Think you're imagining bad beats....

see for yourself with evidence. Found this article about calculating the standard deviation for ev all-in preflop and postflop.

Online Poker Watchdog - Downloads - Test your own hand histories!

If you used Poker Tracker they have 4 reports that you can download: 2 reports for cash - all-in ev preflop and all-in ev postflop as well as same 2 reports for tournaments.

Make sure to watch the videos as the reports themselves don't make much sense. You need to export the reports and calculate the deviation in excel.

I ran the test against the hands I have and found that the deviation for ALL records (this includes hand which were observed and I was not a part of) was within the acceptable parameters (i.e. within 2 standard deviations).

Then I filtered only hands that I was involved and found that the standard deviation was 4x the ev, which is outside the norm. Guess I am not too crazy after all. I just hope this variance swings the other way and I start winning more than I should. :)

Anyhow, thought I would share with the group so you can see just how bad you're running.

Good luck at the tables!

how many hands were in your sample that you tested?

What? Can you explain it more simple like dumb it down a little. Confuse by what you're trying to break down.

im guessing his sample size isnt too big but its still frustrating LOL id like to know more of your findings even with a small sample size

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmeelneg

how many hands were in your sample that you tested?

---

Sorry I should have added this information to start with. You guys are right the sample size is not huge especially for the hands that I was involved with. I only ran the 2 reports for tournements since I don't play a lot of cash.

Tournament all-in pre-flop total hands: 3000 hands
Tournament all-in pre-flop my hands: 400 hands
Tournament all-in flop total hands: 3100 hands
Tournament all-in flop my hands: 500 hands

The standard deviation for all-in pre-flop for all hands is 25, while the actual deviation is 17. The std dev for all-in pre-flop my hands is 9, while the actual deviation is 33.

The standard deviation for all-in flop for all hands 25, while actual deviation is 27. The std dev for all-in fop my hands is 10, while actual deviation is is 47.

I know the sample size is small but still, I'm taking a killing and losing much more often than I should.

sound very interesting tys for sharing it I m going to check it out

Some statistical stuff needs to be taken with a grain of salt, so to speak.

I won't get into the small sample size since you already have touched on that. The allin preflop numbers mean next to nothing to some degree without some context. What are you getting allin with, are you calling or pushing, are you loose or tight?

If someone with a Durrr style looses more allins then he wins, that is normal (his style compensates by picking up chips elsewhere). If someone as tight as say Hellmuth looses more allins then he wins then you might have a case for something going on.

I don't need a Poker tracker, doesn't seem to be useful at all.

Funny thing is ,Merge defenders always say that you have no evidence or that you see more hands in a shorter period of time and thats why you think your'e getting bad beat. Then you give them these stats and they come up with more excuses. Bottom line is that Merge's casino is rigged,which to me amounts to larceny,and 2 ndly their poker plays out incredibly outside the norm of what acceptable deviation is. Hopefully Black Friday part 2 and new US based and regulated poker sites will do away with all this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tp3rd

Funny thing is ,Merge defenders always say that you have no evidence or that you see more hands in a shorter period of time and thats why you think your'e getting bad beat. Then you give them these stats and they come up with more excuses. Bottom line is that Merge's casino is rigged,which to me amounts to larceny,and 2 ndly their poker plays out incredibly outside the norm of what acceptable deviation is. Hopefully Black Friday part 2 and new US based and regulated poker sites will do away with all this.

---

Please give us your expert analysis on his data. Also when I'm playing in a PO freeroll I'd like to know which player its rigged for so I can avoid them.

Bmeelneg,

I cant speak for tp3rd but i dont think its 'Rigged" for any one as much as its setup for max action or to promote dumb gambling. But what i call dumb (like durrs style) some call excellent play and also some of the shit you seen played online would NEVER be played live for fear of humiliation or Live odds holding more true. Like doyles odds in back are for Live play with a "real" dealer which IMO is ALOT more random then the way online does it. I dont think a computer knows what random is..

But im a fence jumper as i have arguments for both sides cause i could understand why these sites would have programmers set it up for max action but i also like alot of other players only remember the bad beats cause they are the ones that usually take me out or cripple/damage me.. IF black jack can be tweek for even more of a house advantage then i dont see how poker cant be tweeked for max action. So i really have no clue im just rambling on LOL All i know is before party poker,Jetsomething and pokeroom shut down to US players i had 14 mtt wins and since 0 My style still works live but not online.

sorry guys - i didn't mean for this to go off on the subject of whether online poker sites are rigged or not. actually like i said in my initial post the data for all hands show that there isn't any significant deviation. As for my own hands, I think I may be doing something wrong as the reports only show the the winning player and player who called the all-in. Therefore I believe I'm missing some hands that I was involved with. I will see if I can modify the report and get ALL the hands I was involved with. At any rate, sorry to start another thread about rigged poker - didn't mean to.

abwil

There was a site a few years back that openly acknowledged doing exactly what you are saying. I forget the name off the top of my head ... something like hi hand poker. Anyways what the site did was throw away the low cards.

Basically it worked like this. No 2s 3s 4s or 5s were dealt out. Easy to program software to do that, right? Anyways this did generate higher hands obviously, more hands people wanted to play. Anyways the point I'm getting at is even if Merge was to do something like this (which I do not believe to be true) which player gets an advantage by that? If merge or whoever did do something like this it would make more sense for them to do it in cash games where extra rake could be generated. In a freeroll rigging does not make sense, the site could careless who wins and all the money generated is already done. Ironically enough its in the freerolls and micro tourneys where the "its rigged" nonsense is most prevalent.

I don't believe Merge rigs any of the poker. They don't need to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joefine

sorry guys - i didn't mean for this to go off on the subject of whether online poker sites are rigged or not. actually like i said in my initial post the data for all hands show that there isn't any significant deviation. As for my own hands, I think I may be doing something wrong as the reports only show the the winning player and player who called the all-in. Therefore I believe I'm missing some hands that I was involved with. I will see if I can modify the report and get ALL the hands I was involved with. At any rate, sorry to start another thread about rigged poker - didn't mean to.

---

No worries about that. I honestly was looking for clarification of your data more then anything else. It's really ambiguous as is.

Say I said something like "My AA hands loses 30% of the time!!!! MERGE IS RIGGED everyone knows AA is a 85% fav HU, I LOSE TWICE AS MUCH!!!"

First question should be how many hands in your sample size... playing 10 hands with AA and losing 3 of them is 30% but its not enough hands to be reliable data. (I know you already get that)

"My AA hands only wins 70% of the time AND my sample size is 10,000 hands!!! See its rigged!!" Ok the sample size is much better there obviously but the question you should ask is of those 10,000 hands how many of them were HU. If 5000 of those hands were HU and 5000 were against more than 2 people, the 70% is a fair number.

The devil is in the details.

can you read? Said the casino was rigged,and if you don't think so your'e incredibly stupid or naive. 2ndly,said poker hands play out outside normal deviation. Just finished playing last PO tourney...AA allin preflop got cracked 5 out of 6 times,and anyone who just played will tell you the same.

set up fro max action equals rigging to me.....should be no such thing as "set up for action"

this debate will go on and on till the end of time as long as there is on line poker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drywallman3

this debate will go on and on till the end of time as long as there is on line poker.

---

true!!!!! just seems Merge is more out of bounds than other sites Ive played at.

As ive said all the time. The set up for max action would possibly be negative for the online sites.

1) Online just like live has a max rake per hand. So max action meaning getting all ins actually makes the pot bigger than where they get max rake so in essence they lose rake.

2) Most people who play the games where they make the real rake usually stick to guidelines so if they reach their goal in winnings for the day they stop. So by creating max action these people will reach their goal in fewer hands so the online sites rule of creating max action means they would lose out on an increased number of hands where they could make rake from.

3) With or without rigging for max action the online poker sites are still printing money. So really have nothing to gain by rigging it for action but everything to lose.

Im a sucker for conspiracy theories but this one just cant tempt me.

this is great stuff...thanks for sharing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmeelneg

No worries about that. I honestly was looking for clarification of your data more then anything else. It's really ambiguous as is.

Say I said something like "My AA hands loses 30% of the time!!!! MERGE IS RIGGED everyone knows AA is a 85% fav HU, I LOSE TWICE AS MUCH!!!"

First question should be how many hands in your sample size... playing 10 hands with AA and losing 3 of them is 30% but its not enough hands to be reliable data. (I know you already get that)

"My AA hands only wins 70% of the time AND my sample size is 10,000 hands!!! See its rigged!!" Ok the sample size is much better there obviously but the question you should ask is of those 10,000 hands how many of them were HU. If 5000 of those hands were HU and 5000 were against more than 2 people, the 70% is a fair number.

The devil is in the details.

---

All the hands in the report are for HU. My understanding of the reports is they filter the report for all-in with only 2 players involved in the all-in. So if there was a multi-way all-in pre-flop these reports would not capture the hand. Same for the flop report only 2 people involved for the all-in. Hope this clarifies things.

But at any rate, stats are still nice to see how and when and why there are leaks in your game.