Rigged: The AA test

Four Dogs said:

I know we're all sick and tired of the on-line rigged debate. I've been trolling this site for 3 years and it just never seems to end, and the recent Absolute fiasco hasn't helped matters, never mind that what happen there actually had more to do with inexcusably loose security measures rather than actual RIGGING.

The logic behind the belief that the sites rig the game is ALWAYS the same and NEVER backed up by any facts. The belief is that the sites somehow profit from increased rakes by pitting big hands against eachother.

"Now why is it rigged...well like many people here have said, its because of the amount of rake they get...now alot of idiots dont know the bigger the pot, the more they rake...they also dont realise if there are MORE MONSTER HANDS ie, AA, AK, KK, there are going to be more all ins, the more all ins, the more you deposit once again..."

This quote is from a recent thread, but really, it's just one of hundreds and there's nothing unique about it. What surprises me is that this belief persists despite the fact that due to programs like Poker Tracker, these inane assertions are easily verified or dispelled.

So lets test it. Let's keep it simple though. I'd like any of you who actually track their HH with some sort of software like Poker Tracker or Poker Office to post the number of ring hands you've tracked (no rake in tourneys right?) along with the number of times you've been dealt AA. Also, to sort the cheaters from the honest we should break the numbers apart by site. If the argument holds water then we should all be seeing hands like AA or KK more often then expected. I think the chances of being dealt AA or any pair is like 220:1 or about 4.5%

I'll start.

Site: Full Tilt
Number of ring hands: 16,901 (I've actually played about 3x that number but I lost my DB about a year ago)
Dealt AA: 68 (a little low)
Expected: 77
I am dealt AA: 1/248.5 hands = .402%

Site: Poker Stars
NRH: 5323
Dealt AA: 36 (a little high)
Expected: 24
I am dealt AA: 1/147.86 hands = .676%

Total
NRH: 22454
Dealt AA: 106 (a statistical bullseye)
Expected: 102
I am dealt AA: 1/211.83 hands = .4545%

I put alot more info in here than we need.
Just put the hands and times dealt AA and I'll do the math. I'll try to keep a running tally going, but I don't plan on being around much in the next few days so anyone may feel free to update it.

Cheers and Merry Christmas. :icon_sant

Click to expand...

joeya2727 said:

how do you find your hand results/ percentages on full tilt?

Click to expand...

daguksta said:

They basically try to set up good hands together, if you get KK, you can be almost certain someone else has AA, and vice versa, it's to create action on the tables

Click to expand...

nvr88 said:

I'm too lazy to read thru this whole thing..........but..........yesterday I witnessed a royal flush beating 4 of a kind. IN PERSON REAL CARDS. I'm not too much of a math mind and would like to know the odds of this.
Flop K clubs 10 clubs 7 hearts
turn 10 hearts
River J Clubs

Pocket 10's lost too A Q clubs this has got to be almost like winning the Powerball as far a odds go.
AGAIN THIS WAS LIVE AND IN PERSON WITH REAL CARDS!!

Click to expand...

ChuckTs said:

Site: Pokerstars
Number of ring hands: 150094
Dealt AA: 672
Expected: 679
I am dealt AA: 1 in 223 hands
Won: %91.2

Click to expand...

Deadly Silent said:

I do not know how you could not only not play AA but how you would not make a large raise. Where there are poker no-no's like playing the 2 7 off suite not playing the rockets has got to be equally as bad.:stupid:

Click to expand...

HartAttack3 said:

Rigging, at least as everyone whines about it, is about a poker site giving you AA and someone else KK and making sure the KK wins. Other examples are you get AA hit a set of aces only to lose to a person playing j-10 suited and catching a str8 or a flush.

The absolute scandal had nothing to do with rigging in that sense. The only thing that happened in the absolute scandal was a player was able to see everyone elses hole cards. He had no control over what cards came and I dont believe in any way it was "rigged" unless you want to call that rigging which if you do then go ahead but that is not what the rigged discussion, or this thread, is about at all.

So either you dont know what your talkin about or your spinnin bro.

Click to expand...

mendozaline said:

I think you are making two mistakes here. One, I don't think it's a given that rigging would apply to ring games but not tourneys. Two, I don't believe that rigging would be to get more rake for the casino. In a way, though, that's just two different ways of saying the same thing.

For these two reasons, I think it would be a mistake to spend too much time studying AA and KK and QQ statistics. That's a little too obvious. Maybe JJ and AKo since they already have a love/hate relationship attached to them.

No, in my opinion it would make much more sense studying other card combinations. Pick one maybe that would normally be considered a hand you would fold, or something like that. See how often they win vs how often they should win.

Or another good one might be to study the community cards against a control say of the 21st to 25th cards in a million shuffles by a shuffling machine. As a corollary to this, what were the winning cards, and what is their expected frequency against actual frequency. This would be a good test, because it would force the issue. One or other of the sides would have to admit they were wrong. I would certainly admit I was wrong if this showed no significant difference.

Click to expand...