I know it's RIGGED...

pantin007 · Aug 1, 2008

^ 100 hands IS NOT A BIG ENOUGH SAMPLE FOR A TEST
maybe 100,000 but 100 is too small

TheseNutsWin · Aug 1, 2008

Lemlywinks said:
So you're just here to stir up controversy on something you have no proof of?

why do i need the proof.. why does religion needs no proof but i need one?

TheseNutsWin · Aug 1, 2008

pantin007 said:
^ 100 HANDS IS NOT A BIG ENOUGH SAMPLE FOR A TEST
maybe 100,000 but 100 is too small

ok I can tell you that in 10 home games that is 1000 hand sample then i still have not seen that many coincidences...

tiltboy · Aug 1, 2008

I agree. I'm sure we cant be the only ones to think that online games are a touch exaggerated in terms of action.

I know virtually any 6 man SNG will have a play holding AA or KK a couple of times but on a live table it may not happen and this is with minimal raising allowing more people to see flops.

Online just has a lot of action, its like a highlight reel of poker.

pantin007 · Aug 1, 2008

100,000 hands
how do u not get this

TheseNutsWin · Aug 1, 2008

pantin007 said:
100,000 hands
how do u not get this

listen... a sample of 1000 hands in pokerstars and live game should have close results, you dont need a sample of 100,000 ...

dsvw56 · Aug 1, 2008

TheseNutsWin said:
listen... a sample of 1000 hands in pokerstars and live game should have close results, you dont need a sample of 100,000 ...

Lol you CLEARLY have no idea how much variance is involved in poker if you think this is the case. Not that you had much, but all remaining credibility . . . . POOF . . . . gone.

pantin007 · Aug 1, 2008

in 1 instance in 1000 hands u can be dealt aces 20 times and in another instance in 1000 hands u can be dealt aces 0 times, these percentages even out over a longer period of time

switch0723 · Aug 1, 2008

your live game sounds rigged as to not produce any action hands

lock thread now plzkthx

TheseNutsWin · Aug 1, 2008

dsvw56 said:
Lol you CLEARLY have no idea how much variance is involved in poker if you think this is the case. Not that you had much, but all remaining credibility . . . . POOF . . . . gone.

oh and you do mr einstein please teach me..

TheseNutsWin · Aug 1, 2008

switch0723 said:
your live game sounds rigged as to not produce any action hands

lock thread now plzkthx

your idiot comment proves you dont even play any live games...

dsvw56 · Aug 1, 2008

TheseNutsWin said:
oh and you do mr einstein please teach me..

Well I may not be Einstein, but I do have a pretty good understanding of the variance in poker. Or at least enough to know that a 1000 hand sample is very statistically insignificant.

TheseNutsWin · Aug 1, 2008

i love it that if somebody says that the pokerstars game is rigged right away people must bash that person. believe what you want to believe..

pantin007 · Aug 1, 2008

^ its you bashing everybody imo

TheseNutsWin · Aug 1, 2008

dsvw56 said:
Well I may not be Einstein, but I do have a pretty good understanding of the variance in poker. Or at least enough to know that a 1000 hand sample is very statistically insignificant.

ok and you have the numbers you can list?

TheseNutsWin · Aug 1, 2008

pantin007 said:
^ its you bashing everybody imo

I am bashing??? where??

pantin007 · Aug 1, 2008

TheseNutsWin said:
your idiot comment proves you dont even play any live games...

TheseNutsWin said:
oh and you do mr einstein please teach me..

just a few of ur comments and u do make some rude posts that i didnt quote here

eNTy · Aug 1, 2008

Is this the Jerry Springer forum ?

I must be on the wrong site

TheseNutsWin · Aug 1, 2008

pantin007 said:
just a few of ur comments and u do make some rude posts that i didnt quote here

i bashed the dude cause he came in , posted a stupid comment and asked for the thread to be closed.. he got nothing smart to say then he should not even post stuff in my thread..

dj11 · Aug 1, 2008

Consider Statistical Sampling. This is the way polling companies predict winners from a very small number of interviews. It is also the way TV programming is determined. Remember Neilson?

OK, the problem with Neilson in the early years, was that they had a known group of samplers, who decided that they controlled the moral fabric of TV. Never mind that they were a small group of folks who could afford a color TV, and where of the ilk Neilson wanted. This ended up being a horrendous misuse of statistics.

Neilson changed, but not that much. They added a few minorities to the sampling group.

Enter the political polls. The truly independent political pols often run by big New organizations with no ax to grind, or news to make are probably the closest thing to pure stats for most of the 20th Century. They did pretty damn well at predicting voting outcomes, still do.

Enter the 21st century and we are privy to be part of the largest statistical test ever. Poker Hand distributions. These distributions were predicted and verified hundreds of times before this type testing could ever even happen.

The big picture shows little to no variance from predictions. Any one sample (session) or group of sessions (samples) will USUALLY be spread spectrum beneath the bell curve of possibilities. But a significant number will show abnormalities by having an unusual amount of hands that would be in the extremes under that bell curve. And with the enormous (gazillions) number of hands, and players and sessions, it would be rigged if any of those groups continually showed an even distribution. They must show deviation from the norm. That's normal!

All the hands you personally will ever play are not enough to prove an uneven distribution. But before long you will approach theoretically correct proportionality.

So there!

TheseNutsWin · Aug 1, 2008

dj11 said:
Consider Statistical Sampling. This is the way polling companies predict winners from a very small number of interviews. It is also the way TV programming is determined. Remember Neilson?

OK, the problem with Neilson in the early years, was that they had a known group of samplers, who decided that they controlled the moral fabric of TV. Never mind that they were a small group of folks who could afford a color TV, and where of the ilk Neilson wanted. This ended up being a horrendous misuse of statistics.

Neilson changed, but not that much. They added a few minorities to the sampling group.

Enter the political polls. The truly independent political pols often run by big New organizations with no ax to grind, or news to make are probably the closest thing to pure stats for most of the 20th Century. They did pretty damn well at predicting voting outcomes, still do.

Enter the 21st century and we are privy to be part of the largest statistical test ever. Poker Hand distributions. These distributions were predicted and verified hundreds of times before this type testing could ever even happen.

The big picture shows little to no variance from predictions. Any one sample (session) or group of sessions (samples) will USUALLY be spread spectrum beneath the bell curve of possibilities. But a significant number will show abnormalities by having an unusual amount of hands that would be in the extremes under that bell curve. And with the enormous (gazillions) number of hands, and players and sessions, it would be rigged if any of those groups continually showed an even distribution. They must show deviation from the norm. That's normal!

All the hands you personally will ever play are not enough to prove an uneven distribution. But before long you will approach theoretically correct proportionality.

So there!

so do you have the numbers from the gazillions of hands samples from live and online game so we can compare?

pantin007 · Aug 1, 2008

DJ, that was brilliant A+

KingCurtis · Aug 1, 2008

If it was rigged then everyone would lose.....I have made profits along with other members of CC, so why didn't we get cheated????? I'll tell you why...because it's not rigged!!

reglardave · Aug 1, 2008

Mr OP, what part of insufficient sample size do you not understand? You know it's rigged, based on???????? You sit here and compare your 'knowledge" to belief(or no) in God, attacking the Catholics for lack of proof. You sir, are a troll, and I have one very standard answer for " i know it's rigged" trolls:

A KABONG

roundcat · Aug 1, 2008

TheseNutsWin said:
I guess everytime you are having a conversation with somebody you require them to prove their stories.. ex..
John i went to the store yesterday and i bought 1 pound of potatoes for $1.. you go... OH NO!! REALLY? show me the receipt!! or i wont believe it...

Potatoes are a known quanitity that we naturally accept as fact. If John instead told us that he went to the store and the potatoes had sprouted arms and lips and were animatedly conversing amongst themselves, it's likely we'd want to see for ourselves.

I know it's RIGGED...

pantin007

member

TheseNutsWin

Rock Star

TheseNutsWin

Rock Star

tiltboy

Rock Star

pantin007

member

TheseNutsWin

Rock Star

dsvw56

I'm a Taurus

pantin007

member

switch0723

Cardschat Elite

TheseNutsWin

Rock Star

TheseNutsWin

Rock Star

dsvw56

I'm a Taurus

TheseNutsWin

Rock Star

pantin007

member

TheseNutsWin

Rock Star

TheseNutsWin

Rock Star

pantin007

member

eNTy

Legend

TheseNutsWin

Rock Star

dj11

Legend

TheseNutsWin

Rock Star

pantin007

member

KingCurtis

Legend

reglardave

Legend

Attachments

roundcat

Creature of leisure

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site