Rigged: The AA test

thepokermonitor · Sep 5, 2008

Full TiltHands 43,200AA - 177expected - 194

acehearts1 · Sep 5, 2008

wow ... the stats that i read threw this thread are pretty close from what everyone is posting ..im gonna have to give it a try and see how many AA's i get..it seems to me that i get alot mre then i should and i lose about 30% of the time with em, butt it could just be my style of play lol

godoy · Sep 5, 2008

Full Tilt- 38740 AA - 159
=)

let's start to play at doyle's room lol

mrWINslow · Sep 6, 2008

its not in a sites interest to "rig" anything..

bad beats SEEM like they happen more online because the players are worse..you have ALOT more people drawing for those flush draws and inside straights then you normally would in a live game, plus you see ALOT more hands go by quicker

my theory on why people play like this online is that they dont have to look you in the eye when they flip over there cards

its also easier to to click an "all-in" button then to have to physically count out chips

Harthgrepa · Sep 6, 2008

Great thread. I only recently started tracking my play, so my sample size would be worthless. Nice to see sane people on a poker message board.

~H

zingbust · Sep 7, 2008

ysmisc said:
This is a long thread and it seems focused on AA.
But I think this was a nice test but not a full test.

I think a better test is (not sure if possible though) is to cover all HU (all ins on at least one of the players) and to see how many times the better hand won - The average win rate should be closely related to the average ratio of difference between hands.
For example if at X HU games the average chance was ~80% for the good hand and ~20% to the low hand then I think the number of wins should be close to 0.8X to the strong hand as well.
This way we will address all of these claims of "QQ lost to one over card".

Please correct me if I am wrong (Mathematics is soooo complex sometimes ) and sorry if this was discussed before.

I once ran a test on Stars doing exactly what you suggested after running bad for what seemed to me to be an unrealistically long amount of time. The conclusion was that I had only lost HU all in about 6 more times than expected. I realized that a good run would cover that, and since I remembered that occasionally I run good, I abandoned any further testing because I figured it was indeed poor selective memory on my part that made me think Stars was rigged.

azbo · Sep 8, 2008

it is definitely poor selective memory that causes people to say all the stereotypical stuff regarding bad beats "this is rigged", "I got UB'ed", "FT sucks", "this is BS" etc.

People forget all the times the suck out doesn't come because they're expecting to not see it. The just get emotional about the one where they think it was over and the short odds hit. That's the nature of the game and getting emotional about it usually just puts you on tilt.

Lets not forget everyone who plays poker sometimes puts their chips in the pot bad and sucks out. Not once have I seen someone give the money back...

Four Dogs · Sep 8, 2008

azbo said:
this thread is really long, in the beginning there were people asking about data sample size but I just didn't have the the motivation to read 11 pages of posts.

The thing with sample size is increased sample size just means a higher degree of confidence. The sample mean is rarely the same as the population mean but you can usually get to a point where you have enough data to suggest a certain confidence interval. It works out to be that a 95% confidence interval is a common target in statistical analysis. You also have a range of error that comes with any analysis. This can also be calculated. A lot of times you'll see a political poll with +/- x% attached to it, which means the actual value can be expected to be within that margin of error from the result 95% of the time.

The required sample size to achieve 95% confidence interval is dependent on the total population of the data. It turns out that 95% confidence is equivalent to 3 std deviations from the mean under a bell curve. In laymans terms that means if you see a normal bell curve with a tail drifting off to each end .025 of the data points will be greater than 3 std deviations away from the mean at each end which adds up to .05 which is where the 95% or .95 comes from.

I haven't done much statistics in a while but you need to know the expected outcome of an event % wise, the total number of events, your error tolerance (it takes a lot more data to achieve a 1% margin of error than a 5% for instance)and your confidence interval. We're not going top have the total population number because the poker sites aren't going to give you a db including all the hands. You don't need that number to do this it just makes it easier and more accurate.

So far I've been winging it and learning about statistics as I go but this looks like some really expert insight. I'm impressed. If you have any suggestions as to changes I could make I'd be grateful. We're up over one million hands now and I've been thinking of adding some kind of confidence column.

Four Dogs · Sep 8, 2008

thepokermonitor said:
Full TiltHands 43,200AA - 177expected - 194

“If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.”
-Isaac Asimov

Nice contribution. Actually, it's 200 expected. Pretty close.

I haven't forgotten you godoy. You're next.

godoy · Sep 8, 2008

ok, do you want me to check in another pokerrooms that I play?
like carbon poker?

RAMARAIDER · Sep 9, 2008

You obviously do not understand the game and the probabilities. Get out and stop wasting your money. Live players will also see the same patterns. Your lack of skill and denial are clouding your perspective.

Dwilius · Sep 9, 2008

RAMARAIDER said:
You obviously do not understand the game and the probabilities. Get out and stop wasting your money. Live players will also see the same patterns. Your lack of skill and denial are clouding your perspective.

Who are you talking to

nottocer · Sep 10, 2008

?????????

Most of these sites are not regulated, and even the ones that have a generation check and who consider them as regulated, still have the program much like the computer your sitting at. It's not the question of the random generated deals which is what is checked. It's like the site on youtube showing that the operator of the sites do in fact have control of the programs and can make the cards do prtty much anything they want at over ride mode. Thank you youtube for showing this for the world to see. Keep it free!!!

Four Dogs · Sep 10, 2008

godoy said:
Full Tilt- 38740 AA - 159
=)

let's start to play at doyle's room lol

godoy said:
ok, do you want me to check in another pokerrooms that I play?
like carbon poker?

Ship it!

"I don't believe it. Prove it to me and I still won't believe it."
-Douglas Adams

Four Dogs · Sep 10, 2008

RAMARAIDER said:
You obviously do not understand the game and the probabilities. Get out and stop wasting your money. Live players will also see the same patterns. Your lack of skill and denial are clouding your perspective.

D'wilius said:
Who are you talking to

Yeah, who is he talking to?

azbo · Sep 11, 2008

Four Dogs said:
So far I've been winging it and learning about statistics as I go but this looks like some really expert insight. I'm impressed. If you have any suggestions as to changes I could make I'd be grateful. We're up over one million hands now and I've been thinking of adding some kind of confidence column.

I had reached 7 posts when I saw this and I've been too busy to return. If you define the problem (is it simply how often do AA come? Or how often when KK is out?) and PM me with your numbers I'll do the math and return it to you or post it.

Four Dogs · Sep 12, 2008

azbo said:
I had reached 7 posts when I saw this and I've been too busy to return. If you define the problem (is it simply how often do AA come? Or how often when KK is out?) and PM me with your numbers I'll do the math and return it to you or post it.

Wow! Great

. I'll do that this weekend. You don't need to kill yourself over this, but have a look ans see what you think.

vixenx78 · Sep 13, 2008

How do you find out this? im interested in how many times i have been delt the pocket rockets, i am a member of UB. FT, PS, bodog and cake.
It would be very interesting to see this.
Also can u choose other combinations?
wondering this because i get alot of pocket queens on UB and i kick arse, i have quaded with them alot heheheheh!!

Four Dogs · Sep 13, 2008

vixenx78 said:
How do you find out this? im interested in how many times i have been delt the pocket rockets, i am a member of Ultimatebet. FT, PokerStars, bodog and cake.
It would be very interesting to see this.
Also can u choose other combinations?
wondering this because i get alot of pocket queens on UB and i kick arse, i have quaded with them alot heheheheh!!

Most of us use PokerTracker to cull through the HH's. You can download the beta for free. It works at Full Tilt and PokerStars. I don't think it works at the others. I may be wrong. And yes, you can sort by ANY hand combination.

scooterdice · Sep 14, 2008

I think you should also take into consideration when the pocket aces come up.....especially early on in big tournaments....that could be a huge factor.

Four Dogs · Sep 14, 2008

scooterdice said:
I think you should also take into consideration when the pocket aces come up.....especially early on in big tournaments....that could be a huge factor.

sorry? I'm not sure I understand.

Pootz83 · Sep 14, 2008

amen brother, i think all this rigged talk is absolute b.s. For one thing, think how many government officials are just drooling at the chance to shut down these online sites.. they have top computer people investigating this stuff all the time i'm sure, and they would find if they found someway to "rig" a random card generator. there is no chance any of these extremely successful and popular poker sites that will and would make a ton of money either way (rigged or not rigged) would take a gamble (no pun intended) with no good reason. why rig something that is going to make them millions upon millions for a chance to lose everything? take your bad beats in stride people, and realize you see way more hands online so you are going to see alot more random outcomes.

Goodwooter · Sep 16, 2008

i dont think certain sites are rigged, i personally only trust PS and FT. but at the same time, if im gonna play for big money...i want to see the deck in front of me. i play online for fun and never have deposited, just used winning from freerolls to build my br and still stay at the micro level.

i guess the lesson is, if you think its rigged, why are you playing.

gl all

wooter

uradonk406 · Sep 19, 2008

rigged is right we all know how bad they steal from us we just havent found a way to prove it for sure...cant tell you how many times iv had a strong hand and got smoked by the one outer and see a huge pot go away... i say just keep pushin and prayin cuz thats all net poker is a lotto but we all love it right??

Random Number generators are an algorythym a amth problem and last i checked they tend to be repetitive in nature ...contain some type of pattern...or both so random i think not but keep believing it is .. that is why i only play freerolls on the net...you dont feed these shady bast......but i do wish you all well... and good luck at the felts

cynappa · Sep 22, 2008

Site: Pokerstars
Number of hands: 21,568
Dealt AA: 104
Expected: 124
I am dealt AA: 1/212.56 hands

Rigged: The AA test

thepokermonitor

Rising Star

acehearts1

Rock Star

godoy

Rock Star

mrWINslow

Rising Star

Harthgrepa

Enthusiast

zingbust

Rock Star

azbo

Enthusiast

Four Dogs

Legend

Four Dogs

Legend

Attachments

godoy

Rock Star

RAMARAIDER

Rock Star

Dwilius

CardsChat Regular

nottocer

Enthusiast

Four Dogs

Legend

Attachments

Four Dogs

Legend

azbo

Enthusiast

Four Dogs

Legend

vixenx78

Enthusiast

Four Dogs

Legend

scooterdice

Enthusiast

Four Dogs

Legend

Pootz83

Enthusiast

Goodwooter

Rock Star

uradonk406

Enthusiast

cynappa

Rising Star

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site