Rigged: The AA test

WCFields · Jan 15, 2009

Stu_Ungar said:
Why does that imply that adjustments or tweaks are being made?

If changes were made to cards being delt then that would, for the purposes of this discussion, be classed as rigging.

Are you able to show any proof that adjustments are actually made?

Then why would they be checking the data? Makes one wonder what is actually being scrutinized.

hipshot55 · Jan 15, 2009

WCFields said:
Then why would they be checking the data? Makes one wonder what is actually being scrutinized.

Oh, I don't know. Why would you check the oil in your car or take it in for warranty checkups?

Good god, a gazillion lines of code working 24/7/365. Think something might go awry?

You think the geek squad at Microshaft come up with those never-ending "fixes", tweaks, patches, etc. because they're bored and have nothing else to do? Or might it be because frequently things don't always work as planned and/or errors creep into the programming and/or because there is an army of anti-geeks out there looking for weaknesses in the program, backdoor access, methods of cracking/hacking, etc., etc. etc.?

WCFields · Jan 15, 2009

hipshot55 said:
Oh, I don't know. Why would you check the oil in your car or take it in for warranty checkups?

Good god, a gazillion lines of code working 24/7/365. Think something might go awry?

You think the geek squad at Microshaft come up with those never-ending "fixes", tweaks, patches, etc. because they're bored and have nothing else to do? Or might it be because frequently things don't always work as planned and/or errors creep into the programming and/or because there is an army of anti-geeks out there looking for weaknesses in the program, backdoor access, methods of cracking/hacking, etc., etc. etc.?

Apples and oranges. The shuffle routine isn't affected by software revisions. It's "called" and does it's work then goes back and waits to be "called" again. It's a subroutine
like a sort utility.

hipshot55 · Jan 15, 2009

WCFields said:
Apples and oranges. The shuffle routine isn't affected by software revisions. It's "called" and does it's work then goes back and waits to be "called" again. It's a subroutine
like a sort utility.

Um, how, exactly, did we get from the generalized "scrutinized data" to the specific shuffle sub-routine?

And, if they got the shuffle "sub-routine" dead solid perfect, it would be the first time in the entire history of computer programming.

DocHamer · Jan 19, 2009

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 PT 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

I play in a weekly game and I have had A A get cracked many times online what can you do when some idiot calls your all in with J 5 suited and sucks out a flush, that's poker.

dontquit · Jan 20, 2009

I propose something else....not that the site does anything...I think there are programs that can stop the randomness and make cards predictable. I also think there are programs that can observe hole cards. Now I know that I'm going to get flamed for this post...but..keep an open mind. I watched cheats get busted in Vegas for using a magnet to cause slots to stop being random. I watched a programmer crack the keno code...to win millions. Its done live...it can be done more easily online. Now the argument is...online they have so much security..and they have alot to lose if every knew there was a cheat..or a way to beat the system. Didn't Las Vegas have alot to lose with these types of cheats?? Just my 2 cents...Let the flaming.......BEGIN!!!!

Stu_Ungar · Jan 20, 2009

I propose something else....not that the site does anything...I think there are programs that can stop the randomness and make cards predictable. I also think there are programs that can observe hole cards. Now I know that I'm going to get flamed for this post...but..keep an open mind. I watched cheats get busted in Vegas for using a magnet to cause slots to stop being random. I watched a programmer crack the keno code...to win millions. Its done live...it can be done more easily online. Now the argument is...online they have so much security..and they have alot to lose if every knew there was a cheat..or a way to beat the system. Didn't Las Vegas have alot to lose with these types of cheats?? Just my 2 cents...Let the flaming.......BEGIN!!!!

Its not that I dont like a good conspiracy theory.. but is there any chance of some hard proof / evidence that online poker is rigged?

darkremixx · Jan 22, 2009

Good post and good read. I never thought of tracking and recording my hands. What software can I use to do that?

Ernster86 · Jan 22, 2009

why do you need proof. do you have a brain of your own and 2 working eyes?

Its obvious the cards are not random...I can't stress it enough, it's so obvious.

I still love the game of course

Stu_Ungar said:
Its not that I dont like a good conspiracy theory.. but is there any chance of some hard proof / evidence that online poker is rigged?

2012 · Jan 22, 2009

precise it's not random have the same things over and over hour after hour day after day week after week the same multiple situations how can that be if the shuffle is trillions of possibilities i see the same patterns over and over in the same way so ovious to see......

And it is all about money,if is came out everyone who is involved in the online poker scene would lose a lot of money that is a fact so everyone who is in would not tell anything and keep hiding behind they're random shuffle.....yeah right!!!

dontquit · Jan 22, 2009

I agree...no conspiracy...but I do think there are hackers out there making alot of $$ and the sites don't do much about it. Case and point...UB Scandal...reqired multiple posts on forums..many guys complaining..before admins would finally look into it. We're policing ourselves.

silverslugger33 · Jan 22, 2009

timeflight said:
I been playing online poker 4 or 5 years now .I do not believe its rigged. I do wonder sometimes ,like when i saw Wade[ from HR] go all in with 39 off suit, aginst AA ,KK.He hit quad nines. To me that was such bs. Although I have seen hands that makes me wonder,over all , not rigged.

Please tell me that you aren't trying to use 1 specific hand to say that it might be rigged. In live poker, that should, theoretically, happen eventually. If you put 93 against AA enough times, eventually they will hit quads. I've had quads beat by a runner runner straight flush and a full house beaten by runner runner quads (afterward I calculated the odds of this happening and I figured out that mathematically, it should occur 1/990 times).

If you can provide some statistic that, with a large sample size, the 93 is beating the AA 50% of the time (or even 35% of the time), then maybe we'll get somewhere, but with an all in preflop, aces do get cracked about 1 in every 5-6 times by a random hand.

edit: as for my personal opinion, I have no idea whether or not online poker is rigged. I've gotten really unlucky online, but I've also gotten really unlucky live. I do not intend on doing research to figure out if it's rigged, nor do I intend on trying to convince you one way or the other. The message in my post is to do research to back up your side, whichever side that may be

TheseNutsWin · Jan 23, 2009

I used to think it might be rigged.... now i started to track my progress with poker copilot and according to my stats i get pocket pairs for example as i should in real life... 1 time in 221 hands.. check your stats and see if thats not about the same.. there will be some variance but over all if you got 10k hands it should be close.. so far this month out of 4k hands i received AA 17 times and i won 17 times , not even 1 time my aces have been cracked. So i guess soon i`ll be getting some beats.. lol on the other hand my top losing hand is... AKo (money wise)

RoyalFish · Jan 23, 2009

Shadow28Charlie said:
I can tell you I am on over 400 hands with no AA

Statistics are funny things. Getting pocket aces is 221:1. The odds of NOT getting pocket aces for 400 hands is (221/222)^400, or 16.2%, or a little better than your chance of flipping a coin and getting heads three times in a row. It's not what you expect to happen, but it's not really surprising either.

Now what if you have, say, 20 people posting in a thread about the subject. What's the chance at least one of them has gone more than 400 hands without AA?

It's 1 - P(nobody has gone more than 400 hands without AA).

or

1 - .838^20 with is....0.9715.

There's a 3% chance that NOBODY in a group of 20 people has gone longer than 400 hands without getting pocket aces. If anything, I expect a few more people in this thread have gone at least as long.

RF

2012 · Jan 27, 2009

and then this....believe it or not ....

Here's a post from thepokerproject.com from a programmer:

POKERSTARS.COM HAS PAID PROGRAMMERS TO RIG THE FLOPS!!!

This site is rigged. No doubt about it. I am a programmer and know programmers that have helped develop this site.

The site is rigged so that the fish keep playing. There is a rating system. If you become to good and win a lot of games, you will lose no matter what you have. It's programmed in the game.

The game is designed to stop the sharks from winning on a regular basis, because they make most of their money from the fish. This is how the program works:

Once a flop is made at PokerStars, they look at all of the players rankings. If you won a lot of games or made money, your ranking will be lower. This is why someone with 6-2 will beat A-A every time. Haven't you noticed when you just can't win with anything?

It is designed in the software, to get cards not dealt from the deck, to help make the players win. It's called the backdoor. 90% of their money comes from fish, If the sharks were winning all the time, the fish would quit.

This site is rigged based on the program and it is also programmed to have exciting flops (action flops). This is all by design. Don't you notice when two people are all in, one with A-A and the other with 10-9. The flop will come J-8-K to add excitement to the game. As a programmer to the general public, I just want you to know that all of the sites are rigged. BEWARE

hipshot55 · Jan 27, 2009

2012 said:
Here's a post from thepokerproject.com from a programmer:

POKERSTARS.COM HAS PAID PROGRAMMERS TO RIG THE FLOPS!!!

This site is rigged. No doubt about it. I am a programmer and know programmers that have helped develop this site.

Yadayadayadayadayada

Sigh.

Oddly enough, the link leads to a site called TiltMonster and using advanced search on the site using ALL the capitalized words in various combinations, the site repeatedly returns "No Post Found". Sounds like another furshluginner OPINION to me. Once again, no names, no citations, etc., etc.

Stu_Ungar · Jan 28, 2009

Here's a post from thepokerproject.com from a programmer:

POKERSTARS.COM HAS PAID PROGRAMMERS TO RIG THE FLOPS!!!

This site is rigged. No doubt about it. I am a programmer and know programmers that have helped develop this site.

The site is rigged so that the fish keep playing. There is a rating system. If you become to good and win a lot of games, you will lose no matter what you have. It's programmed in the game.

The game is designed to stop the sharks from winning on a regular basis, because they make most of their money from the fish. This is how the program works:

Once a flop is made at Poker Stars, they look at all of the players rankings. If you won a lot of games or made money, your ranking will be lower. This is why someone with 6-2 will beat A-A every time. Haven't you noticed when you just can't win with anything?

It is designed in the software, to get cards not dealt from the deck, to help make the players win. It's called the backdoor. 90% of their money comes from fish, If the sharks were winning all the time, the fish would quit.

This site is rigged based on the program and it is also programmed to have exciting flops (action flops). This is all by design. Don't you notice when two people are all in, one with A-A and the other with 10-9. The flop will come J-8-K to add excitement to the game. As a programmer to the general public, I just want you to know that all of the sites are rigged. BEWARE

Let me get this straight in my head.

Instead of providing your own opinion as proof, you, instead quote someone else's opinion and expect it to be treated as hard fact.

We need to get away from opinions and start providing proof. Proof would be in the form of a study showing that, for a large sample, the actual results were greatly different to the expected results.

Would people please stop citing hear-say as fact.. because I know a guy who says that poker isn't rigged.. is that enough to say that it isn't?? NO.

I can only provide the results of the AA test, which show that the frequency which AA occurs is consistent with the expected frequency (in the long run)

If you feel that the flop is 'rigged' then please provided details of a test that we could conduct. Not a vague idea.. but a well thought out scientific test.

I would be happy to provide results to assist with the data collection for such a test and would also be happy to draw the conclusion that poker is rigged if thats was the logical conclusion from the results.

However I am not willing to entertain the notion that it is rigged without suitable data supporting the argument.

So if you are certain that poker is rigged, please design the test and we will provide the data.

ecoutee72 · Jan 28, 2009

I personally don't think the games are rigged. I just think you see more big hands against each other due to the simple fact you play more hands online than you would in live action. I don't know about anyone else but I will play up to 4 tables at once. Imagine the amount of hands being played. A bunch of big hands will be seen.

odinscott · Feb 3, 2009

2012 said:
Here's a post from thepokerproject.com from a programmer:

POKERSTARS.COM HAS PAID PROGRAMMERS TO RIG THE FLOPS!!!

This site is rigged. No doubt about it. I am a programmer and know programmers that have helped develop this site.

The site is rigged so that the fish keep playing. There is a rating system. If you become to good and win a lot of games, you will lose no matter what you have. It's programmed in the game.

The game is designed to stop the sharks from winning on a regular basis, because they make most of their money from the fish. This is how the program works:

Once a flop is made at PokerStars, they look at all of the players rankings. If you won a lot of games or made money, your ranking will be lower. This is why someone with 6-2 will beat A-A every time. Haven't you noticed when you just can't win with anything?

It is designed in the software, to get cards not dealt from the deck, to help make the players win. It's called the backdoor. 90% of their money comes from fish, If the sharks were winning all the time, the fish would quit.

This site is rigged based on the program and it is also programmed to have exciting flops (action flops). This is all by design. Don't you notice when two people are all in, one with A-A and the other with 10-9. The flop will come J-8-K to add excitement to the game. As a programmer to the general public, I just want you to know that all of the sites are rigged. BEWARE

first i cant find anything mentioning pokerstars paying anybody to do anything at thepokerproject.com

second i must have a really high ranking, because my kings have ran into aces more in the last few months, than perhaps ever in the history of the game

third

garykelleher · Feb 3, 2009

how do you check how many hands youve played???

roy22284 · Feb 3, 2009

The AA is a tricky hand, winning depends on the betting, the players and the board as does every hand! Players online now are more likely to call with any hand perhaps catch what they need to win over your AA, maybe two pair or a set or str8! Betting is the thing, maybe they have a callable hand and u wait till after the flop to push it all in, but then u risk people calling with hands that should have been folded by a sizable bet catching a great hand.....
POKER itself has changed, the amount of participants has greatly increased. This means that the statistics we consider when playing hands has not changed but needs to be thought of differently, there are alot of hands being dealt online!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The more hands, the more the chance that these hands we sat out and waited for are coming out more frequently. Trust your gut........ There is always another hand being dealt!!!

Oh and also, I have been dealt Aces more times than I care to count- granted I do play ALOT, even still you don't need Aces to win a pot!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are you using some sort of program that tracks your online play? those programs are designed for you yourself to improve your skills as a poker player, nothing more. Sometimes you get dead cards, it happens in live tournies too. I sat down at a tournament once and won only 2 hands in one hour, that's not to say I had a winning hand either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

iamthepush · Feb 4, 2009

I've had AA 77 times out of 15,613. A win rate of 94.81%. Pokerstars.

GDRileyx · Feb 19, 2009

Ernster86 said:
why do you need proof. do you have a brain of your own and 2 working eyes?

Its obvious the cards are not random...I can't stress it enough, it's so obvious.

I still love the game of course

My sentiments exactly. In the absence of concrete evidence one way or the other, I trust my observation and conclude that online sites are rigged to increase the rake.

It has been purported in othere threads that this measurement of the frequency of AA showed that the actual frequency of AA matched the frequency predicted by probability.

It's a big thread and I haven't read the whole thing, but any summary.

Is there a compilation of the reported results that tells us, for different sites, how many hands were reported and how often AA came up?

GDRileyx · Feb 23, 2009

This is interesting. Evidently Four Dogs was cumulating results, and PStars was real close to the expected frequency, but FTilt was significantly off. You can see this quite plainly on the two sets of results on this page:https://www.cardschat.com/forum/general-poker-13/rigged-aa-test-100791/index14.html

Even though PStars has more than twice as many hands reported as FTilt, FTilt has about 200 times as much deviation from the predicted results.

I play mostly on PStars, because my intuition tells me that PStars is not as rigged as FTitlt, which is not as rigged as UBet. This study seems to bear out my conclusion.

BelgoSuisse · Feb 24, 2009

GDRileyx said:
Even though PStars has more than twice as many hands reported as FTilt, FTilt has about 200 times as much deviation from the predicted results.

well, if by chance the PokerStars number was exactly the expected result, the deviation on FullTilt would be infinitely bigger than that of Stars. Wouldn't that be an even better argument? Oh wait... it would actually be just as pointless as 200 times and only further prove you don't understand statistics.

Both cumulative numbers for PS and FTP are within the expected margin of error. That's all we can say. Comparing the observed deviations which are both random values makes no sense whatsoever.

Rigged: The AA test

WCFields

Rock Star

hipshot55

Rock Star

WCFields

Rock Star

hipshot55

Rock Star

DocHamer

Rising Star

dontquit

Rock Star

Stu_Ungar

Legend

darkremixx

Enthusiast

Ernster86

Rock Star

2012

Enthusiast

dontquit

Rock Star

silverslugger33

Rock Star

TheseNutsWin

Rock Star

RoyalFish

Rock Star

2012

Enthusiast

hipshot55

Rock Star

Stu_Ungar

Legend

ecoutee72

Enthusiast

odinscott

Legend

garykelleher

Rising Star

roy22284

Rising Star

iamthepush

Enthusiast

GDRileyx

Rock Star

GDRileyx

Rock Star

BelgoSuisse

Legend

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site