Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="zachvac, post: 678478, member: 26306"]
Actually I've never seen anyone argue this, it's too easy to disprove. Instead, people argue that AA and KK coincide more, so that AA still comes out as much as it should, and KK comes out as much as it should, but given there's an AA out there, KK comes up proportinally too much and vice versa. So even if (when) we come up with a perfect proportion of AA, people will still continue to believe that when we get AA, KK comes up more often than it should. This is not a testable hypothesis because we don't take every AA hand to showdown and especially when we set, it's possible someone is laying down KK. Although I guess what we could do is take all the hands in which we have AA where the board doesn't hit an A. We're assuming no one would fold KK to an under flop when we're in it with aces. Of course I guess that wouldn't work because that's assuming we never fold our aces, which isn't true at all.

So scratch that last idea. Basically, we are trying to come up with ways to prove a negative, which is a logical fallacy. The burden of proof is on those who wish to prove that the site is rigged. But I'll play along with this.

Pokerstars:
39,420 hands
AA 172 times

178 expected (damn pokerstars, ripping me off)

Full tilt:
3,798 hands
AA 21 times.

17 expected (now why have I only played 3798 at full tilt and 39420 at pokerstars? Perhaps a change in site is in order ;))
[/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us