pocket pair frequencies in pacific mtts

[WaffleMcHat 0]

This may sound silly I know and i am not accusing them of anything but it has been my experience that you get pocket pairs much more frequently in pacific pokers MTTs than their ring games.Has anyone else noticed this? I mean I rarely see 220 hands in their tourneys and somehow always get AA once in the first few levels.

[blackize 0]

1/220 doesnt mean you have to see 220 hands to see AA. It just means that you can expect to get AA about once in every 220 hands.

[fryer98 30]

It's rigged. Need I say more??

[WaffleMcHat 0]

I know about the 1/220 thing you mentioned.I am only saying that I have played a ton of MTTs and SNGs and a ton of cash games as well on Pacific and it is almost unheard of to play in a MTT on Pacific without getting aces once.

[Landon_McFly 0]

DUDE, my cousin's best friend's sister used to sleep with a guy who played online poker there... and yea... it's like... totally rigged! :doh: :bubbleduh:

[RonBurgundy 0]

[UglyJimStudly 0]

This may sound silly I know and i am not accusing them of anything but it has been my experience that you get pocket pairs much more frequently in pacific pokers MTTs than their ring games.

Well, if by your "experience" you mean you've logged several thousand hands and detected a potential irregularity, and now are looking to log tens of thousands more to see if you can confirm or disprove that hypothesis, then that would be interesting. OTOH, if your "experience" means you're relying on some kind of personal impression without number, then you're just another conspiracy theorist, which isn't very interesting.

Has anyone else noticed this?   I mean I rarely see 220 hands in their tourneys and somehow always get AA once in the first few levels.

Your free copy of "Catcher in the Rye" is in the mail. Be sure and keep an eye out for the fnords.

[WaffleMcHat 0]

Obviously, I am only a conspiracy theorist or I would have provided some more persuasive data.I was only wondering if anyone else has felt the same way I do and if any PT users could enlighten me.

[UglyJimStudly 0]

Obviously, I am only a conspiracy theorist or I would have provided data.

Fixed it for you.

[mrdannyg 274]

don't know about pacific. i do have a friend who plays pokerroom and has kept track of how often he received pocket pairs in SNG's. he has over 10000 hands logged, which is obviously not a definitive sample, but somewhat large also. overall the frequency of him receiving a pocket pair was a little better than once every 15 hands (i believe the odds are 1 in 17) and he received high pocket pairs (10's and better) around one in 35 hands.highly suspicious i'd say and yes these numbers are backed up

[dms26 3]

In an incredible hand, Hoyt Corkins eliminated both Cliff "Johnny Bax" Josephy and David "The Dragon" Pham when neither Bax's pocket Queens, nor Pham's pocket Kings improve at all against Corkins' pocket Aces. This puts Corkins' chip count at nearly $60,000.I guess live is rigged too.

[SapphireTiger 0]

stupid.delusional.buytinfoilhat.

[minordeity 0]

I have to laugh at all the ignorant people who believe that there is "NO WAY IN THE WORLD ANYTHING CAN BE RIGGED". You people cannot be serious. Of course there is a chance that a particular website can be "rigged" or fixed". Only the designer/programmer know for sure. And maybe the auditor if he is good. Now I'm not saying that any gambling site is rigged (although I have my doubts about Full tilt) but it can be done.

[justblaze 0]

don't know about pacific. i do have a friend who plays pokerroom and has kept track of how often he received pocket pairs in SNG's. he has over 10000 hands logged, which is obviously not a definitive sample, but somewhat large also. overall the frequency of him receiving a pocket pair was a little better than once every 15 hands (i believe the odds are 1 in 17) and he received high pocket pairs (10's and better) around one in 35 hands.highly suspicious i'd say and yes these numbers are backed up

10k hands is nothing. Id say the numbers you provided are fairly close to normal, given the small size of your sample.

[john kane 0]

a table of ten players should see one of those ten players picking up pocket aces 1 in every 22 hands.

[rapperwilly 0]

Thats why its so sketch puttin ur money into those new start up poker sites like Tropics poker. I played their for two weeks and no joke I got pocket pairs at least 25% of the time. Bad Beats happen every hand. You get KK's u better believe somebody has AA's. Its outrageous. Card generators for these sites are definitely "not" random. They are configured so that there is as much action as possible, ppl bust out so they can put more money in, and of course rake the pot. How else do these sites make money? Thats why I decided online poker is not for me.

[fryer98 30]

Thats why its so sketch puttin ur money into those new start up poker sites like Tropics poker. I played their for two weeks and no joke I got pocket pairs at least 25% of the time. Bad Beats happen every hand. You get KK's u better believe somebody has AA's. Its outrageous. Card generators for these sites are definitely "not" random. They are configured so that there is as much action as possible, ppl bust out so they can put more money in, and of course rake the pot. How else do these sites make money? Thats why I decided online poker is not for me.

I'm so happy you posted this!!I needed a good laugh before lunch.

[dms26 3]

Thats why its so sketch puttin ur money into those new start up poker sites like Tropics poker. I played their for two weeks and no joke I got pocket pairs at least 25% of the time. Bad Beats happen every hand. You get KK's u better believe somebody has AA's. Its outrageous. Card generators for these sites are definitely "not" random. They are configured so that there is as much action as possible, ppl bust out so they can put more money in, and of course rake the pot. How else do these sites make money? Thats why I decided online poker is not for me.

I could explain other much better ways for them to make money but obviously you already have it in your head that the sites are rigged. Look at the webpage, sites should be audited by large accounting firms that authenticate the RNG, if the site doesn't have one, move on.

[nutonflop 0]

everyone has poker tracker, a site that was less than perfect would probably be found out rather quickly

[mrdannyg 274]

don't know about pacific. i do have a friend who plays pokerroom and has kept track of how often he received pocket pairs in SNG's. he has over 10000 hands logged, which is obviously not a definitive sample, but somewhat large also. overall the frequency of him receiving a pocket pair was a little better than once every 15 hands (i believe the odds are 1 in 17) and he received high pocket pairs (10's and better) around one in 35 hands.highly suspicious i'd say and yes these numbers are backed up

10k hands is nothing. Id say the numbers you provided are fairly close to normal, given the small size of your sample.

i agree, and that's why i haven't made any kind of a big deal about it, and neither has he. he told me he doesn't even want to look at results until he gets to 100000 hands, for fear of making a big stink out of something which could be statistically reasonable. just thought i'd put it out there, since while 10000 hands may not be statistically significant, it isn't a tiny number either. the difference between 1 in 15 and 1 in 17 is also not a tiny difference.but you would be correct to say that this is not beyond the realm of statistical possibility (yet!).p.s. he conducted the same experiment on party, and after 175000 hands the numbers were almost exactly what should be expected.

[justblaze 0]

don't know about pacific. i do have a friend who plays pokerroom and has kept track of how often he received pocket pairs in SNG's. he has over 10000 hands logged, which is obviously not a definitive sample, but somewhat large also. overall the frequency of him receiving a pocket pair was a little better than once every 15 hands (i believe the odds are 1 in 17) and he received high pocket pairs (10's and better) around one in 35 hands.highly suspicious i'd say and yes these numbers are backed up

10k hands is nothing. Id say the numbers you provided are fairly close to normal, given the small size of your sample.

i agree, and that's why i haven't made any kind of a big deal about it, and neither has he. he told me he doesn't even want to look at results until he gets to 100000 hands, for fear of making a big stink out of something which could be statistically reasonable. just thought i'd put it out there, since while 10000 hands may not be statistically significant, it isn't a tiny number either. the difference between 1 in 15 and 1 in 17 is also not a tiny difference.but you would be correct to say that this is not beyond the realm of statistical possibility (yet!).p.s. he conducted the same experiment on party, and after 175000 hands the numbers were almost exactly what should be expected.

but party is rigged! an anonymous poster on RGP confirmed it hours ago.