whether or not its rigged and that none of us have enough hard evidence to make an educated guess either way. We might feel a certain way because of what we have seen. Buck and I think its legit, most of the rest of you think the opposite. |
And:
I have always stated on-line play is different - as I have posted several times I play on-line to learn how those players play because more and more they are entering the live games. And: It is not like I totally suck at it - I have a positive 8% ROI for 2009 - I wouldn't get my mantel ready for a trophy - but I wouldn't think I don't have a clue either |
VA you´ve got a solid point about the fact our 100k hands are a drip in the ocean of hands played at that site, and agree to expect all results to be similar would be absurd. The very nature of random states that if in 100k hands the odds of being out by a certain % is 100/1, then 1 in 100 will have seemingly rigged results, so there must be thousands of players out there feeling cheated by online poker, even though the RNG is straight.
Eldave, thankyou for paying your respects to my late bankroll. I do feel it´s important to be a winning player elsewhere to claim a certain site is rigged. Main point being that streaks of bad luck happen to huge,random degrees all the time, so without a positive winrate, it is not as black and white as saying ´Im a winning player and im down for the year´. eg roulette, a minus equity game for the player, theres a system where you can place $1 on red, if it hits win $1, if it´s black you double your next bet to $2. The idea is that you win $1 every time as long as you dont lose 7 or 8 in a row where the table limit will cut you off. If you try this(dont recomend with cash) at some point usually before you can get any decent money, you hit an oober bad streak of 8 blacks in a row, ive tried it its every freakin time! This is a perfect example how odds can feel rigged, and look rigged, but actually the odds have caught up with you. From the players perspective he has just had a 240/1 bad beat, but whether he´s just walked in or has been playing all night, it´s just the table indiscriminately collecting it´s debts. 15% ROI is a GOOD winrate for SNG, with the fast blind increases and relatively short stacks that online TOURNYS offer, I would say 8% is about right. As for anyone who wants a game, my bankroll is a little pathetic due to epic bills and a bad run so would have to be around NL50 cash or one of the $30-$50 no blind-increase SNG´s headsup on pokerstars (but would play Fulltilt so wouldn´t be eating my own words, the real robbers are moneybookers and there 1.99% withdrawal tax, banked out $4000 without realising and stiffed me for 80 bones..fekin crooks!) |
VA you bastard! How dare you make a reasonable argument and make me re-think my position. I hate when that happens! :)
I think your last post is spot on- none of us really know. Some of us have data that lends us to beleive one thing and some have data that lends us to believe the opposite. At the end of the day - none of us have sufficient data. I do beleive this - FT and the other sites could do a lot more in the marketing and PR world on this issue. Ironically, last month FT asked me to complete a fairly comprehensive questionairre on ways they could increase player satisfaction (actually gave me ten bucks in my account to do it). The three things I told them were: 1) Treat loyal, existing players as well as those you are trying to recruit. The large first time sign up bonuses should be shared with those who have been on the site (call them retention bonuses). 2) Make withdrawals as easy and timely as deposits. AND - most importantly 3) Prove/Market (you pick the term) that the card distribution is fair. The site that can do this can corner the market on this issue (i.e., here is the proof that we are dealing a fair game- hire Anderson Cooper or some large accounting firm to review and attest to actual hand histories - not just the RNG). It is a mystery to me why this is not pursued is marketing strategy number one for an on-line poker site. It is kind of like a company who makes electrical products not bothering with UL certification, a drug company not caring about FDA review, etc. etc. Demonstable intergrity should be the number one thing Poker Stars, FT, etc should be focusing on. If I owned a poker site - I would spend most of my effort on that. If they don't - the upstarts like REALDEAL or someone else is going to beat them to the punch. Overall, you have changed my mind. My new view is going to simply be - I don't know, but I think it might be rigged based on my own experience. |
Buck - thanks for the latest feedback - sincerely sorry to hear you are running bad. If we are going to play - it has to be FT - I closed my PS account. I have about $4,000 on FT - I hate HU (not my forte) but will do that if that is your strong preference, I would rather do a small (6 or 9 players) to medium (45 to 90 players) SNG and have a last longer bet. But whatever. You can pick the stakes - I play anywhere from $3 to $100 SNGs typically. Or we can wait until your bankroll/bills are in better shape. Happily - I am retired and no longer have the month to month $$ issues - but sure do have emphathy for those that do - any rate - you can get back to me when it is a good time/situation for the pissing contest :) - Better luck to ya. Going to a $30K gaurentee tourney now (only a $125 buy-in! - LA poker is the best!) - wish me luck.
|
...
|
whatodds,
All any of YOUR HEM stats show is YOUR results. YOUR results are a microscopic sample of FTP. All you can logically conclude from YOUR results is that you have been outdrawn more than you should have been. Thats all it shows. If you had results of every single hand played on FTP, showing the same thing, then you could say you have some sort of proof FTP is rigged. Do you think every other player on FTP has the exact same stats as you? Will you not even take into consideration that maybe, just maybe, there are some players on FTP that have been drawn out on less than they should have been? I'm not disputing anything you are saying. However, by the laws of logic, all you are showing is that you have been unlucky on FTP. I would venture to say that probably 30-40% of players are using some sort of tracking system these days. If all of those players had the same results as you, do you really think they'd still play on FTP? I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I'm just pointing out that you are extremely adamant about something you have no way of making any sort of educated guess about. Everyone on both sides of this argument, including myself, have done the same thing from time to time. My side of the argument cannot be proved anymore than your side, thats why I at least admit I don't KNOW. |
here lies problem.... VA Poker your right.. those stats are just whatodds stats... and only his stats but.... ftp gets away with this cuz we dont have access to all hh... If I used HEM and posted my hh with the software and they showed almost exactly with whatodds shows would you just say thats only 2 guys samples???? What if 10, 20 or 50 more people came on here and posted hh with HEM software all showing relatively the same results of skewed and unreasonable hh... you nay sayers would prolly say the same thing (its only you 50 people showing this, just a small sample size, yada yada yada)... again the reason ft (aswell as ps)do get away with what they do is because of the very point that we dont have access to every HH.... if you cant make a comparison to all hh of all players then you will always have plausible denial and doubt..
|
...
|
Quote:
You claim to have a significant sample. I would bet my life that your sample isn't even a 10,000th of a percent of FTP's total hands dealt. That means you have NO KNOWLEDGE of 99.9999% of the total hands on FTP. Do you really think its logical to claim to know something is rigged when you have no knowledge of 99.9999% of the total hands dealt there. Do you think there are no players on FTP that have been drawn out on LESS than they should have? You talk about logic and proof. All you can logically prove is that you have been drawn out on more than you should have been on FTP. Thats all you can prove. I'm not even saying you are wrong, I'm just saying you don't have sufficient evidence to make even an educated guess, much less to claim proof. BTW there is a very very good reason no one has "brought this to light". If someone tried to take some sort of legal action against FTP, claiming to have proof its rigged, because they were drawn out on more than they should have been based on a hand sample of less than .00001% of FTP's total hands, that person would be counter sued and FTP would take everything they have. You can't legally claim to have proof of something when, in fact, you have no way of proving anything. If you are so sure you are right and your proof is logical, why don't you try bringing it to light? Billy Tk, I totally agree with your post. It sums up my position perfectly. That IS the problem. That is why I don't claim to know whether or not FTP is rigged and have stated that none of us do and all we can do is trust our info and instincts to decide whether or not its a good place for us to play. I've always opposed people who claim its rigged. Not because I know its not, but because I do know that they don't have enough info to make any sort of educated guess on the matter. |
Quote:
Not a guy with a lot of words but yeah Full Tilt is Bogus, if you are a good SNG player with any kind of poker instincts and have spent a lot of your online playing time at Full Tilt, 50 plus hours a week, then you know no matter how well you play you will get hacked by a lesser skilled player, the site plays that way and I accept it, I know I will not make money there on a consistant basis, maybe cash every now and then but thats ok, I play there because it is EZ, anytime, anywhere I can log in and have access to all the action I want, thats why I continue to play there. I don't lose more than I can afford so it's all good, though it would be nice to play at a site that does truely deal random cards, they would get my business. |
Quote:
|
Firstly, I think VA is spot on with his reasoning. To add to this, I wanted to point out that experts and mathmeticians belive that your WINRATE should balance after 100k hands, not necesarily PARTICULAR hands or draws, because out of the 100k sample, only a fraction will be flush draws for example. OVERALL you should get your winrate, but out of the hundreds of filters possible, it's ignorant to expect them ALL to be exactly where they should be.
I would like to reitterate a point that really struck me again last night. I was multitabling 8 SNG's at a time, and noticed how freakin bad most of the players were. Calling huge reraises with 78, calling allins with 10J, but seemingly every time they where hitting and stacking me. I spent all night swearing at my computer, questioning why bad plays where getting paid every time, christ knows how many AA & KK got cracked. Nightmare. Played 36 games in total, checked my bankroll, and im up $350. Bad players increase variance by putting ur luck to the test more, AND occasionally you make mistakes because they are harder to read than a logically minded player. Their absence of logic more than makes up for your occasional blunder but meanwhile if your running bad, it feels like rigged city. Most of you know I play pokerstars, but it gets just as bad press in the rigged department as fulltilt, with exactly the same complaints. VA is right that no-one can have 100% proof whether these sites are rigged or not, but by sharing rational theories on the similarities of our experience, we get a bigger picture of the true nature of the beast, and this is the cure for tilt. |
interesting discussion. disclaimer: i';m not a statistician nor do i know anything and everything written below is voodoo
ftp claims compliance with NIST standard FIPS140-1 for random number generation. a search shows there's a set of statistical tests any rng needs to pass. FIPS140-2 is available as PDF and has verifications possible with 20k bits of RNG (its struck out of the standard - not sure why but still a good read as a starting point). So one could apply the bit tests to hands from stats sites perhaps but you would need to write up some proof of some transform from cards into bit patterns that was invariant w.r.t. the bit tests, although intuitively this seems not wholy unreasonable but again i'm not an expert. Then just 20k worth of bits could test an RNG (according to crossed out bits). The "your hands are only a fraction of the total hands" argument gets at the notion of needing a large enough sample, but the total number of hands i believe is less relevant than the size of the sample compared to what the variance/properties youre testing for is. for example, all the RNG verification tests themselves are only a fraction of all the random bits ever generated by mankind, but we still consider the tests significant. its interesting also that becuase hands can be recorded these sites are subject to potential auditing by sufficiently motivated or annoyed rogue statisticians - so they are at risk if they were they to rig something - partly from discovery and partly from people finding flaws in their systems and abusing it. Mind you to keep conspiracy theory alive, its seems plausible that at any stage they can maintain bit patterns that would pass verification, but still pick'n choose the next card that came out - for example consider the monobit test discussed in the standard - one could conspiracy theorize rigging something that could pick a more 'exciting' card that had the same number of 1's and 0's in its bit pattern: 1010, 1001, 0101 etc. which means you'd need statistics on longer runs or patterns which would mean more cards necessary. actually determining how many cards one needs to observe to make a conclusion would be a pretty interesting task in itself. Maybe thats why the tests are crossed out in the '02 version of the standard and why they use the dieharder standards which take their queue from what look like more sophisticated NIST rng verifications. |
...
|
whatodds,
First of all, all the things you call "my arguments" are very basic and simple logic. Secondly, there is no guarantee that if you flip a coin 200x it will come up heads 80-120 times. Even if what you said was right, that has nothing to do with hold'em odds because everything except a 50/50 preflop race is so much more complicated than flipping a coin. You've completely missed the point of everything I've said. I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I'm just saying you don't have enough evidence to claim proof. I do have a law degree so I know a little something about proof. I'm just saying, all you have is evidence that YOUR stats don't add up on FTP. Yet, you claim the ENTIRE RNG is rigged. Your logic is completely faulty. If you think you are so right, go ahead, "bring it all to light". Sue FTP. I'd bet every penny I have that they would take everything you own. If you weren't just some random guy babbling on in a forum, they would have probably sued you for everything you have already. I will never post on this topic again, its clear you have no room for logic in your brain. You have a polarized view on this subject and you will not change. Why haven't you answered any of my questions? Do you think everyone on FTP has the same stats as you? Do you think it is possible some players on FTP have been drawn out on less frequently than they should have been? Do you think everyone's stats on every site should be indentical? If another player on FTP showed stats proving he was drawn out on less than he should have been, would you recant your whole argument? If a player shows normal stats on 100k hands on any given site, is that PROOF that a site is legit? I've asked you all these questions, you never answer. I'm particularly interested in the last one. I've played 75k hands on Pokerstars since I've started tracking. My stats show nothing weird. Do I now have PROOF pokerstars is legit? Of course I don't, but if i were to use your logic, or lack their of, I would. |
...
|
LOL It's funny that you refuse to answer my questions considering the answers are fundamental to your entire argument. You responded to my posts over and over again criticizing me, but you refuse to extremely simple questions I have posed to you. It figures that a guy trying to prove something that is so far beyond provable given his information would want to quit talking about the subject.
BTW, I don't know if they taught you this in physics or not but A COIN DOES NOT HAVE A MEMORY. You must be one of those idiots who hangs around the roulette tables waiting for a table to hit black like 10x in a row so you can go bet on red because you think the previous 10 spins have a correlation with the next one. A coin has no memory. It is within the realm of possibility that a coin could hit heads 200x in a row. You might have to flip it a trillion times before you get that result, but it is certainly a possibility. Just like it is a possibility that some people can get drawn out on more frequently than others. I know I know, its just not fair. |
...
|
First of all, I know you aren't stupid enough to think a roulette ball or coin has a memory. It was a joke to make my point.
Ok, so let me get this straight. If a player has normal stats over 100k hands you are saying its proof that a site isn't rigged? Do you really not think one person has normal stats on FTP over 100k hands? By your own logic, that player would have proof that FTP isn't rigged. However, you claim that your sample is proof that it is rigged. So, using your own logic, two people can prove completely opposite things? If one single person came forward with a 100k sample on FTP that was normal would you recant your entire argument? Based on your logic, you would have to. If there sample says one thing and yours says another, who is right? Who has the real proof? This thread has digressed into bickering about semantics between you and me. I freely admit that when I dismissed the rigged theory I was doing so without anywhere close to enough information. All I can factually say is that, based on my personal experience on many sites, I don't think any of them are rigged. For me to state its not rigged as a fact would be totally presumptuous. I'm not even trying to say I'm right. I'm just saying you don't have PROOF. I will concede the roulette thing to you, even though it doesn't sound right to me, because you probably know better than I do. But I do know about proof, and the fact is that NO ONE, except FTP themselves, has enough info to claim any sort of proof. If they did, someone would have taken it up legally by now. The only lawsuit I've heard about against FTP, involving cheating, is that they use bots and that claim was made by a player who had his account frozen for using bots. I just think cheating is a very serious allegation that should be made carefully. When I started playing poker in the early 90's I played in underground rooms and, more often then not, we had no dealer. If I thought 2 guys at the table were colluding, I'd get up and never sit down with them again. I wouldn't accuse them of cheating because I didn't have proof. I would later tell fellow players what I THOUGHT was going on, not what I KNEW what was going on.You guys who think online poker is rigged seem to have no problem throwing any accusation around. You say guys like me and buck, who think its legit, are working for FTP. I'm pretty sure you personally have made that allegation against us but I apologize if I'm mistaken. There's probably been about 20 people who have ever read this thread, its basically you me and buck talking to each other, do you really think FTP is paying people to write here? |
...
|
Making outrageous claims without a shred of proof or a rational arguement? I never thought I'd see the day the internet sank so low!
Don't think this thread is dedicated to collecting concrete evidence on FTP's RNG, just a discussion on the crazy results a fraction of the Fulltilt community have experienced, and making sense of it all. I found this thread by googling 'Full tilt rigged', there's a reason we all found this thread because out of the billions of hands, and millions of players, a proportion of the crowd is going to run horrible for a length of time that seems mathmatically near impossible. If there was a site doing coin flips with millions playing eachother, odds state that a small proportion will lose an unimaginable amount in a row, their would undoubtably be rigged conspiracy theories amoung these unlucky few claiming their bad luck was 100000/1 for the sample they took. Seeing as this would 100% definately apply to the poker world, don't you think this is a rational explanation for how Whatodds can have 100k hands of poor results even though from his perspective this seems impossible, out of millions of players, someones got to have outrageous bad luck over 100k+ hands, and he ended up posting it on here. But, if Whatodds truly is a winning player and their was concrete proof of this, another 100k hands would show this, because from our perpective he wouldn't be one out of millions who hit an unlucky streak, he would be one trial playing 100k hands and the chances of winrate being off after this amount of hands is so small, we'd have a damn good idea if the RNG was coshure. Unfortunately we won't ever be 100% that Whatodds is a favourite and other variables so this is all hyperthetical, but to me this theoretical explains how 100k hands can be a good enough sample but at the same time be misleading as threads like this only focus in on the 100k samples out of billions that hit an unlucky downswing. "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality" Albert Einstein |
...
|
have 14,000 in a tournament avg 7000 blinds 120/240 raise 3x bb utg with AA and bb calls. pots like 1200 flop q 7 3 so i bet 480 other guy raises to 2000 so i push all in. he has q10 of course 10 comes on river down to 3000. next hand get k9 in bb couple limpers check flop comes 8 j q all check turn 10 giving me straight. guy bets 200 raise to 600 i go all in he calls with AQ river k to give him A high straight im out. wtf locked myself out for a day cause of this
|
Whatodds I think you've missed my point about how 100k hands (which is now 50k, sure it was 100k before) will pretty reliably reflect your WINRATE, not the EV of each of the hundreds of different situations ie flush draw, Im sure you have your maths wrong with this.
Each hand you play has its own expected value, 100k of these should balance these values out. But out of these hands how many are flush draw situations? Alot fewer! For this situation to occur you need: a)To be in hand - 25% (estimates) b)Flop & opponants hand must contain total of 4 flush cards- 16% c)To flop a commited hand - 13% d)opponant & you all in on flop - 90% So it will occur once in 237ish hands, 50k/237= 210 So you've seen around 210 opponants flush draws in this sample, now being out atleast 70/30 is unlikely over 210 trials but not out of the realms of possiblity and definately not 'billions to 1'. Whatever you think of any site, you've got to make sure you've got your maths and expectation right. Ive hit 50k hands in the last 3weeks and my EV is about $500 below winnings, I friken deserve it after last 4 months, but it goes to show 50k hands really isnt enough cos ive just managed to run like sh*t for 50k, then run well for 50k |
...
|
Nah, we're on the same subject, but have different opinions on DECENT sample. According to your filter and the odds you've given for the situation to occur, the chances are:
5%(PP) x 24%(opponant s) x 11%(opp hit fl/drw) x 11%(you hit) = 1/5120 So in your 50k sample, you've only had this situation about 9 or 10 times. You have to agree with me that 10 coinflips is not on the same planet as a decent sample of trials. Event though your winrate should be near accurate, analyising certatin filters will still be premature. Regarding the comment that when you flop a monster and a flush card comes, they have it 100% seems to unfortunately point to your opponants playing very well ie they are folding to your strong flop raises unless they have a strong draw that will bust you if it hits. There's a reason they stayed in the pot with a slightly cripled flop and a flush draw board, they have to have you matched, beat, or implied odds to crack your hand, AND THEY KNOW THIS. Cash game players on todays toughest sites are like freaking robots, and from personal experience they always fekin have it. The pain in the arse is that playing this tight and nitty is probably near optimal play for a game with such big stacks and no blind increase. If you go to ipoker, you can flease those f***ers all day by crackin there PP's and TP's with simple turn and river manuevers, they always stick their head out! How do you thrash an opponant that only sticks his head out with the best hand, by painfully slow stealing/bluffing equity. There is no doubt that fekers as low as 12c/25c play tight, solid poker on Fulltilt and pokerstars. Bare with me on this point, you have a flopped monster and 2 flush cards are out. When you opponant has a draw and misses he'll fold, so you won't know what he had, however when he hits, you sure as hell know what he has when he shows you the best hand and takes down the pot. So to you, it makes perfect sense that it SEEMS like their flush gets there 100%, because in reality he folded the missed draw 80%. This is patient play from your opponants and it's hard to get equity even off trips in this situation , unless you can make the oober folds. This is why I gave up on cash games because the equity is so small when at these stakes on SNG's, they'll pay you off with middle pair on the river, so much better. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:14 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.