omahahilo 0 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 I ran a little expirament.I played 25 $1.50 SIT N GOS on Pacific Poker.I chose this game because I knew the players would assist me.I pushed all in pre-flop with the first pair in the pocket I had 10-10 or higher and folded all the rest.Since I got called every time I found this very interesting.Out of 25 times I pushed all in I was the pre-flop favorite 19 times. I lost 16 of them to draw-outs.Discuss.Oh and I know I'm an idiot but look at these results.Matt Link to post Share on other sites
Dratj 0 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 They are $1.5 sng's, what do you expect? Link to post Share on other sites
omahahilo 0 Posted October 12, 2006 Author Share Posted October 12, 2006 Oh and I'm not saying that online poker is rigged. Its not. But it definately isan't as random as you may think.And obviously this was a NL HE tournament test.And also, I am not discussing player skill levels here. Just the randomness of the shuffle and results.Matt Link to post Share on other sites
Nixed 0 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Dozens of people spontaniously combust every year... Link to post Share on other sites
BudBundy 0 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Nothing to discuss about.Bad run of cards.<insert random flame here> (I am not very good with English) Link to post Share on other sites
....Ian.... 0 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 19=perfect sample size Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Oh and I'm not saying that online poker is rigged. Its not. But it definately isan't as random as you may think.And obviously this was a NL HE tournament test.Mattso you're saying it's not rigged and then saying it is. ok.Furthermore, 25 is way too small of a sample size. Statistically you could've easily lost all 25. Link to post Share on other sites
Socrates 0 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Wow - there are so many things wrong with this "experiment" I don't even know where we could start. Oh, how about sample size, yeah that's a good place. Do it 1000 times and then come back and let us know how the math worked out for you. Link to post Share on other sites
JMoney2681 0 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Oh and I'm not saying that online poker is rigged. Its not. But it definately isan't as random as you may think.And also, I am not discussing player skill levels here. Just the randomness of the shuffle and results. Come on...What about the guys winning all of those hands against you? Surely they are posting up threads at their poker forum saying "Online poker is the best, I always win!" -Online poker isn't rigged, yes the "shuffling" is randomized. Link to post Share on other sites
sixhands 0 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 I ran a little expirament.I played 25 $1.50 SIT N GOS on Pacific Poker.I chose this game because I knew the players would assist me.I pushed all in pre-flop with the first pair in the pocket I had 10-10 or higher and folded all the rest.Since I got called every time I found this very interesting.Out of 25 times I pushed all in I was the pre-flop favorite 19 times. I lost 16 of them to draw-outs.Discuss.Oh and I know I'm an idiot but look at these results.MattI appreciate the experiment and that you took the time to prove your point.I am not going to flame you but I will say that the sample size is not big enough.edit: ....Ian.... is faster than me :(and it would appear so is brvheart and socrates oh woe is me Link to post Share on other sites
Dogpatch 2 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Even with those pairs though, you were only a little better than 50% each time? Next time you want to experiment with $37.50, just transfer it to me. Link to post Share on other sites
omahahilo 0 Posted October 12, 2006 Author Share Posted October 12, 2006 I understand the sample size is too small ... just a little test.Also by saying that its rigged would be saying that someone intentionally made sure that the implied results would occour. I am saying that the software may not be as random as you think. Not that someone is knowingly causing it.MattP.S. How many hands do I need to play this way before I have a good sized sample as I'm not curious enough to try it. 500-1000? Link to post Share on other sites
qyayqi 11 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 i believe things are random, but in the realm of "what were the chances" may i present:gf wanted to play a freeroll, so we both signed up on absolute. about 1600 players in it. we ended up at the same table & first hand both got pocket queens. it was sort of freaky. Link to post Share on other sites
omahahilo 0 Posted October 12, 2006 Author Share Posted October 12, 2006 Even with those pairs though, you were only a little better than 50% each time? Next time you want to experiment with $37.50, just transfer it to me. That's my point. I know this is a small sample but with the edge even 51/50 in these hands with 19 sample hands I should have won more than 3. Correct?Matt Link to post Share on other sites
....Ian.... 0 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 That's my point. I know this is a small sample but with the edge even 51/50 in these hands with 19 sample hands I should have won more than 3. Correct?Mattyou could lose 19/19 and it still wouldnt prove anything Link to post Share on other sites
Dogpatch 2 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 You'd need 1000's to be a big enough sample. And what is it you're trying to prove? That's my point. I know this is a small sample but with the edge even 51/50 in these hands with 19 sample hands I should have won more than 3. Correct?MattThat's my point. I know this is a small sample but with the edge even 51/50 in these hands with 19 sample hands I should have won more than 3. Correct?Matt Well, maybe you should have. But nothing is absolute. If everybody won every hand in which they had an edge... how fun would poker be? Link to post Share on other sites
KsItLoLnEeR 0 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 That's my point. I know this is a small sample but with the edge even 51/50 in these hands with 19 sample hands I should have won more than 3. Correct?Matt100% INCORRECT. Your not an idiot, but you havent learned proper thinking when it comes to sample size and variance. Link to post Share on other sites
omahahilo 0 Posted October 12, 2006 Author Share Posted October 12, 2006 you could lose 19/19 and it still wouldnt prove anythingThat many not be correct. I know its a small sample though. How many hands to I have to play to show that I may be partially correct here?Oh and keep playing. If you lose 19/19 and think nothing of it you def need to be at my table.Matt Link to post Share on other sites
Dr_Shakes 0 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 I understand the sample size is too small ... just a little test.Also by saying that its rigged would be saying that someone intentionally made sure that the implied results would occour. I am saying that the software may not be as random as you think. Not that someone is knowingly causing it.MattP.S. How many hands do I need to play this way before I have a good sized sample as I'm not curious enough to try it. 500-1000?Either it is random or it is not. Until you understand this all other posts by you on this will be meaningless. Link to post Share on other sites
sixhands 0 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 That's my point. I know this is a small sample but with the edge even 51/50 in these hands with 19 sample hands I should have won more than 3. Correct?Mattnot necessarilyif you flip a coin it's 50/50 for heads and tailsit's statistically possible for you to continuously flip all heads or all tailshighly unlikely but possible.I could say that out of the 19 you should have lost them all.Had you won them all, then what?Everybody complains when it's not "fixed" in their favour.Whenever I get a bad beat I remind myself of the times I gave them Link to post Share on other sites
Marc-O 0 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 flame Link to post Share on other sites
....Ian.... 0 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 That many not be correct. I know its a small sample though. How many hands to I have to play to show that I may be partially correct here?Oh and keep playing. If you lose 19/19 and think nothing of it you def need to be at my table.Mattif you play 1000 hands you will probably lose at least 19 of those. each hand is a random event. pretend those 19 losses happened back to back to back......... same thing Link to post Share on other sites
omahahilo 0 Posted October 12, 2006 Author Share Posted October 12, 2006 100% INCORRECT. Your not an idiot, but you havent learned proper thinking when it comes to sample size and variance.Ok well here's the deal. At least I am trying to learn something here. If I am so incorrect and you are the great master then tell me EXACTLY what I have done wrong and why I am so incorrect. I'm not trying to be a **** here but its very easy to tell someone they're incorrect, but not so easy to prove 100% why they are. By all means tell me. And don't just quote me sample size. That's not 100% proof you need to bring more than that to convince me.Matt Link to post Share on other sites
navybuttons 15 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 That's my point. I know this is a small sample but with the edge even 51/50 in these hands with 19 sample hands I should have won more than 3. Correct?Mattif you ran it 101 times then you would expect to win 51 (but don't ever think you 'should' or are entitled to it). you will not understand poker until you realize that a sample size of 19 is basically saying "i fliped a coin and it came up heads two times in a row. there is something wrong here."online poker is more random than live poker. Link to post Share on other sites
omahahilo 0 Posted October 12, 2006 Author Share Posted October 12, 2006 if you play 1000 hands you will probably lose at least 19 of those. each hand is a random event. pretend those 19 losses happened back to back to back......... same thingOk I see your point. But by that logic you should also have times when you win 20 in a row too.So if I play 1000 of these things and post all hand historys on them. Will you admit that I may not be completely correct but there may be something to what I am saying?Matt Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now