I'm Sorry But I Take No Comfort...

[alf13 0]

Dummy.Everybody knows that AA is only a 51-49 fav online.jeeez...noobs.

[mtdesmoines 3]

The math will never balance if you never figure in all the hands that YOU suck out on. Rest assured that, provided the decisions are sound, the odds will flatten. the variance is in your reads, your plays, etc. But, that being said, I have a tendency to agree with you, although I know I am perfectly aware of the vagaries of this game.

Here's the frustrating thing for me lately. I rarely go in as the dog. I make great reads, I know when I'm behind, and I don't go in behind. I think that's the next level in my game -- mastering the suck out.

[Stealth Beagle 0]

We're already on page 2 of this thread...I am absolutely amazed that it took this long for someone to say:BBFIDTS

[Josh604 0]

Try pushing after the flop,..devople the pot preflop and make them chase or most likly fold casue they havent hit yet. Ive notcied if ur All in pre-flop,even if you a major Dog that the turn and river can bring you surprise's that you could avoid by pushing them out after flop with ur all in. Well allso let you get away from the guy with the set ot whatever if you read is right. p.s. There will always be bad beats. Thats just Poker (stars)

[Jdr999 0]

...in knowing I am pushing All-in witht he best hand when I get sucked out on.I played 5 sit and go's (10 person) yesterday and in 4 of them I lost when my dominant monster hand was busted by a guy calling my all-in with a hope and a prayer.The hands busted were- AA by A/10o (made straight to 10)- AA by 6/6 (hit set)-QQ by Q8s (made flush)- JJ by 10/10

1. Please provide hand histories for each hand. When did you push all-in, pre-flop, on the flop, on the turn, or on the river?Also, if any mods are reading this, move to Bad Beat forum, because this is a ***** and whine post about getting unlucky in 4 hands.

[Cue 0]

You have never taken a statistics course, have you? Somebody already pointed it out, but apparently you have to hear things multiple times before you understand. If you have AA vs. ATo, you have a 90% chance of winning (before the flop). The next time you have AA vs. ATo, you have a 90% chance of winning (before the flop). Every single time you get a hand, you have the same chance of winning with it as the last time you got that hand. If you lose with AA 400 times in a row vs. ATo, you are still only 90% to win with it the next time you get it.In the LONG RUN, i.e. after millions of data points, you will see that you won with AA vs. ATo 90% of the time. Cards have no memory. Statistics have no memory.No they are not. WTF??The calculations you see on poker calculators are straight math formulas based on probability of card combinations. They have nothing to do with empirical data based on hands played and the results there after.OK, go back to the Poker Odds Calculator, click the "Help" button in the upper right hand corner of the screen and read the disclaimer that appears in blue text on the help screen.Here, I'll help you out if you are too lazy to do it... The Cardplayer calculator only uses a few thousand hands. Other simulators that I have seen have chugged through billions of hands. You know what? They all come up with frighteningly similar percentages.

Thanks for giving a university math major a math lesson.Now in first year you learn about the theory of large numbers (law of averages) and how people commonly misapply it. You fail.This is not about hand 401 after hands 1 thru 400 have been played. Please read that point again. Understand that or keep repeating a non-point.This is about ALL 400 hands and how statistically they should break down. that does not mean I should win ANY ONE HAND but it does mean that in 4 hands or 40 hands or the first 350 hands that is very unlikely (statistically approaching zero) that I will lose them all. That despite the fact that I might lose hand 4 or 40 or 350.So what I am addressing is the incredibly odds that AA will keep losing to draws time and time again for many hands in a row.So if AA has lost 4 times in a row to A?o then yes its odds of losing the next hand are not changed. BUT prior to hand one being played the odd's of AA losing 5 times in row to A?o or 350 times in row is remote to approaching zero probability.You should not be losing multiple times to statistically inferior hands, especially in direct contrast to the mathematical probability of winning. If you are you should be looking at the system. That despite the fact that you cannot read anything into any one win or loss.In the earliest days of BJ card counters that is how they were discovered. It had nothing to do with a winner winning any one hand or choosing to hit because his counting dictated it. It had to do with them winning in larger percentages then is to be statistically expected. If winning greater then statistically expected then it was expected some advantage existed that allowed for that (they could have just been real lucky). Conversely if losing greater then statistically expected then it should be suspected that some other factor might also be in play (you also might be just really unlucky).

No wonder you think its rigged... If you lose 4 times with AA in that situation you should win 36, not 360. You are hoping for a 99% return on something with a 90% chance.

typing to fast before heading out. You are correct that is 9 for 1.

[brabz 0]

1. Please provide hand histories for each hand. When did you push all-in, pre-flop, on the flop, on the turn, or on the river?Also, if any mods are reading this, move to Bad Beat forum, because this is a ***** and whine post about getting unlucky in 4 hands.

Agreed on both counts. Theory of large numbers remains a theory only because it is impossible to calculate an infinite number of tests run, but just because variance has kicked you around for a whopping 4 hands, it's probably best to give the benefit of the doubt to far more knowledgeable mathematicians who discovered and wrote this theory.:EDIT: Also, the theory of large numbers bases nothing on the previous behavior of a particular test. Each test is unique and contains the same odds of occuring as long as the variables remain unchanged.

[Cue 0]

OP is experiencing a statistical deviation from the norm. It is likely that it will correct. However, odds calculators are correct only if you play to INFINITY. That's a long time.Burgerman

But they can be insightful outside of that. In any system (lottery, blackjack, etc) it is entirely possible that a statistical anomaly wll exist. A lottery winner could win the jackpot 3 or 5 times. A blackjack player could win every time he sits down. However both the lottery system and the casino would question how the anomaly has occured. Players should also question when anomalies occur. And yes the answer might be "statistical deviation". You might just be lucky or unlucky but other options can exist. Players need to be ever vigilant in questioning this type of thing especially in gambling where historically there has been fewer industries where wide scale cheating (gaming) has occured more. The casino's (online or otherwise) would look into the account of a player winning outside the statistical probability. You can be assured they have software watching games and alerting them if someone is breaking the bank in BJ or other games so that they can do indepth revues.

[Swift_Psycho 1]

If you're so suspicious, just stop playing online. It's really pretty simple.

[WhatArunAA 0]

I got crushed yesterday.. dominated.. 80 percent fav most of the time... am I quitting.. hell no.. I just went to the casino and now i'm ready to grind out 8 tables again.

[Cue 0]

Try pushing after the flop,..devople the pot preflop and make them chase or most likly fold casue they havent hit yet. Ive notcied if ur All in pre-flop,even if you a major Dog that the turn and river can bring you surprise's that you could avoid by pushing them out after flop with ur all in. Well allso let you get away from the guy with the set ot whatever if you read is right. p.s. There will always be bad beats. Thats just Poker (stars)

In most situations I avoid pushing pre-flop and like to push only after the turn. To many people will call any draw (open ended or flush) if they have two cards coming and feel they are near 50% to hit. So I hope for a brick on the turn and push.However if I am in late position with a big pocket pair JJ-AA and believe it to be winning and there is a preflop raise with many callers then I often try to take the pot down preflop. You do not want 4 to 5 callers with a big pocket pair and heads up usually puts your hand as the monster favorite to most drawing hands or lower pairs that might call. It should be an ideal situation when you get that call but instead it spells doom in more cases then it spells win.

1. Please provide hand histories for each hand. When did you push all-in, pre-flop, on the flop, on the turn, or on the river?Also, if any mods are reading this, move to Bad Beat forum, because this is a ***** and whine post about getting unlucky in 4 hands.

Sorry dude. This thread and all the discussion contained in it are clearly about the odd's of hands holding up and what might make statistics fall outside those hands. You are the only one discussing hands and beats. This is clearly a discussion for GP. And the examples I am talking about are all pre-flop pushes.

Agreed on both counts. Theory of large numbers remains a theory only because it is impossible to calculate an infinite number of tests run, but just because variance has kicked you around for a whopping 4 hands, it's probably best to give the benefit of the doubt to far more knowledgeable mathematicians who discovered and wrote this theory.:EDIT: Also, the theory of large numbers bases nothing on the previous behavior of a particular test. Each test is unique and contains the same odds of occuring as long as the variables remain unchanged.

If only it were just 4 hands. Understand this when bringing the theory in to try and prove a point. You are making one of the most common mistakes in math and would fail an intro test.Ex. - a dice has 6 numbers on it. No matter how many times you throw the dice the odds of any one number coming up is 1 in 6 no matter the history of the previous throws. So if you are betting on a 6 to appear and no six has appeared in the last 18 throws you have NO ADVANTAGE in that ONE hand to hit your six.HOWEVER if you can bet at the onset of the 1st throw of a sequence of throws that a 6 will appear you should tailour your betting accordingly to an over/under line. - 6 will appear 3 times - bet even money as the odds are 50/50- 6 will appear at least once - bet large as the odds are greatly in your favour- 6 will appear more then 3 times - bet only if given odds The same mathimatical odds apply to a series of coin flips and to AA versus A?.No single occurance or event is dictated by the odds but the more things deviate from the odds the more one should suspect outside influence. So if your AA has been busted by A? 500 times it is not the 501st bust that you should be questioning and expecting to win. What you should be questioning is the 500 prior losses which statistically had less chance of happening then being struck by lightning or winning the lottery.

[wilheldp 0]

Thanks for giving a university math major a math lesson.Now in first year you learn about the theory of large numbers (law of averages) and how people commonly misapply it. You fail.This is not about hand 401 after hands 1 thru 400 have been played. Please read that point again. Understand that or keep repeating a non-point.This is about ALL 400 hands and how statistically they should break down. that does not mean I should win ANY ONE HAND but it does mean that in 4 hands or 40 hands or the first 350 hands that is very unlikely (statistically approaching zero) that I will lose them all. That despite the fact that I might lose hand 4 or 40 or 350.So what I am addressing is the incredibly odds that AA will keep losing to draws time and time again for many hands in a row.So if AA has lost 4 times in a row to A?o then yes its odds of losing the next hand are not changed. BUT prior to hand one being played the odd's of AA losing 5 times in row to A?o or 350 times in row is remote to approaching zero probability.You should not be losing multiple times to statistically inferior hands, especially in direct contrast to the mathematical probability of winning. If you are you should be looking at the system. That despite the fact that you cannot read anything into any one win or loss.In the earliest days of BJ card counters that is how they were discovered. It had nothing to do with a winner winning any one hand or choosing to hit because his counting dictated it. It had to do with them winning in larger percentages then is to be statistically expected. If winning greater then statistically expected then it was expected some advantage existed that allowed for that (they could have just been real lucky). Conversely if losing greater then statistically expected then it should be suspected that some other factor might also be in play (you also might be just really unlucky).typing to fast before heading out. You are correct that is 9 for 1.

You keep bringing the law of large numbers into this discussion yet you have provided a statistically insignificant set of data to prove your original point. In fact, you provided only 2 examples in which AA was cracked. Like has been repeated exhaustively in this thread, provide us with a signifcant data set (10,000 hands at the bare minimum) that shows that AA is a less than 90% favorite against ATo, THEN try to make your point.As long as you are making stupid claims off of small data sets, why don't you correctly interpret your results? AA got beat by AT, and AA got beat by 66. That must mean that AA has a 0% chance of winning against any given hand according to your data set. I have no idea how you came up AA having a 50% chance from either your data set or any other odds calculator. Is it possible that you are just pulling numbers out of your ***, oh wonderful math-magician?

[Cue 0]

I got crushed yesterday.. dominated.. 80 percent fav most of the time... am I quitting.. hell no.. I just went to the casino and now i'm ready to grind out 8 tables again.

And of course that is how most good players feel. You know you are doing things right. You know you should be winning more then you are. SO every poker magazine, every player...says reload and keep playing and things will change. It will turn. And if you just keep reloading and just keeping playing then...Anyway I too play mostly live. About 80% of my poker is in the casino and I have managed to become a winning player in the last year. SO it is not as if I am not exposed to suck outs. It is just the proportion. it is all wrong.

[wilheldp 0]

So if your AA has been busted by A? 500 times it is not the 501st bust that you should be questioning and expecting to win. What you should be questioning is the 500 prior losses which statistically had less chance of happening then being struck by lightning or winning the lottery.

You have 1 (one) example of AA getting busted by ATo. The odds of that happening are 1 in 10.You have 1 example of AA getting busted by 66. The odds of that happening are 2 in 10.You have 1 example of QQ getting busted by Q8s. The odds of that happening are 1.2 in 10.You have 1 example of JJ getting busted by TT. The odds of that happening are 1.8 in 10.These 4 hands happening consecutively (which I doubt they did), has a 0.0432% chance. Out of 5 SnGs, you probably played about 500 hands. That increases the chances of those 4 hands losing to about 5.4%. That's only half the chance that AA has of getting beat by ATo in the first place. Certainly not a reason to believe that online poker is rigged.

[rog 0]

You should not be losing multiple times to statistically inferior hands, especially in direct contrast to the mathematical probability of winning. If you are you should be looking at the system. That despite the fact that you cannot read anything into any one win or loss.

Math major? You fail. Absolutely you should lose multiple times with inferior hands. As an 80/20 favorite you should lose twice consecutively with 4% probably, or 1 in 25 times. Depending on how much you play, and how often you end up in a dominating position, this should be a daily occurrence. Thrice consecutively? Just under 1% of the time. Multiple times weekly. Losing 4 out of 5 consecutive happens about 1 time in 200. Probably several times per month. Why on earth wold you expect your losses to be uniformly distributed throughout a large set of random data? That would be MUCH less statistically likley than losing to a few bad beats in one day. You suffer a few bad beats, and go on to make sweeping generalizations about abnormalities in your data with absolutely NO data to back it up. You're either a troll, an idiot, or you're on forum tilt. I suspect it's the third, but I haven't ruled out the other 2 yet.

Anyway I too play mostly live. About 80% of my poker is in the casino and I have managed to become a winning player in the last year. SO it is not as if I am not exposed to suck outs. It is just the proportion. it is all wrong.

Statements like this are meaningless without data. You have no idea what the proportion acutally is, and you have no idea what the statistical signifigance is. You have some biased anecdotal evidence, and you're pretending that's a solid mathematical argument. It's not.

[Konidias 0]

I think some of you are forgetting what the OP said. He lost only twice with AA... the other two times were with QQ and JJ...Even still... I find it funny when someone loses with AA twice in a row and is then like "I've lost like FIFTY times in a row with AA!" It's always a bold exaggeration when it's really only happened a couple of times.Sometimes you just have to face the facts and realize you're not a very lucky person. Some people can win with AA all in preflop 50 times in a row... where you might lose with it almost every time you play. Tough break, but that's hardly a good enough reason to state that online poker is rigged and you know it for a fact.Wow, you always get rivered or sucked out on... what are the odds? I don't know what the odds are but they aren't impossible.In the news recently some woman won the lottery for the SECOND time. The odds of that happening were like somewhere in the trillions... this means that it's entirely possible for someone to NEVER WIN ONCE when they are ahead in an all in situation.