|
An Analysis of 37,787 Texas Holdem Hands
Below is Tony Hwang's analysis of the thousands of poker hands he has been dealt while playing at Paradise Poker. He used his
Pokerstat program to collate the data from hand histories. That noise you hear now is the conspiracyites sticking their head in the
sand. It's not "proof" of random dealing, but it is data. Do you think one of the conspiracyites could post similar data? Of course
not, mostly because they don't make the effort to learn about their situations. We've see the conspiracyites waving their arms for a
couple years, but they never post anything from even 1000 hands, let alone 37,000. (The condensed version of this data is: the card
distribution is perfectly, mundanely "normal".)
People can either live in the dark and conjure up imaginary monsters, or get a tracking program. In any case, the last two groups will
win money from the first group while the first group
just waves their arms.
Windows - Mac
Tony Hwang wrote...
I've just completed a starting cards, flop, and board analysis over 37,867 hands I've played at low limits on Paradise Poker:
STARTING CARD ANALYSIS:
Total hands you were dealt cards: 37867
All suited starters dealt: 8982 (23.72%)
All suited starters expected: 8910 (23.5%)
All connected starters dealt: 5980 (15.79%)
All connected starters expected: 5940 (15.7%)
Suited connector starters dealt: 1486 (3.92%)
Suited connector starters expected: 1485 (3.92%)
Paired starters dealt: 2264 (5.979%)
Paired starters expected: 2227 (5.88%)
AKo dealt: 363 (0.959%)
AKo expected: 343 (0.905%)
AKs dealt: 98 (0.259%)
AKo expected: 114 (0.302%)
Any AK dealt: 461 (1.217%)
Any AK expected:457 (1.21%)
A's dealt: 157 (0.415%)
K's dealt: 140 (0.370%)
Q's dealt: 184 (0.486%)
J's dealt: 168 (0.444%)
T's dealt: 183 (0.483%)
9's dealt: 167 (0.441%)
8's dealt: 185 (0.489%)
7's dealt: 182 (0.481%)
6's dealt: 192 (0.507%)
5's dealt: 178 (0.470%)
4's dealt: 186 (0.491%)
3's dealt: 162 (0.428%)
2's dealt: 180 (0.475%)
Each pair expected: 171 (0.452%)
FLOP ANALYSIS:
(Note that only data for hands where a flop was dealt are used.
Hands where no flop was dealt are skipped.)
Total hands you were dealt cards: 37867
Times a flop dealt when you were dealt cards: 35691 (94.25%)
When user dealt AK, flops at least one A or K: 154 (34.45%) expected: 145 (32.4%)
USER HAS ANY TWO SUITED CARDS (dealt 8546 times):
Using both user's hole cards, flopped a:
3 flush:3593 (42.04%) expected: 3554 (41.6%)
4 flush:922 (10.79%) expected: 935 (10.9%)
5 flush:70 (0.82%) expected: 72 (0.842%)
Three cards on the flop make up a:
3 straight:293 (3.43%) expected: 272 (3.18%)
2 flush:4698 (54.97%) expected: 4710 (55.1%)
3 flush:463 (5.42%) expected: 446 (05.22%)
any pair:1470 (17.20%) expected: 1447 (16.9%)
Hand user flops:
High card:4453 (52.1%) expected: 4497 (52.6%)
Pair: 3503 (41.0%) expected: 3453 (40.4%)
Two pair:373 (4.36%) expected: 345 (4.04%)
3 of a kind:107 (1.25%) expected: 134 (1.57%)
Straight:32 (0.37%) expected: 35 (0.412%)
Flush: 70 (0.82%) expected: 71 (0.835%)
Full house:7 (0.082%) expected: 8 (0.0918%)
Four of a kind: 1 (0.012%)expected: 1 (0.0102%)
Straight flush: 0 (0.000%)expected: 1 (0.00589%)
Royal flush:0 (0.000%) expected: 0 (0.000654%)
USER HAS ANY PAIR (dealt 2196 times):
Using both user's hole cards, flopped a:
Underpair (to flop): 523 (23.82%) expected: 515 (23.5%)
Overpair (to flop): 496 (22.59%) expected: 515 (23.5%)
Set: 238 (10.84%) expected: 253 (11.51%)
Quads: 5 (0.228%)expected: 5 (0.245%)
Three cards on the flop make up a:
3 straight:81 (3.69%) expected: 70 (3.18%)
2 flush:1198 (54.55%) expected: 1209 (55.0%)
3 flush:120 (5.46%) expected: 113 (5.16%)
any pair:376 (17.12%) expected: 376 (17.1%)
Hand user flops:
High card:0 (0.0%) expected: 0 (0.00%)
Pair: 1584 (72.1%) expected: 1578 (71.8%)
Two pair:363 (16.53%) expected: 355 (16.2%)
3 of a kind:230 (10.47%)expected: 237 (10.8%)
Straight:0 (0.00%) expected: 0 (0.00%)
Flush: 0 (0.00%) expected: 0 (0.00%)
Full house:14 (0.638%) expected: 22 (0.980%)
Four of a kind: 5 (0.228%)expected: 5 (0.245%)
Straight flush: 0 (0.000%)expected: 0 (0.00%)
Royal flush:0 (0.000%) expected: 0 (0.00%)
USER HAS OFFSUIT CONNECTORS FROM 54o to JTo (dealt 2264 times):
Using both user's hole cards, flopped a:
Open ended:219 (9.67%) expected: 194 (8.55%)
Double belly:16 (0.71%) expected: 12 (0.531%)
Straight:38 (1.68%) expected: 29 (1.26%)
Three cards on the flop make up a:
3 straight:77 (3.40%) expected: 71 (3.15%)
2 flush:1224 (54.06%) expected: 1246 (55.0%)
3 flush:132 (5.83%) expected: 117 (5.16%)
any pair:423 (18.68%) expected: 383 (16.9%)
Hand user flops:
High card:1143 (50.5%) expected: 1192 (52.6%)
Pair: 933 (41.2%) expected: 915 (40.4%)
Two pair:106 (4.68%) expected: 91 (4.04%)
3 of a kind:38 (1.68%) expected: 36 (1.57%)
Straight:39 (1.72%) expected: 28 (1.23%)
Flush: 0 (0.00%) expected: 0 (0.00%)
Full house:5 (0.221%) expected: 2 (0.0918%)
Four of a kind: 0 (0.000%)expected: 0 (0.0102%)
Straight flush: 0 (0.000%)expected: 0 (0.00%)
Royal flush:0 (0.000%) expected: 0 (0.00%)
ALL FLOPS SEEN BY THE USER:
Three cards on the flop make up a:
3 straight:1145 (3.21%) expected: 1137 (3.19%)
2 flush:19715 (55.24%) expected: 19651 (55.1%)
3 flush:1881 (5.27%) expected: 1848 (5.18%)
any pair:6182 (17.32%) expected: 6046 (16.9%)
Hand user flops:
High card:17810 (49.9%) expected: 17888 (50.1%)
Pair: 15068 (42.2%) expected: 15082 (42.3%)
Two pair:1786 (5.00%) expected: 1697 (4.75%)
3 of a kind:750 (2.10%) expected: 754 (2.11%)
Straight:146 (0.41%) expected: 140 (0.392%)
Flush: 70 (0.20%) expected: 70 (0.197%)
Full house:54 (0.151%) expected: 51 (0.144%)
Four of a kind: 7 (0.020%)expected: 9 (0.0240%)
Straight flush: 0 (0.000%)expected: 0 (0.00139%)
Royal flush:0 (0.000%) expected: 0 (0.000154%)
FIVE CARD BOARD ANALYSIS:
(Note that only data for hands where a river was dealt are used. Hands where no river was dealt are skipped. This will bias the data
to include only times where a showdown was seen.)
Total hands you were dealt cards: 37867
Total final boards seen when you were dealt cards: 26216
USER HAS ANY TWO SUITED CARDS (dealt 6293 times):
Four flushes flopped: 729 (11.58%) expected: 689 (10.9%)
When flop four flush, got flush:251 (34.43%) expected: 255 (35.0%)
Hand user has at river:
High card:1145 (18.2%) expected: 1097 (17.4%)
Pair: 2673 (42.5%) expected: 2683 (42.6%)
Two pair:1350 (21.45%) expected: 1391 (22.1%)
3 of a kind:251 (3.99%) expected: 273 (4.33%)
Straight:318 (5.05%) expected: 287 (4.56%)
Flush: 411 (6.53%) expected: 410 (6.51%)
Full house:131 (2.082%) expected: 140 (2.22%)
Four of a kind: 10 (0.159%)expected: 8 (0.126%)
Straight flush: 4 (0.064%)expected: 4 (0.0663%)
Royal flush:0 (0.000%) expected: 0 (0.00781%)
USER HAS ANY PAIR (dealt 1685 times):
A set flopped: 197 (11.69%) expected: 190 (11.3%)
When flop set, got boat or quads:75 (38.07%) expected: 66 (33.4%)
Hand user rivers:
High card: 0 (0.0%) expected: 0 (0.00%)
Pair: 609 (36.1%) expected: 598 (35.5%)
Two pair:654 (38.81%) expected: 666 (39.5%)
3 of a kind:201 (11.93%)expected: 198 (11.7%)
Straight:33 (1.96%) expected: 32 (1.90%)
Flush: 44 (2.61%) expected: 33 (1.95%)
Full house:130 (7.715%) expected: 144 (8.54%)
Four of a kind: 14 (0.831%)expected: 14 (0.842%)
Straight flush: 0 (0.000%)expected: 0 (0.0160%)
Royal flush:0 (0.000%) expected: 0 (0.00182%)
USER HAS OFFSUIT CONNECTORS FROM 54o to JTo (dealt 1678 times):
Flopped open ended: 167 (9.95%) expected: 144 (8.55%)
When open ended, got straight: 47 (28.14%) expected: 51 (30.7%)
Hand user rivers:
High card:281 (16.7%) expected: 289 (17.2%)
Pair: 749 (44.6%) expected: 717 (42.7%)
Two pair:361 (21.51%) expected: 374 (22.3%)
3 of a kind:65 (3.87%) expected: 73 (4.35%)
Straight:153 (9.12%) expected: 153 (9.12%)
Flush: 31 (1.85%) expected: 33 (1.95%)
Full house:33 (1.967%) expected: 37 (2.22%)
Four of a kind: 5 (0.298%)expected: 2 (0.126%)
Straight flush: 0 (0.000%)expected: 0 (0.0209%)
Royal flush:0 (0.000%) expected: 0 (0.00110%)
ALL RIVERS SEEN BY THE USER:
Hand user rivers:
High card:4686 (17.9%) expected: 4565 (17.4%)
Pair: 11522 (44.0%) expected: 11489 (43.8%)
Two pair:6039 (23.04%) expected: 6160 (23.5%)
3 of a kind:1198 (4.57%)expected: 1266 (4.83%)
Straight:1237 (4.72%) expected: 1211 (4.62%)
Flush: 806 (3.07%) expected: 793 (3.03%)
Full house:675 (2.575%) expected: 681 (2.60%)
Four of a kind: 48 (0.183%)expected: 44 (0.168%)
Straight flush: 4 (0.015%)expected: 7 (0.0279%)
Royal flush:1 (0.004%) expected: 1 (0.00323%)
---
An Analysis of 9635 Online Omaha Hands
Tony Hwang wrote...
PokerStat Omaha has been released. Here an analysis
I've done for over 9,000 Paradise Poker Omaha HiLo hands.
STARTING CARDS:
Total hands you were dealt cards: 9635
User was dealt starting cards:
double suited: 1293 (13.4%) expected: 1299 (13.5%)
one pair: 3053 (31.7%) expected: 2931 (30.4%)
FLOPS:
(Note that only data for hands where a flop was dealt are used.
Hands where no flop was dealt are skipped.)
Total hands you were dealt cards: 9635
Times a flop dealt when you were dealt cards: 9433 (97.90%)
USER HAS DOUBLE SUITED STARTING CARDS (dealt 1268 times):
User flopped a:
flush draw: 297 (23.42%) expected: 298 (23.5%)
flush: 26 (2.05%) expected: 24 (1.91%)
High hand user flops:
High card: 246 (19.4%) expected: 258 (20.4%)
Pair: 673 (53.1%) expected: 678 (53.5%)
Two pair: 215 (16.96%) expected: 200 (15.8%)
3 of a kind: 74 (5.84%) expected: 73 (5.72%)
Straight: 23 (1.81%) expected: 24 (1.92%)
Flush: 26 (2.05%) expected: 24 (1.89%)
Full house: 9 (0.710%) expected: 10 (0.769%)
Four of a kind: 2 (0.158%) expected: 1 (0.100%)
Straight flush: 0 (0.000%) expected: 0 (0.013%)
Royal flush: 0 (0.000%) expected: 0 (0.002%)
USER DEALT A SINGLE PAIR (dealt 3004 times):
User flopped a (using pair):
Set (no full): 365 (12.2%) expected: 337 (11.2%)
Quads: 5 (0.2%) expected: 8 (0.266%)
High hand user flops:
High card: 0 (0.0%) expected: 0 (0.00%)
Pair: 1991 (66.3%) expected: 2022 (67.3%)
Two pair: 495 (16.48%) expected: 501 (0.167%)
3 of a kind: 411 (13.68%) expected: 376 (12.5%)
Straight: 39 (1.30%) expected: 37 (1.23%)
Flush: 20 (0.67%) expected: 27 (0.912%)
Full house: 42 (1.398%) expected: 33 (1.10%)
Four of a kind: 6 (0.200%) expected: 8 (0.277%)
Straight flush: 0 (0.000%) expected: 0 (0.008%)
Royal flush: 0 (0.000%) expected: 0 (0.001%)
ALL FLOPS SEEN BY THE USER:
High hand user flops:
High card: 1820 (19.3%) expected: 1867 (19.8%)
Pair: 5197 (55.1%) expected: 5161 (54.7%)
Two pair: 1464 (15.52%) expected: 1494 (15.8%)
3 of a kind: 608 (6.45%) expected: 558 (5.92%)
Straight: 185 (1.96%) expected: 180 (1.91%)
Flush: 73 (0.77%) expected: 87 (0.926%)
Full house: 79 (0.837%) expected: 74 (0.780%)
Four of a kind: 7 (0.074%) expected: 10 (0.105%)
Straight flush: 0 (0.000%) expected: 1 (0.008%)
Royal flush: 0 (0.000%) expected: 0 (0.001%)
RIVERS:
(Note that only data for hands where a river was dealt are used.
Hands where no river was dealt are skipped. This will bias the
data to include only times where a showdown was seen.)
Total hands you were dealt cards: 9635
Total rivers seen when you were dealt cards: 8343 (86.59%)
USER HAS DOUBLE SUITED STARTING CARDS (dealt 1126 times):
Flush draws flopped when double suited: 293 (26.02%)
expected: 265 (23.5%)
When flop flush draw, got flush: 122 (41.64%)
expected: 107 (36.3%)
High hand user has at river:
High card: 39 (3.5%) expected: 31 (2.78%)
Pair: 254 (22.6%) expected: 268 (23.8%)
Two pair: 399 (35.44%) expected: 385 (34.2%)
3 of a kind: 90 (7.99%) expected: 92 (8.19%)
Straight: 123 (10.92%) expected: 117 (10.4%)
Flush: 156 (13.85%) expected: 155 (13.7%)
Full house: 58 (5.151%) expected: 70 (6.24%)
Four of a kind: 7 (0.622%) expected: 5 (0.469%)
Straight flush: 0 (0.000%) expected: 1 (0.130%)
Royal flush: 0 (0.000%) expected: 0 (0.015%)
USER HAS ANY SINGLE PAIR (dealt 2647 times):
Flopped set using pair (no full): 325 (12.28%)
expected: 297 (11.2%)
Flopped set using pair, got boat/quads by river: 104 (32.00%)
expected: 109 (33.5%)
High hand user has at river:
High card: 0 (0.0%) expected: 0 (0.00%)
Pair: 698 (26.4%) expected: 699 (0.264%)
Two pair: 923 (34.87%) expected: 921 (34.8%)
3 of a kind: 385 (14.54%) expected: 373 (14.1%)
Straight: 204 (7.71%) expected: 201 (7.59%)
Flush: 163 (6.16%) expected: 172 (6.51%)
Full house: 241 (9.105%) expected: 252 (9.51%)
Four of a kind: 31 (1.171%) expected: 27 (1.01%)
Straight flush: 2 (0.076%) expected: 2 (0.073%)
Royal flush: 0 (0.000%) expected: 0 (0.0081%)
ALL RIVERS SEEN BY THE USER:
Hand user has at river:
High card: 236 (2.8%) expected: 249 (2.99%)
Pair: 2298 (27.5%) expected: 2208 (26.5%)
Two pair: 2990 (35.84%) expected: 3074 (36.8%)
3 of a kind: 722 (8.65%) expected: 733 (8.78%)
Straight: 958 (11.48%) expected: 941 (11.3%)
Flush: 575 (6.89%) expected: 562 (6.73%)
Full house: 516 (6.185%) expected: 529 (6.35%)
Four of a kind: 42 (0.503%) expected: 40 (0.481%)
Straight flush: 6 (0.072%) expected: 7 (0.079%)
Royal flush: 0 (0.000%) expected: 1 (0.0093%)
###
Online Poker Conspiracy Buffs
Every bit of data posted by individuals over an extended period of time shows a random distribution of cards and of hand strengths
with no anomalies. If what conspiracy buffs suggest was happening, we would see it -- in data, not hand-waving speculation. What we in
fact see is fully to the contrary. All the data is extremely mundane and normal.
danny wrote...
> Here's the problem with the data I've seen:
> 1) The analyses are only overall tabulations of hand histories. No
> analysis is done for time history. Having 5 quads out of 37000 hands
> looks normal until you find out they were dealt consecutively.
If that data existed, it could be posted in a 100 hand group of hand histories. Since it doesn't exist, it isn't posted. No issue
here.
> 2) The data is only given for the user's cards and not for the
> opponents cards or for winning %. Having 5 quads out of 37000 hands
> looks normal until you find out they were beaten each time.
Same as above. There is nothing to prevent the posting of hands where quads are beaten in some consistent or interesting way (meaning
having quads beaten once is not newsworthy). So again, no issue here. if this data existed, it could be shown.
> But most importantly,
> 3) Paradise supplied the data and no one can verify that it is correct.
> Do you think if they were rigging the cards they would supply the actual
> data to implicate themselves?
Tony Hwang is not Paradise Poker. He also lived the hands that the hand histories show. Dozens of other players pour over these hand
histories like they are the Dead Sea Scrolls, looking for information about their own play. It's ludicrous to think no one has ever
been sharp enough to notice that Paradise is cooking the hand histories!
The data doesn't "prove" anything, but when you look at an awful lot of data on one side, and some unsophisticated hand-waving about
cards feeling funny on the other, the sensible people recognize the difference.
How many thousands of hand histories do you have? Did you use a commercial program to analyze them or something of your own design?
What did the data show? These three questions are like speaking Greek to conspiracyites. If you can't provide answers to these
questions, that is what you should be working on, not fantasies.
---
Drbase8934 wrote...
> I tend to agree with Steve, why risk the sure
money with needless cheating of
> players account. Some individuals may cheat the system, but there is more
> incentive for Paridise to run it honestly.
I may be a bit slow, but it is becoming more and more clear to me that not-very-good, not-very-thoughtful poker players simply do not
understand the impact of the rake in poker. It's like they
don't even *guess* what percentage of the money deposited online is eventually raked by a cardroom. This extreme non-understanding of
how money is made in the poker/cardroom business leads to much foolish thinking.
The hysterics apparently simply can not understand that the tortoise wins.
wrisky wrote...
> Pure greed would be the incentive. Big profits
are nice
> but bigger profits would be nicer.
Greed is the incentive not to cheat. Stupidly picking up pennies while jeopardizing piles of money would be why to cheat. The smart
operators know the incentive is to offer a clean game with an honest rake. That is how money is made in poker.
greatplans wrote...
> Soon after hitting the send button I realized I was off by an order
> of magnitude. You are correct, it is not billions but certainly
> hundreds of millions.
Try again. You honest to god think 100,000 players average even $3000 of deposits in one year?! (Or perhaps even more questionably, do
you think 300,000 players have averaged $1000?) You appear to not have given this any serious thought at all.
> Over the course of a year. Easily! Do you actually know people who
gamble?
Please. Hundreds of people burst their seems when they lose $200 online.
> However, I stand by my original assertion that stealing amounts
> in excess of the rake ($30-$50 million per year?) could easily be
> accomplished without serious risk of detection.
Suppose deposits for a year were a hundred million dollars ($1000, from 100,000 people). Suppose forty to sixty million was raked
(about 65 million real money hands dealt). If the true numbers were anywhere near that ballpark, isn't your whole contention
ludicrous?
These things aren't hard to discover if you simply take a few moments to think about them, but some people will just never do that.
The real money in poker comes from a prompt, raked game, not fantasies.
> I suppose, I could document every hand I played and calculate the
> odds of missing all my draws. However, If I was being cheated I don't think
> I could play enough hands to make the analysis statistically significant
> before I lost my house and pension money.
And so why doesn't it give you pause that someone posted the results just yesterday of his 37,000 hands where he made and missed his
draws at an extremely mundane, normal rate?
> Well, Mr. Badger (perhaps he should change his name to Ostrich
> since his head is planted firmly in the sand) has ruled that I am
> clueless and the discussion is hence over.
All I've done is ask you to take your head out of the sand. Many of us look around and try to see, understand and learn more about our
situation. You chose to make statements that you didn't consider before making them. Playing poker for money, anywhere, requires the
endless exploration of shades of gray. If you don't want to do that, fine, that is your choice.
Bing wrote...
> The view looks to be the same whether our heads are in the sand or not.
No it isn't, not by a longshot. The first step a person could take to stop sticking their head in the sand is to simply try to
estimate the rake-versus-yearly-deposits at a site. These paranoiac posts act like the rake is some puny percentage of the total
deposits, like there is some huge amount of money left available to steal dishonestly! This is absurd. It betrays a complete
non-understanding of the cardroom business. If the rake equals 1x, there is not 7x or 8x of money laying around waiting to be stolen.
The casino rake of 5% evolved over time in the b&m world for a good reason. It may not be the exact
mathematical optimum for a casino to take out of a game, but
it is close. It's not in a casinos interest to take significantly more, paranoiac delusions not to the contrary.
danny wrote...
> It's more likely that no stealing is happening, but that the cards are
> scripted to maximize pot size (total rake), buy-in's and number of
> active players. Does a gift for understanding probabilities preclude
> one from seeing the big picture?
If you mean by "more likely" that this would be a better way to steal, then you are right. The rake is the key. The majority of the
conspiracyites do not understand the basics of poker -- the rake is everything. Structuring software to not favor anyone, but make
optimum-sized pots for rake would be sneaky, clever and hard as hell.
But it also pretty easy to detect. Every bit of data posted by individuals over an extended period of time shows a random distribution
of cards and of hand strengths with no anomalies. If what you suggest was happening, we would see it -- in data, not hand-waving
speculation. What we in fact see is fully to the contrary. All the data is extremely mundane and normal.
Dan Miller wrote...
> Badger has stated ad nauseum that the internet poker sites
> don't need to cheat because the rake is getting the money anyway.
> We can all agree with him on that. However, I don't think it would be too
> difficult to generate some software that would level the playing field
> for the weaker players to allow the extraction of more rake from them.
There is nothing on heaven or earth that could keep the majority of online players in chips (without buying more). The style of play
of most players is poor. No matter what a dishonest cardroom could try to do, they couldn't make people who always call the turn but
always fold the river win.
jberger1 wrote...
> I have often wondered what happened to cause me to lose
> after starting out hotter than a firecracker.
The cards breaking even?
> Badger - You really make me think, hmmmm, maybe.
It should have. You ran hot. Having a cold run is to be expected. Carson was supposed to explain "regressing to the mean" to you.
> I know over the long run the cards will
break even, I also know wild play
> will result in wild bankroll swings. What I am trying to see here is how
> many people had a bad run when they FIRST started playing online poker
> as opposed to after they made a cashout.
Please think a little before you
> reply in the future...
I know I have. It appears you haven't thought about this. New players (as a group) get KILLED on Paradise -- just like they do in casinos. Some
flukes like you have a rush, then a negative rush, and are
self-absorbed enough to think this
happens normally/usually/often. That is fully laughable to anyone who plays online poker regularly. New people show up, they play bad,
they lose. Rare exceptions occur. Mundane events happen mundanely. You should observe,
study, and think about what actually does occur --
to other people and not just yourself.
danny wrote...
> I also have had the same unbelievable experiences at Paradise
> recounted by many others, here and on other forums.
Which all completely contradict each other.
> I don't think its player collusion.
What is "its"?
> However, I do think the suspicious runs of
bad beats are
> Paradise-scripted games designed to maximize their rake.
Yes, Paradise has a scheme to get rake that includes
bad beats. It is called.... poker.
> Two theories based on the commonly heard complaints:
> 1) New players are first allowed to win, building their confidence and
> hooking them ("hey this is easy, at this rate I could win thousands").
> After they're up about 50 BB's their bankrolls are bad beated to zero,
> tilting the players and causing them to buy more chips in frustration.
New players as a group get killed on Paradise. They play poorly as a group and the better, experienced players who populate the site
beat them because they play better cards. Just like in casinos, but even more so because the rake is relatively cheap online.
> 2)The games are periodically scripted to distribute the wealth among
> players. After all, if a new, bad player bought in and immediately
> lost all his money he'd likely try somewhere else online. Paradise
> would not want the same 50 good players continually winning all the
> money and cashing out - they need the money in play to collect the rake.
Then why is this what happens?
> The complaints heard are just too numerous and consistent to be
> discounted. Remember, they're not regulated by any gambling authority,
> so its perfectly legal for them to manipulate games to maximize their
> profits - they'd be stupid not to.
Why? They have a situation that is heaven for a cardroom, lots of players, chips moving back and forth, and hundreds of players who
show no inkling of a desire to play the game well.
The "complaints" are excellent evidence of exactly what is going on. Virtually never will these complaints post a rational theory as
to how the site is rigged. And these posts virtually never show the poster has even a mediocre level of poker ability. And these posts
(with one exception in 18 months I've read them) *never* post the slightest bit of evidence to back up their absurd claims, even
though the site provides a perfect tool to prove hanky-panky if it existed.
On the other hand, thoughtful players use the tools available to them (hand histories, Pokerstat) to see that they and other players
are dealt a normally random distribution of cards. People who take the effort to know what they are talking about do well, while lazy
players just wave their arms and simply refuse to play better.
danny wrote...
> Given the possibility of cheating, and the reams of anecdotal evidence,
> why would an uninterested party (lacking direct knowledge to
> substantiate their position) choose to actively defend Paradise?
What anecdotal evidence? That is the point. No one brings any evidence ever of the site cheating (other players, yes, which the site
generally then deals with). You look silly pretending something exists when people have had literally years to produce *any* evidence.
The produce none. None.
danny wrote...
> In the couple weeks I've been reading rgp I've been astounded that the
> otherwise intelligent poker writers would uniformly dismiss the
> thousands of accounts of irregular deals at Paradise (only) as a mass
> illusion. Conspicuously absent is the acknowledgement of anything
> unusual about the number of reports or the similarities between them.
There are plenty of similarities, noticeably a penchant for extreme exaggeration, and of course a complete, total lack of the
slightest bit of evidence -- in most cases there is even an apparent lack of knowledge of how to request a hand history.
You yourself have not provided evidence of one single "irregular" deal. The game of poker allows non thoughtful people to play it.
Some play online and then post non-thoughtful comments, and choose to ignore the very large volume of direct, contradictory evidence.
---
Gonzalo García-Pelayo wrote...
> I don' t need to learn to play better poker when in 200 tourneys I placed
> 83 times. The probability of making this just for
luck is only 1 of 2777.
> Then I have a clear advantage and suddenly the next 200 tourneys I
> placed only 56 times (as scobi tells) which probability is only .5 of 100.
??????????????????
> All that when I cashed out my first winnings as scobi tells. Any person
> who understand the math of gambling knows that kind of game have a
> critical byass (non random distribution).
Honestly, you obviously know nothing about math as it applies to poker.
> You have an event who runs 200 times. The probability for you, or
> another player, to get one of the three priced places are 0.3 (there
> are 10 players and three prices). A normal output would be 200/3=66,
> the probability to get 83 prices is only 1 of 2777 (0.00036)=Almost
> imposible to get there only being
lucky. If you won at a rate of 42.5%
> (83 times from 200) consider at least that your medium rate must 37%
> (or perhaps 42%), long away from the medium 30%.
> Then if your probability to get a price is 0.37, the probability to
> get only 56 prices out of 200 tourneys is only 1 to 50 (0.0045).
> If the same player did these results in 400 tourneys tell everybody
> that the cards weren't random the first 200 or the last 200.
> Remember I'm not crying: I´m ahead $2.75 after paying $3600 to
> Paradise (rake, $9 each 400 top tourneys) I won to others players
You seem to think that the results of a first 200 games make the results of a next 200 games to be impossible. Suppose you played the
second 200 games first, then what would you think? But that isn't what you have done. You played 400 games. Good luck happens, as does
bad luck. No matter how good or bad a player is, after 200 tournaments to finish in the money 28% of the time when the average is 30%,
that is a "normal" as is humanly possible.... just as your results after 400 events have you in the money 34.75% of the time.
These are staggeringly mundane numbers. You finished in the money just enough better than average to slightly beat the rake.
---
Chuck wrote...
> I don't have hand histories, nor do I care what other people think
> about online poker. The bottom line for me is I've never suffered as
> many bad beats or gone through hours of unplayable hands as I did on
> PP. I wish I could beat the game, I LOVE to play and online would
> solve a ton of problems for me, but I guess, if the game is on the up
> and up, I just can't handle the swings.
If you can't handle the swings, then not playing is fine idea. But it goes back to the main issue: there aren't phantoms at work here.
You simply need to push yourself to play better. Handling swings is a fundamental part of poker.
---
danny wrote...
> 1) Balancing discipline and boredom. I wait
patiently for a hand worth
> playing, finally get it, play it well and win a big pot. Then I ask
> myself "Am I playing to have fun or make money?" The answer is "to
> have fun" so I proceed to bet marginal hands and gamble the won pot
> away, starting the process over again.
Well, obviously Paradise isn't rigged... you are.
> 2) Calling with 2nd best high pair (pair K or Q with overcard showing
> on board). I have no problems folding AA early when
I think I'm
> beaten, folding 2nd best medium pair, or folding K/Q to an early
> bettor. However, in shorthanded games
or when the table checks around
> to the last player who bets, I suspect a pot stealer and usually call.
> My feeling is this is a losing strategy and that I would be better off
> folding most of the time. Any advice?
Yes. Bet. You might try reading some poker books too. Not only is your line of play in #2 bad, your proposed solution is terrible.
> Playing Holdem following advice published by
experts obviously gives
> one an advantage over the uneducated gambler.
But it will never make you a consistent winner.
|
