[Denethor]

VA:

I've pretty much decided that I'm not cut out for poker as you know from our discussions. Online is the best option for my geographic area, and I wanted to become more accomplished before venturing into a live setting, anyway, but if what I'm experiencing is an accurate representation of live poker, then I'm no good and am not getting any better. If anything I'm getting worse. The more I learn and the more I try to think things through, the worse my results.

Poker abilities and experience aside, though, I have a different perspective on a couple points of your post. These are just some different conclusions based on different thinking rather than any claims as to how things should be played or anything.

In regards to the argument that messing with the low stakes wouldn't be worth the trouble, I think most people who claim things aren't on the up-and-up usually agree that low stakes would be the area where the most people play and where oddities would be least likely to be noticed. Few people at that level would be using tracking software, and most probably don't have much live experience to which to compare. Start messing with things in a high-stakes game, and it would probalby get noticed right away.

The question of why the sites would target those who post here is a chicken-egg thing. People are posting here because they feel they aren't getting a fair game. But, again, I think the issue isn't that the sites would be designed to target certain players or even actively target a certain type or group of players. The assertion is simply that the dealing being less than random would benefit certain players/types of players while harming others. If draws are completed more frequently than they should, then it only stands to reason that anyone who chases draws will benefit while those who don't would be on the losing end.

I know a lot of people say that the more hands dealt, the more unlikely hands/bad beats. Statistically, though, that shouldn't change the likelihood of anything. If anything, the increased number of hands should increase the sample size seen by everyone and decrease the variance. Saying that more players means more bad beats would be like saying that having one thousand people each flip a coin would result in the results being further from 50/50 than having just one person flip one coin.

Additionally, the idea that looser players would result in more unlikely hands seems a bit off to me, as well. Just because more players chase draws doesn't mean that they should hit any more often. Even if a player chases every flush, he still shouldn't hit it more than odds dictate. Again, if anything, more chased flushes should mean a larger sample size of hands that go to showdown. As long as the odds hold up, then more people chasing draws should mean more wins by their opponents playing sound poker when the chasers miss - not a higher chance of draws being completed.

Anyway, just some alternative perspective. I went into poker thinking the results should be more reliable (not necessarily predictable) than they apparently are.