Home / Community / Forum / Poker Community / Brags, Beats and Variance /

Is this site riged?

Old
Default
Is this site riged? - Sun May 05, 2013, 05:41 PM
(#1)
Beerfly69's Avatar
Since: Feb 2010
Posts: 2
BronzeStar
Hi ladies and gents,


I have to ask this question, is this site rigged?

I ask because it seems 80% of the time I have QQ,KK and get shoved all in with someone who has an A with a kicker, the A always seems to hit.

I know the hand frequency is a lot higher online but it seems a bit ridiculous. considering at best they only have 3 outs and they hit it every time....

maybe its only me though.... but I doubt it.
 
Old
Default
Sun May 05, 2013, 05:44 PM
(#2)
Grade b's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,604
No it is not.

Get the free trial of Pokertracker 4 or holdem manager 2.

Record all the hands over a month and you will see.

this year in cash games I have had KK preflop 214 times and won 184 times (86%)


Grade b


I am always ready to learn although I do not always like being taught. ~Winston Churchill

13 Time Bracelet Winner



Last edited by Grade b; Sun May 05, 2013 at 05:49 PM..
 
Old
Default
Sun May 05, 2013, 06:12 PM
(#3)
Beerfly69's Avatar
Since: Feb 2010
Posts: 2
BronzeStar
Thanks, I will download one of them and analyse my game some more.
 
Old
Default
Sun May 05, 2013, 06:15 PM
(#4)
RockerguyAA's Avatar
Since: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,089
BronzeStar
Beerfly first consider this: No matter how many hours you spend looking for evidence a poker site is rigged, you will not find any proof. You can try if you want. You might find some people claiming some strange stats, but none of it is ever going to be mathematically valid enough to constitute proof.

Secondly, if PokerStars is rigged then a lot of sites must be in the exact same way because we all have similar experiences (good and bad) on multiple sites, with different software, owned by different companies, and regulated by different entities.

Also, I read a thread recently on a different website (that I cannot post here sorry) that was about a live player trying to go pro at an Aussie casino. He ran insanely bad. His experience was at least as absurd as anything people have experienced online. It really is just the nature of the game of poker and the math behind it. Even great players can lose a lot for significant stretches of time. It's not likely, but it can and will happen (eventually).

edit: Also, I would like to add that while PokerStars has a very good track record in the matter, not all sites are ran perfectly from a business perspective. You have to put your faith in a poker site when you deposit your hard earned money onto their site, and unfortunately some sites have made some extremely poor business decisions in the past and the present. Just look into Ultimate Bet, the original Full Tilt Poker, and currently sites like *cough* Lock *cough*. It is good to ask questions like the one you did, but as far as the way the cards fall all evidence points to the conclusion that nobody goes so far as rigging the deck.

Last edited by RockerguyAA; Sun May 05, 2013 at 06:21 PM..
 
Old
Default
Sun May 05, 2013, 07:51 PM
(#5)
Grade b's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerfly69 View Post
Thanks, I will download one of them and analyse my game some more.

I lot of players feel this way, its human nature. I recently wrote about it in one of my blogs about ALWAYS having my aces cracked

Grade b


I am always ready to learn although I do not always like being taught. ~Winston Churchill

13 Time Bracelet Winner


 
Old
Default
Sun May 05, 2013, 09:18 PM
(#6)
RedLetterman's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 665
Just posting the most recent hand where the bigger stack has an UNREAL runner runner for the win. I had 5 of these today where the bigger stack won where he shouldn't have had a hope in hell.

Random? Like Rocker said, it cannot be proven one way or the other.

Copy and paste to have a look at the impossible..........

http://www.boomplayer.com/en/poker-h...418_E1DF3348C7

Random? You decide. It's your money.
 
Old
Default
Mon May 06, 2013, 07:21 AM
(#7)
mike2198's Avatar
Since: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,485
That flopped straight was unlucky but that would never happen to me when he raised you pre flop he basically said im well ahead of your 89s but you called anyway flopped a monster getting very lucky imo then he made his full house and hit his outs on 2 streets, yh he was very lucky but like i said i would of folded preflop.

I don't know for sure but if you played 89s in the same situation pre flop im guessing even if you win a stack for every time you make the nuts on the flop or the best hand by showdown, i bet you would still make a loss in the long run for calling such a big bet pre flop.
 
Old
Default
Mon May 06, 2013, 07:31 AM
(#8)
ArtySmokesPS's Avatar
Since: Oct 2011
Posts: 7,346
Maybe you posted the wrong hand, Redletterman, but losing to a 2-outer that becomes a 10 outer is far from impossible. You got your money in very good (95% favourite) and lost to a suckout. You can't win them all.
Runner-runner suckouts and 1-outers are tough to take. But these also happen in live poker. See Sandtrap's blog about his $3300 one-outer. Suckouts aren't just possible. They are expected to happen at a certain frequency over a large sample.


Bracelet Winner

Last edited by ArtySmokesPS; Mon May 06, 2013 at 07:34 AM..
 
Old
Default
Mon May 06, 2013, 11:48 PM
(#9)
joy7108's Avatar
Since: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,286
I wondered the same thing during a particularly bad downswing. I decided to download PT4 beta, then I loaded 4 years worth of history into the tracker.

I found out that all of my win rates with premium hands were within a couple of percentage points of the expected average. However, when I just looked at 3 months,I was way below expected win rate. Bad runs will happen, just like good ones, but I truly believe that making the right decision consistently will result in a winning game.

 
Old
Default
Tue May 07, 2013, 05:11 AM
(#10)
EvokeNZ's Avatar
Since: Jan 2013
Posts: 557
the other thing to consider is why would it be rigged against you and in favour of those other people - what makes them special specifically? There're so many of them, they can't be the employees or affiliates. Even if it was rigged, the only way it could be rigged 'systematically' if it just always favoured one outers or whoever had the worst odds. But in that case the 'normal' maths of poker would never apply and you'd never win with good cards. Then all the people that study the maths would leave as they'd run out of money and the site would shut down due to no income. ;P
 
Old
Default
Wed May 08, 2013, 01:22 PM
(#11)
RedLetterman's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 665
Okay. Seems to me you guys (and gal) are missing a point or two. Firstly, this was not about me losing that hand. It was a response to the OP and a demonstration of what can happen. Also, it wasn't put up for people to analyze play. I could nit all day and take the odd shot against a big preflop raise and I'm still a nit.

What this wasn't about.....
Mike: Fold preflop all day or take one or two shots in 6 hours? It cost me a dollar to call and have him heads up; to see a flop and then make a decision. It is extremely rare for me to play 89 suited.
Joy: "....I truly believe that making the right decision consistently will result in a winning game." Yes. We've seen that said a thousand times here. Not disputing it.
Arty: What Boom does not show is how all cards are face up after the all in. When the Ace hit the turn I had already surrendered the hand to him as I felt in my gut (instinct derived from observation) he would pair the board 70% of the time to make his boat. Those are my stats and every response I get from others regarding those stats come with the same tired caveat: Your sample isn't large enough.
What the post was about:
Evoke: I never ever said the site was rigged. I failed to mention that I was the recipient of unreal wins that day as well as the loss posted. I recently won a tourney where I mopped up the final table by calling others' all ins pre when holding pkt fours or sixes against their pkt queens or aces. I'll post the final table of the 'On the Glass' tourney if anyone wants it and can tell me how to go about it.

All I've ever said regarding the RNG is there seems to be a flaw in there somewhere. It's not perfect. It's also not rigged. I just don't like coincidence. What I would like to see is someone (like Joy's analysis) do a 100,000 hand survey of win - loss rates on a (flopped) made hand low stack versus a big stack. I'm expecting 65% minimum in favor of the larger stack.

We can strive for perfection in any endeavor, and good on us for the attempt, but ultimately nothing is perfect. I'm fairly certain PS would never lay claim to a perfect RNG.

Cheers!
 
Old
Default
Wed May 08, 2013, 01:53 PM
(#12)
ferdyr77's Avatar
Since: Dec 2011
Posts: 88
Just think of this. If it was rigged it will get for sure known to the public one time and if it does this multi million dollar company called pokerstars can be bought very cheap afterwards (then I can even buy it ). Do u think they will even put that on risk? They make the most money the more people play because of the rake and does not have to care who wins the dollars which are in the middle of the table.
 
Old
Default
Wed May 08, 2013, 02:07 PM
(#13)
ArtySmokesPS's Avatar
Since: Oct 2011
Posts: 7,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedLetterman View Post
What I would like to see is someone (like Joy's analysis) do a 100,000 hand survey of win - loss rates on a (flopped) made hand low stack versus a big stack. I'm expecting 65% minimum in favor of the larger stack.
100,000 hands is far too small a sample. Would 290 million flops be better?
http://www.spadebidder.com/


Bracelet Winner
 
Old
Default
Wed May 08, 2013, 03:27 PM
(#14)
RedLetterman's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 665
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferdyr77 View Post
Just think of this. If it was rigged it will get for sure known to the public one time and if it does this multi million dollar company called pokerstars can be bought very cheap afterwards (then I can even buy it ). Do u think they will even put that on risk? They make the most money the more people play because of the rake and does not have to care who wins the dollars which are in the middle of the table.
Ferdyr - Never said it was rigged. Ever. In either post. Rigged implies motive, method and some sort of opportunity. BTW Thanks for the rake lesson. Had no idea that PS would actually lose money by eliminating players from a table. <---------- (sarcasm)

Artie- The 290 million hand posts inform me of my cognitive bias. I'll acknowledge that for now.
 
Old
Default
Wed May 08, 2013, 07:38 PM
(#15)
topthecat's Avatar
Since: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,962
@Arty

Interesting link that you posted there. Did you by any chance check out the credit for the primary hand history source and their website? It may well make you consider the veracity of the data

Cheers,

TC
 
Old
Default
Wed May 08, 2013, 08:38 PM
(#16)
Bill Curran's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,506
This question comes up very, very regularly.

The consensus has been, and probably always will be, 'That the Site is NOT rigged'.

This question usually raises it's ugly head after someone has had a series of unfortunate losses, and as has been pointed out on numerous occassions, people tend to remember the times that their AA was cracked by 7 2o and forget the number of times that their AA won.

It is Human Nature to see patterns everywhere, even in very small samples. And this is particularly true of Poker Players.
The patterns of peoples play (or reads ) is one of the first things that experienced players advise new players to master if they can. Obviously the more experience you have playing poker, then the greater the opportunity to master this esoteric art.

It would be economic suicide for PokerStars to 'Rig' the games, the patterns that the 'rigging' would throw up would soon become obvious to experienced Poker Players.
No doubt some would try to exploit these patterns to their own advantage, but I believe that most would try to find a way to have the 'rigging' investigated, which would signal the end for any gambling site.

I must admit, that I have been guilty of raising this subject myself. In August 2010 I posted a thread in this Forum, intended as a Joke and to raise a smile.

For those that missed it, I will reproduce it here, but remember 'IT IS INTENDED AS A JOKE'



Have you noticed that when you play against some players, it doesn't seem to matter what you are holding, they ALWAYS win.

Are the games 'Rigged', The TRUTH revealed.

The following was given to me in strictest confidence, by an extremely reliable source. I have been sworn, upon pain of death, to keep secret the Identity of the source and I will deny, until the end of time if asked, any knowledge whatsoever of the Identity of the source, or the contents of this missive.
So I am typing this with my eyes closed and with 'Heavy Metal' music blaring through my earphones, so I can truthfully say I don't know what is written here.
I am just a conduit, through which the truth is revealed.

ONLINE POKER:

The games are rigged and that's a fact. But not how most people have imagined.

The sites use a Random card selection process for the 'Hole Cards', and it truly is random.

But here is where the rigging comes in. It is divided into 'Two' separate parts. Separate but connected. And this is how it works:-

Part One:
The game programme lists all participants until registration is closed. This list can be viewed in the tourney lobby.
Each player is assigned a letter (a through i) for a nine seater tourney, (a through f) for a six seater. etc.
On each table the 'Random' hole cards are dealt out. Then, and this is where the uncertainty factor plays a big part, depending on which players fold pre-flop, depends which player is programmed to win.
For instance, the hole cards are dealt out thusly: Player designated 'a' 7c2d : player 'b' Ts 8h : player 'c' As Ks : player 'd' Js Jd : player 'e' 5d 9c : player 'f' Qs 3d : player 'g' Kc 8s : player 'h' Qd 6c and player 'i' Jh Th.
players 'a','b','c','d',and 'i' are still in pre-flop, the betting was player 'd' utg raises 3XBB call call fold fold fold fold call call (Player 'a' is BB and an any two cards player) players 'b' and 'd' are also speculative players,player 'c' is a cautious player and player 'i' is SB and usually a bit tight.

Now the order to win each hand is always 'a' first, 'i' last.
So because 'a' is still in the hand the flop must help player 'a', and the selected winning hand must be for 'a'. The winning hand has been selected to be quad two's.
The programme now goes to the next decision choice (and this again is done randomly) and the decision is in three parts, 1. give 'a' the final winning hand on the flop; 2. give 'a' two of the winning hand cards on the flop or 3. give 'a' one of the cards of the final winning hand on the flop.
Let us assume the programme selects option 3.
Because only one of the predetermined cards will be dealt in the flop, there is a possibility that 'a' will fold after the flop and therefore a subroutine runs which selects a second card for the flop which will assist the next player in line (in this case 'b').
The flop now comes 2h 9h Jc.
Everyone has caught a little at least. Player 'a' a pair of two's ; player 'b' an open ended straight draw ; player 'c' Ace King high with an outside chance runner runner straight draw ; player 'd' trip Jacks and player 'i' a pair of jacks, a flush draw, the possibility of a runner runner straight flush draw and a runner runner straight draw.
First to act is player 'i' SB, he is mesmerised by all the hearts and the possibilities towards him winning that he bets 5XBB, BB player 'a' who is destined to win this hand sees that he only has a pair of deuces and decides, even though he is an any two cards player, that 5XBB is a little too much and opts to fold. Player 'd' utg has trip Jacks and elects to call, next player 'c' sees an Ace high and he too opts to fold, player 'b' calls with his open ended straight draw.
Because player 'a' is no longer involved in the hand, player 'b' becomes the designated winner. However the previously selected winning hand of quad two's, is no longer valid as this would leave player 'b' behind player 'd' with only Jack high as opposed to trip Jacks. Therefore a new winning hand must be formulated. A second subroutine now recalculates a winning hand with player 'b' as the beneficiary. Queen high straight is chosen.
The programme now has the choice again of when to deal the winning card, option 1. on the Turn, option 2. on the River.
Let us assume the programme selects option 2.
The Turn card is 8c. Everyone again has a little something.
First to act, player 'i', still has a pair of Jacks and a flush draw but now also has a straight draw, and decides to bet 5XBB, player 'd' has trip Jacks and sees that there is a possible straight and possible flush on the board and having played with these two other players for a while, believes that neither of them has hit yet and comes over the top with an all-in bet, in order to take the pot now rather than chance one or the other hitting on the River. Player 'b' now finds that he has a pair of eights and an open ended straight draw, but to call player 'd's bet would put him all in and decides to fold and wait for a better opportunity later. Player 'i' still believes that he will win with all the outs he has, and calling the all-in will not put him all-in so opts to call.
Now player 'b' is no longer in the hand so the designated winner has to again be amended. Player 'c' is next in line, but he folded after the flop, so next is player 'd' who is in the hand and holding three of a kind Jacks. However, the previously decided winning hand of Queen high straight would give the win to player 'i' and not player 'd', so the sub routine now has to re-calculate a winning hand for player 'd'. Player 'd' is already holding a winning hand JJJ , so any card that is not a heart, a seven or a Queen, will give the win to player 'd'.
The programme selects 2c.
Player 'd' wins with a full house Jacks over Two's.

On the face of it, it would appear that the best hand won with the winning player using acceptable tactics, with the best starting hand. Everyone says nice hand, well played, good game.

Now let us go back to the beginning of the hand and player 'a' , as well as being an any two cards player is also a shove all player.
The hand now plays like this:- Player 'd' under the gun bets 3XBB with his pair of Jacks, call, call, fold, fold, fold, fold, call, all-in. Player 'd' thinks his jacks good enough to call the all-in, and so calls, player 'c' also calls and is all-in, everyone else folds.
The players cards are now exposed. On the board is Js Jd for player 'd' ; AKs for player 'c' and 7c 2d for player 'a'. Comments such as 'what a donk' and 'stupid idiot, deserves everything he gets' come from some of the other players and players 'd' and 'c' think the hand is a race between them.
Same selection process as previous, i.e. winning hand, quad two's and one of the winning hand cards on the flop.
Flop 2h 9h Jc. Player 'c' knows that, unless he hits a Queen and a Ten on the Turn and the River, his tourney is over. Player 'd' now thinks that he is so far in front that he can't possibly lose, and so do the other players and spectators.
Turn comes 2s, player 'c' knows he is out and says 'Bye everyone, good game'. Player 'd' now has a full house Jacks over Two's and is mentally already raking in the chips because he 'can't possibly lose' as player 'a' only has three of a kind Deuces and even if the board pairs or a seven comes on the River player 'd' still wins.
KERBLAM....WRONG....River is dealt 2c giving player 'a' Quad Two's and taking down the pot.
This is when the shit hits the fan, and the comments come thick and fast. 'What a suck out', 'stupid donk play', 'bad beat', etc. etc. etc.
No use ranting and raving that the site is fixed, it IS fixed but not in the way most people mean. It is fixed 'RANDOMLY'.
If player 'a' having knocked out sufficient opponents that his table is closed, is moved to another table, or is 'Randomly' moved to fill up spaces, then his designation of 'a' no longer pertains, and he is re designated to the first missing letter at that table. If this happens to be 'a', because the player who was 'a', was 'Randomly' re-assigned, then all well and good, he will continue his winning streak. But if his re designation is 'i' he will suddenly find himself on a massive losing streak.
This is the major reason why 'Donks' rarely make it to the final stages, they continue to play as if they are designated 'a' even when re-designated to less favourable letters.
This situation remains until Registration is closed.

Part Two, Stage One:
The programme 'randomly' numbers all participants regardless of whether they have already been eliminated.

If the participant numbered 1 has already been eliminated then the participant numbered 2 is selected. If this person has also been eliminated, then the process is repeated until the first number not eliminated is reached. This person is now designated winner.
Now we get to the subtle part. The programme now interacts with another sub routine that only allows 75% of hands as 'Winners' for the player designated winner. One in four hands now dealt to the designated player is a losing hand, so if the designated player is a 'shove it all in on any two cards' type of player, then there is a good chance he will be eliminated before the Final Table, as he may overplay a 'losing' hand when one of the others has 'Randomly' received a Monster e.g. AA. thus giving the appearance of 'Skill' persevering. Even though one in four hands is designated 'loser', this does not necessarily mean that the designated player WILL lose the hand. The hand will be played totally randomly, from start to finish, so the designated player could still win the hand.
On each individual table the lowest numbered player is designated the winner for that table, if that player is subsequently moved to another Table and there is a player with a lower number then he will no longer be the designated winner, as in the previous section where players were designated 'a' through 'i' (except he will not be assigned a new number). This too gives the appearance of 'Randomness' as those players will appear to be experiencing a run of good luck and then a run of bad luck, and if the player with a lower number is moved from that table they will then be on a new run of good luck, and the vast majority of people expect this kind of thing to happen in Poker. So everything appears to be 'Normal'.
If the designated 'winner' player is an average to good player, then he will be more selective in the starting hands he will play. In this case, even though he has been allocated 75% he will not be playing all of the winning hands and will occasionally, because of the Random dealing of the Hole Cards, play some of the losing hands at least until after the flop. This again will disguise the fact that he is the pre-programmed winner. If the designated player goes all-in on any of the losing hands, he will be allowed to lose that hand, and if this puts him out of the tournament then the player next in sequence becomes the designated winner.
This state of affairs continues until there has been 50% of the total entry eliminated from the tourney. Then stage two kicks in.

Stage Two:
The designated winner will only be allowed to lose if certain conditions are met, and these are: 1. If the player elects to sit out for the remainder of the tourney and the Blinds and Ante's force him all-in, then his hand will be folded and the next player in line will become the designated player. 2. If the player has NOT gone all-in, on a losing hand, pre flop, but DOES go all-in at a stage where it is impossible for him to receive the winning hand, then he will be eliminated. e.g. Designated Player holds Jh 7h and raises 3XBB all fold excepting BB who holds AhKh. (this is a designated losing hand) Flop comes 6h Qh 3h. Since it is now impossible for the designated player to win this hand, as he cannot, with any remaining combination of two cards, form a hand that is superior to his opponents. If he now goes all-in, either, he is given the win and the Table immediately shut down,(so last hand history cannot be checked) and all players re-assigned to other tables, or if there are insufficient places available at other tables to accommodate all remaining players and the table cannot be closed,he will be allowed to lose, and the next player in line becomes the designated player.
In all other cases, if he has gone all-in and it is possible for the player to receive a winning hand, even though this hand was designated to be a loser, then the designated player will win.
It is assumed by the programmers, that by this stage of the tourney, most of the shove all-in any two card type players, will have been eliminated.
The programmers have also taken into consideration Human fallibility, so if the designated player declines to play hands, but is not 'sat out', and is forced all-in by the Blinds and Ante's, he will be given the winning hands until such time as he is no longer forced all-in.

Stage Three:
Heads up. In the heads up stage of the tourney, the designated player will be given 80% winning hands (100% if he elects to go all-in post flop even on a losing hand) It is assumed that by this stage no-one will try to bluff all-in on the Turn or River, with a hand that cannot possibly win, but in the unlikely event that this does occur, if the programme cannot find a combination of cards, still to come, to enable the designated player to win that hand, then the first time that this situation arises the opponents hand will be folded even though the player bets. (It is hoped that this will be viewed as a glitch or a 'miss touch' of the mouse by the losing player). If however this situation arises again then the designated player will be allowed to lose and his opponent win.
'Hole Cards' are still 'Randomly' distributed which enhances the appearance of 'Randomness', even though the designated player will win four out of every five hands, if he plays them all, it would still not appear too odd, as every player has experienced a time where everything seems to go right for one and wrong for the other, no matter what cards they hold.
For example. The designated player, at heads up, only plays a hand if at least one of his 'Hole Cards' is Ten or above unless they are connecters 6+. He begins the session 2X the amount of chips as his opponent, and receives no cards higher than 9 and no connecters, except for the hands designated as losers, for a considerable period and is now down to just enough to cover the Big Blind and Ante at this point he is all-in and is not allowed to lose. This state will continue until chance grants him a run of 'Hole Cards' consisting of at least one card Ten or above, at which point he begins to accumulate chips and everyone congratulates him on a terrific recovery. And he goes on to win the tourney.

End of Story.

Or is it?

What Man can construct, Man can take apart. What 'blockages' Man can create, Man can circumvent.
Site owners have access to the Programme and in particular to a sub-subroutine, which allows authorised personnel to 'flag' individual 'clients' to either always have them entered into tourneys at designation 'i' (if that individual is on their 'Black list'), or at designation 'a', or anywhere in between, depending on their status viz-a-viz 'The Management'. Thus providing favoured clients a 'leg up the ladder' so to speak, and holding back or 'penalising' un favoured clientele.
They have also the ability to change the part two numbering in favour of whosoever they choose. So if the 'Management' decide that a certain person has been of particular help to them, or has made a sufficiently large bribe, that person can be allocated 'a' in part one and '1' in part two, thus guaranteeing the win.

Now don't forget, you didn't get this from me, I know absolutely nothing about it. Someone else must be using my account while I'm not here.


 
Old
Default
Thu May 09, 2013, 01:44 AM
(#17)
EvokeNZ's Avatar
Since: Jan 2013
Posts: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedLetterman View Post
Evoke: I never ever said the site was rigged.
[/COLOR]
I wasn't replying to you. I was replying to the thread, ie. the original poster.

there isn't really such a thing as a true random number generator, they all need a seed and for any two instances where the seed is the same, and the search length is the same, the result will be the same. But for all intents and purposes, this doesn't matter as it's random enough. It's as random as a live dealer shuffling and giving out cards.

Unexpected results come when you expect a certain result regardless of the randomness. Even though you think KK is a great hand, it'll still be beat by 58 that makes an interleaved straight on the flop. The way to win is to bet those hands off before the flop comes. I think that's what smallball strategy is based on - call with anything if it's cheap, mostly fold, and win big when you win.

So betting plays a big part. If everyone at your table is perfect TAG, then you might as well play with face up cards. The idea is to adjust to other people's strategies.

The reason this doesn't work in OSL is because there are just so many people who are mad and the field changes too quickly. One time you fold JJ and see that a T7 won. You get transferred to another table. Then you go all in on AA and get beaten by a J4. You move again.

I don't think playing absolutely nitty in OSL actually works that great, and calling with rubbish once in a while is actually profitable as long as you can lay down your cards when you get into trouble. Sitting out for the first hour has also given me good results - just have to be not tempted to call even with amazing hands. After the first hour and a half though it becomes a normal game. Just have to make it to that first break and then you're in business :-)
 
Old
Default
Thu May 09, 2013, 07:27 AM
(#18)
ArtySmokesPS's Avatar
Since: Oct 2011
Posts: 7,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by topthecat View Post
@Arty
Interesting link that you posted there. Did you by any chance check out the credit for the primary hand history source and their website? It may well make you consider the veracity of the data
I'd not checked before and FTPoker (which is nothing to do with Full Tilt as far as I know and looks like it's a playmoney site) had not been on my radar before.
For an analysis of 1 million hands on Pokerstars, see http://ispokerrigged.com/Is%20PokerStars%20Rigged.html

Results were within two standard deviations, so no bias was detected.


Bracelet Winner
 
Old
Default
Thu May 09, 2013, 07:38 AM
(#19)
bhoylegend's Avatar
Since: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,261
I'm still waiting for a legitimate reason for why a poker site would want to rig things. They work on a commission basis and there is no shortage of commission. There was a guy on 2+2 who showed why it would be in a sites interest to keep pots small rather than screwing people into going all in. Rake is capped. After a certain point in a hand there is no incentive left for the site.

For tournaments rake is gathered up front so even less incentive.
 

Getting PokerStars is easy: download and install the PokerStars game software, create your free player account, and validate your email address. Clicking on the download poker button will lead to the installation of compatible poker software on your PC of 51.7 MB, which will enable you to register and play poker on the PokerStars platform. To uninstall PokerStars use the Windows uninstaller: click Start > Control Panel and then select Add or Remove programs > Select PokerStars and click Uninstall or Remove.

Copyright (c) PokerSchoolOnline.com. All rights reserved, Rational Group, Douglas Bay Complex, King Edward Road, Onchan, Isle of Man, IM3 1DZ. You can email us on support@pokerschoolonline.com