Rigged: The AA test

channing73ny · Oct 28, 2008

true story

lately ibe srrn some poor play get awarded i must say it makes me wonder also for 1 i would never call with theses types of hands none the lesss call for 100s of dollars makes me wonder even more all iknow is cheating only gets u free money but too live with being a sneaky villaine is all you really are accomplishin mistrust misfortune is all the cheaters will get surelu loss of any trusy trasect

Luckylmn3 · Oct 28, 2008

It's a random generated sequence that hold these sites together. The evidence shows it isn't rigged. And as for complaining that the expected is 5700 and the actual is 5810... with statistics, the more samples you take, the closer it will get to the actual result.

WCFields · Oct 29, 2008

beezleboss said:
I think it's obvious where the cries of "It's rigged" come from, losing players. Has Phil Ivey ever complained about Full Tilt being rigged? No because he earns a bomb and if it were rigged I think the pros, who know their stats better than we do would be a little suspicious. Nice to see scientific evidence to dispel a myth.

Ever heard of a "computer program?" How about the word expediency? How about bottom line? Would you know the difference if your random shuffle involved one deal or 100,000 deals? Do you know how many times a boat should show up against another boat in a 100 hands? Or a straight against a flush?

The number crunchers, the software people, decide what random is. So it isn't really random, is it?
There are obviously boundaries and constraints.

There are considerations to be made. Is random random if every possible 52 card sequence is not included?

And if every 52 card sequence is being dealt let's say in a batch pool of 100000 times the number of 52 card sequences is that representative of hands you would get if dealt by a dealer at Atlantic City?

Will you ever be dealt from a deck whose sequence is as if it had never been shuffled or darn close to it at Vegas?

Doubtful. But wouldn't online "random" demand it?

So as result the online player is faced with more unnatural poker hands that he would never play against live. And when you think about it, more "high" hands are in the mix so the showdowns, reflecting more "high" hands, are bad beat prone.

So please stop the silliness of how many times you win with pocket aces is relevant to a random deal.

GotaLovePoke · Oct 30, 2008

Just thought I would add my own knowledge.

Although I am quite impressed with the seriousness of your statistical perseverance, I could not help but notice some flaws.

It is quite important to consider the size of the pool compared to the size of the hands dealt, we obviously have a small statistical pool compared to the dealt hands.

Also, it is important to not put the free games and the buy in's or paid games in the same basket, in fact, it would be wrong to do so....

Thirdly, an average is nothing without a confidence measure, wich we don't have here, wich we should have obviously.

To have a PERFECT statistical sample, we need to start on the right hypothesis, We need to either, put everything in the same basket, BUT make sure we keep proportional divisions between the type of games, privates etc... Or, divide it by category, but to have a confident measure we would need a large pool per category, wich would not necesserely be easy to get.

People that design poker site, could in fact increase, slightly, % of high dealt hands, BUT, know this, it would probably not affect you, personaly, unless your one to win the loto often

WCFields · Nov 1, 2008

What is a Random deal?

This type of combo of monster hands is common online.

Hand Choreography
Not Necessarily Rigged But Certainly Not Live Poker Like

PokerStars Game #216: Tournament #11772, Hold'em No Limit - Level IV (50/100) - 2008/11/01 6:53:07 ET
Table '1177 27' 9-max Seat #5 is the button
Seat 2: Yogi (2030 in chips)
Seat 3: DAWGS (4650 in chips)
Seat 4: Dabu (1435 in chips)
Seat 5: Ogl (1150 in chips)
Seat 6: gu (9385 in chips)
Seat 7: Ho (1840 in chips)
Seat 8: ras (1365 in chips)
Seat 9: rick (1310 in chips)
gur: posts small blind 50
Hom: posts big blind 100
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Yogi [9s 8c]
ras: raises 100 to 200
rick: folds
liz is connected
Yog: calls 200
DAWGS has timed out
DAWGS: folds
DAWGS is sitting out
Dab: raises 100 to 300
Ogl: folds
gur: folds
Hom: folds
ras: calls 100
Yogi: calls 100
*** FLOP *** [8h 8s 9c]
rast: bets 1065 and is all-in
Yogi: raises 665 to 1730 and is all-in
Dab: calls 1135 and is all-in
Uncalled bet (595) returned to Yogi
*** TURN *** [8h 8s 9c] [Qc]
*** RIVER *** [8h 8s 9c Qc] [6h]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Yogi: shows [9s 8c] (a full house, Eights full of Nines)
Dab: shows [Ah Ad] (two pair, Aces and Eights)
Yogi collected 140 from side pot
rast: shows [Ts Js] (a straight, Eight to Queen)
Yogi collected 4245 from main pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 4385 Main pot 4245. Side pot 140. | Rake 0
Board [8h 8s 9c Qc 6h]
Seat 2: Yogi showed [9s 8c] and won (4385) with a full house, Eights full of Nines
Seat 3: DAWG folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 4: Dab showed [Ah Ad] and lost with two pair, Aces and Eights
Seat 5: Ogl (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: gur (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 7: Hom (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 8: ras showed [Ts Js] and lost with a straight, Eight to Queen
Seat 9: rick folded before Flop (didn't bet)

Dwilius · Nov 1, 2008

WCFields said:
The AA or KK odds don't mean anything. The odds of getting multiple monster hands from one deal is what should concern online players. It seems players are lured, randomly of course, into all in situations.

Monster hands like top pair, second pair and a straight draw

...and its in a tournament? You realize this doesn't increase rake, right? Your HHs are just hand picked examples of loose play.

raines42 · Nov 4, 2008

rigged?

I think poker sites would profit from what is known as action flops. The theory is that someone who is a fish may quit playing (putting money into the site) if they loose 90% of the hands they play. If they when atleast 50% of the hands they should lose then they will be more apt to continue play on that site.

Good players will continue play on a site regardless of the bad beats they receive.

Another issue is that most sites continue to shuffle cards even after the flop. Some say there are programs that can calculate the amount of time you should wait before calling a bet to receive the cards you want.

henriquetnn · Nov 4, 2008

If you knew what your opponents’ cards were, you’d almost never lose because you’d always make the correct decisions. The better you are at deducing what your opponent is holding, the better your results will be. Reading opponents is a mixture of skill and art, and to read them accurately, you’ll have to watch them play.

Phil Vasquez · Nov 5, 2008

truth of fact is that i believe no matter what a site with a whole lot of bad beats can make a player just that much better cause he or she must learn to accept that u might have to fold a very hot hand.

TIGERSTUMP · Nov 7, 2008

wetherits rigged or not,, i have m8s who earn a living playin online poker,,at a low level ov poker u will see a lot more bad beats becuase the standard ov tables these days is very low, theres a lotta o fish playin comps now ,,and its hard to win comps at low level stakes...we all play cos we luv the game,,these sites provide a service 2 a lotta poker nuts, and yes they make millions,, but on the other hand u can chase the dream ov 1 day hittin big in a comp...and givin up work lol
i wish

irishyaz · Nov 8, 2008

the cash tables on sites dont always have to give MONSTER HANDS ie, AA, AK, KK to get there large raked pots, iv noticed sometimes 4 people having a 2card flush or 2/3 people having a house. one time i had AA and A,2,2 came on the flop sum guy went all in and i call, he turned over 22. f'ing b'chit the cash tables are. plus iv noticed none of this happens when your in a tournament.the game seems alot more slower and fairer.

i base all this information on PaddyPowerPoker iv play on this site for years but since give up as i found it a lost cause.

channing73ny · Nov 8, 2008

rigged

i believe these online sites definately have some issues not only with being hacked but also players at ring games tag teaming and sucking out on every hand i find it too be pretty horrifying.im very cautiose at all ring games online.

raines42 · Nov 9, 2008

random draw

WCFields said:
It's 2008 and do you know what a random deal is?

I didn't think so.

Sites use continuing draw as random draw. Continuing draw is where a site continues to shuffle the cards while game play is in progress. This means the cards on the flop directly reflect on when you call or fold. It seems to me... if you have this much power to control the amount of time you take to call something then in theory you can also control what cards you will receive.

behemoth051 · Nov 10, 2008

I'm not surprised to see these results. I doubt very much that there would be any rigging on the top sites. Lesser known sites are the more likely culprits to rig hands, although I personally doubt it. a lot of the rigging controversy comes from people who are upset at bad beats or just playing poorly.

tatvet · Nov 11, 2008

ChuckTs said:
Site: Pokerstars
Number of ring hands: 33,252
Dealt AA: 158
Expected: 150
I am dealt AA: 1/210.5 hands
Won: 87.97%

I've been reading your list of AA hands, that all sounds fair.

My problem is my win percentage - honestly it's about 50%.

I know some of it is down to slow playing hands, but everytime I get one when I'm low in chips and go all-in someone catches a flush.

I'm now to the point where I feel like I should fold AA and wait for something reliable like 10Q to come along - I've had much bigger hands by catching straights, flushes and full houses with those two, even though I know they're statistically fairly weak.
Just me I suppose

LankanSoulja · Nov 11, 2008

I think it would be useful to also add in how many times you won with pocket aces or kings whatever the hand may be. But then again everyone plays different so winning and losing does depend quite a bit on betting patterns.

WCFields · Nov 11, 2008

raines42 said:
Sites use continuing draw as random draw. Continuing draw is where a site continues to shuffle the cards while game play is in progress. This means the cards on the flop directly reflect on when you call or fold. It seems to me... if you have this much power to control the amount of time you take to call something then in theory you can also control what cards you will receive.

If that's the case then that should explain the proclivity of turn and river suckouts. It's kinda like a combo of Let's Make a Deal and Deal or No Deal.

Maybe.:deal:

Four Dogs · Nov 11, 2008

It's time for my weekly, now more like monthly, excuse for not updating this more frequently. In point of fact, I'm not doing a whole lot of posting or playing lately due to constraints put upon my time by my job, house and family matters. I do promise to get to each and every one of the new contributions, hopefully in the very near future. In fact, our one year anniversary is coming up soon and I've got some ideas for a major overhaul that will attempt to make some sense of all the data that we've accumulated. In the meantime, please understand that I'm just an average Joe like the rest of you and that Cardschat and poker, while important to me, are just diversions.

TheSkeptic · Nov 18, 2008

Bottom line on this topic is that you need access to ALL THE HHs of a site to prove that there is an element of rigging.

Analysing your own personal HHs is not going to prove anything (I mean seriously do you think they would be that dumb !).

Analysing your HHs and those of friends isn't going to prove anything unless you have millions of friends !

You need the whole deal.

To those who repeatedly argue that MTTs don't generate rake (over and above the buy-in) I would offer this.

EVERY SITE is dependent on the rake it pulls in
To take rake YOU have to be PLAYING at the tables
AND YOU have to be DEPOSITING MONEY into the system.

If you don't deposit there is no play and no rake plain and simple.

Therefore it makes perfect sense to keep giving everyone a little bit of luck here and there to keep them excited and hooked but overall the card dealing will be drawing you into hands you can not put down such as Nut Flushes, full houses or as we have seen in the recent bad beat thread, QQQQ which lost to Royal Flush.

Some people can't get past the paradigm that we are all playing each other rather than against the house and thus there's no benefit in the house cheating, i.e. "doesn't a site just take rake while we play?"

It's rubbish! Think !

We play each other, one day you win, the next you lose. The money we deposited goes back and forth between us only every time we pass that money the house takes a little bit out. Eventually there is none left and we re-deposit.

So, yes there is IMMENSE benefit in the house manipulating the cards in order to keep the money moving between different players instead of it all going to a select few. It's very hard to beat that system. The rake will drain you in the end. Different people's highs and lows will vary. Some will show you that this week they made a profit. Some will show a loss. Some will show a steady profit for the whole year others a loss for the year. You hear tales of profitably player who go months without wins, maybe a whole year. It's just balancing out the way it's designed to. And all the while our money slips quietly into the RAKE basket.

There's too much money involved for this to get exposed of course. In the end it's up to a company to create a new site thats 100% open. All HHs available to the public. Could be a big opportunity there for someone!

Committed · Nov 18, 2008

Site: FullTilt
Number of ring hands: 31,216
Dealt AA: 137
Expected: 141

BP62 · Nov 19, 2008

i dnt have any stats but y would one of the major poker sites e.g fulltilt of poker stars risk rigging the system when they are allready earning millions

TheSkeptic · Nov 19, 2008

Because not rigging = few players and not much rake and rigging = millions of players and $billions of rake.

See the latest posts in this thread for more details:
https://www.cardschat.com/forum/general-poker-13/online-poker-rigged-investigation-70058/

wobb803 · Nov 19, 2008

Where can I find this information? I would love to see my stats. I really hate it when people say "such & such a site really %^$^&*&-ed me again" when they have KK vs. AA......it's poker, it happens. Let me know where I can get this info if you would.....

TheSkeptic · Nov 19, 2008

Hey Wobb, not sure what info you are looking for.

You can see your own Hand Histories of course stored on your hard drive (you do have HH recording enabled don't you ?!!).

But you won't be able to deduce anything from them. To determine if cards are not actually random you need all the HHs for all players which you're never going to get I'm afraid.

You are correct when you say KK vs AA can go either way but it should of course favour the AA. However seeing hands where for example QQQQ gets beaten by Straight Flush seem to defy the stats somewhat. Seeing 4 hands involving 4 of a kind in one small SitNGo tourny is also statistically very suspect and so on and on and on and on . . . .

It's not poker. It looks like poker, it feels like poker, but it's just a game of controlled chance working from certain parameters. Now if I can find out what those parameters are I'll be rich rich rich muahahahahahaha!

WCFields · Nov 19, 2008

TheSkeptic said:
Bottom line on this topic is that you need access to ALL THE HHs of a site to prove that there is an element of rigging.

Analysing your own personal HHs is not going to prove anything (I mean seriously do you think they would be that dumb !).

Analysing your HHs and those of friends isn't going to prove anything unless you have millions of friends !

You need the whole deal.

To those who repeatedly argue that MTTs don't generate rake (over and above the buy-in) I would offer this.

EVERY SITE is dependent on the rake it pulls in
To take rake YOU have to be PLAYING at the tables
AND YOU have to be DEPOSITING MONEY into the system.

If you don't deposit there is no play and no rake plain and simple.

Therefore it makes perfect sense to keep giving everyone a little bit of luck here and there to keep them excited and hooked but overall the card dealing will be drawing you into hands you can not put down such as Nut Flushes, full houses or as we have seen in the recent bad beat thread, QQQQ which lost to Royal Flush.

Some people can't get past the paradigm that we are all playing each other rather than against the house and thus there's no benefit in the house cheating, i.e. "doesn't a site just take rake while we play?"

It's rubbish! Think !

We play each other, one day you win, the next you lose. The money we deposited goes back and forth between us only every time we pass that money the house takes a little bit out. Eventually there is none left and we re-deposit.

So, yes there is IMMENSE benefit in the house manipulating the cards in order to keep the money moving between different players instead of it all going to a select few. It's very hard to beat that system. The rake will drain you in the end. Different people's highs and lows will vary. Some will show you that this week they made a profit. Some will show a loss. Some will show a steady profit for the whole year others a loss for the year. You hear tales of profitably player who go months without wins, maybe a whole year. It's just balancing out the way it's designed to. And all the while our money slips quietly into the RAKE basket.

There's too much money involved for this to get exposed of course. In the end it's up to a company to create a new site thats 100% open. All HHs available to the public. Could be a big opportunity there for someone!

Good post. Unless the software is revealed no one knows whats what. And even if "it" was revealed how can you tell if that is the software being used for your game?

Online poker requires patience. And it requires, if you're playing a tourney or sit and go, that you play multiple games like a ROBOT. By robot I mean you gotta set up your rules of engagement and stick by them. And those rules of engagement had better be pretty tight.

Rigged: The AA test

channing73ny

Enthusiast

Luckylmn3

Enthusiast

WCFields

Rock Star

GotaLovePoke

Rock Star

WCFields

Rock Star

Dwilius

CardsChat Regular

raines42

Enthusiast

henriquetnn

Enthusiast

Phil Vasquez

Rising Star

TIGERSTUMP

Rock Star

irishyaz

Rising Star

channing73ny

Enthusiast

raines42

Enthusiast

behemoth051

Rising Star

tatvet

Rising Star

LankanSoulja

Rising Star

WCFields

Rock Star

Four Dogs

Legend

TheSkeptic

Rock Star

Committed

Rising Star

BP62

Rising Star

TheSkeptic

Rock Star

wobb803

Enthusiast

TheSkeptic

Rock Star

WCFields

Rock Star

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site