Why Obsess Over Correct Strategy Online?

[kkot 0]

This is probably going to be my last post here.If you cannot beat the games online, you simply are not a winning player, or your sample is too small. The poker sites are not out to get you. They are fair.Their reputation depends on it.-------------------------------------------------Show me a database with 100k+ hands where the draws do not come very close to proper percentages. All you are doing is posting an opinion with absolutely no facts to back it up.Isn't that what you are accusing us of?

[ahosang 0]

Many sites have their hand outcomes audited for statistical fairness by companies such as PriceWaterhouseCoopers.You should look for a link on the site's web page or something...

chipnut, you didn't read this post???Here is Stars' page regarding testing. http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/rng/Party: http://www.partypoker.com/about_us/game_fairness/r_n_g.htmlIf you have proof that theoretically weak players are getting better cards, and theoretically strong players are being screwed, then present the compilation of hands as proof. You'll need large samples and an agreement on what weak and strong players are though.Another option is of course to play in the way that you think the sites are rewarding. Then you should make a lot of mobney....

[chipnut 0]

lol dude. I have 100s of thousands of hands logged that show me as always having been a winning player. I don't have a deal with the websites where I just happen to be the lucky one, nor do I play 70-80% of my hands preflop.

WOW. That makes you better thn Daniel or any other pro. None of them claims to have ALWAYS been a winning player. They all say they lost at first but stuck it out and improved. You must be the greatest poker player who ever lived.Then again, ALL on-line players are big winners. I've never seen anyone admit that they lose. Maybe thats my problem since I win some and lose some, my losses are financing the entire industry.Thank you all for confirming my suspicion that there is no arguement to refute the belief that the sites could be cheating.

[Zach6668 513]

WOW. That makes you better thn Daniel or any other pro. None of them claims to have ALWAYS been a winning player. They all say they lost at first but stuck it out and improved. You must be the greatest poker player who ever lived.Then again, ALL on-line players are big winners. I've never seen anyone admit that they lose. Maybe thats my problem since I win some and lose some, my losses are financing the entire industry.Thank you all for confirming my suspicion that there is no arguement to refute the belief that the sites could be cheating.

I said in my DB. Obv I didn't know about pokertracker until I decided to learn the game.Furthermore, you are a dumb fuck. Do you think the reason people you talk to are winning players may be because you are in a STRATEGY FORUM WITH PLAYERS WHO WORK ON THEIR GAME EVERY DAY?!

[chipnut 0]

I said in my DB. Obv I didn't know about pokertracker until I decided to learn the game.Furthermore, you are a dumb fuck. Do you think the reason people you talk to are winning players may be because you are in a STRATEGY FORUM WITH PLAYERS WHO WORK ON THEIR GAME EVERY DAY?!

The reason you CLAIM to be a winning player is because you know there is no way to disprove it so you pretend to be what you are not. The winning players are the ones actually playing poker. The phoney wannabes are the ones making 9,000 posts and trying to play some role, since they can't play. An actual winning player would have been able to discuss the issue of poker site integrity without resorting to persnal attacks. An actual winning player would not be so threatened by the question that they could not even admit the possibility that they are wrong.I hear that the widow of a Nigerian diplomat needs help transfering money out of the country. You should e-mail her. As long as you believe in her I'm sure she is honest too.

[Abbaddabba 0]

WOW. That makes you better thn Daniel or any other pro. None of them claims to have ALWAYS been a winning player. They all say they lost at first but stuck it out and improved. You must be the greatest poker player who ever lived.Then again, ALL on-line players are big winners. I've never seen anyone admit that they lose. Maybe thats my problem since I win some and lose some, my losses are financing the entire industry.Thank you all for confirming my suspicion that there is no arguement to refute the belief that the sites could be cheating.

Not just you.There are lots of losers who are dishonest with themselves.Congrats for being one of the few losers who is honest about it.The same is true for live players though.If you were to ask people at a casino, a lot of people who are net losers would say that they're net winners.And of the ones who voluntarily discuss long term results, almost ALL will claim to be winners.You hear an even greater proportion of online players say they're winning because of a selection bias. People who win will be vocal and post more, so you see them much more. Losers usually dont care to talk about it, or they complain that it's rigged to the sympathetic ears of other losers.You alone arent financing the winners. But you are making small contributions. And for that i thank you.If the sites are rigged, they arent done so in any way that prevents people from winning. If you cant win, it is because you are not good enough. There is nothing else to be said.

The reason you CLAIM to be a winning player is because you know there is no way to disprove it so you pretend to be what you are not. The winning players are the ones actually playing poker. The phoney wannabes are the ones making 9,000 posts and trying to play some role, since they can't play. An actual winning player would have been able to discuss the issue of poker site integrity without resorting to persnal attacks. An actual winning player would not be so threatened by the question that they could not even admit the possibility that they are wrong.

People here have posted and exchanged pokertracker databases in the past. Short of spending hundreds of hours altering the hand histories, there is not much of a way to fake that.People also datamine games, and gather tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of hands against some players. The results of which show exactly what we'd expect. The "good" players are net winners, and the bad players - well, they generally dont play much because they lose their money before they get a chance to pump out a significant number of hands. The data doesnt lie, even if some people do.Maybe im lying. Maybe ive lost a lot of money at poker. Maybe everything ive said in the past has been dishonest.You cant really know anything. And if you think im lying, that's fine. But there definitely are people who are winning.

[Zach6668 513]

The reason you CLAIM to be a winning player is because you know there is no way to disprove it so you pretend to be what you are not. The winning players are the ones actually playing poker. The phoney wannabes are the ones making 9,000 posts and trying to play some role, since they can't play. An actual winning player would have been able to discuss the issue of poker site integrity without resorting to persnal attacks. An actual winning player would not be so threatened by the question that they could not even admit the possibility that they are wrong.I hear that the widow of a Nigerian diplomat needs help transfering money out of the country. You should e-mail her. As long as you believe in her I'm sure she is honest too.

lol, no. I've never lied about the fact that I lost a couple thousand dollars before I decided to focus on learning the game. Since that point however, I AM a winning player. You can't disprove that is true. I know I am a winning player based on my database of hundreds of thousands of hands that I have compiled over the last year or so.The rest of your claims are just ridiculous. The issue of poker site integrity has been discussed ad nauseum 300 times on this website. Others have given you links and reasons for why they are honest. You sir are simply a joke, who is looking for excuses on why you keep losing money online.On "admiting the possibility that I'm wrong": I'm not wrong. It's been proven over and over again.

[chgocubs99 0]

WOW. That makes you better thn Daniel or any other pro. None of them claims to have ALWAYS been a winning player. They all say they lost at first but stuck it out and improved. You must be the greatest poker player who ever lived.Then again, ALL on-line players are big winners. I've never seen anyone admit that they lose. Maybe thats my problem since I win some and lose some, my losses are financing the entire industry.Thank you all for confirming my suspicion that there is no arguement to refute the belief that the sites could be cheating.

http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...showtopic=79429

[Actuary 3]

troll ?If I could conjure up a motive, I'd speculate that these more-than-occassional "Rigged!" whiners are lieing and on the payroll of some Casino. That's too far fetched. More likely, they just need rationale. But to make up stats like 75% VPIP and winning, doesn't fit the normal mold. Some Maniacs do usually have the highest BB/100, well at least for their first 50 hands.I win too.Just 65k hands or so, thoughSeriously, if anyone is actually still reading this,How, logistically, would this favortism to "bad" players be programmed?It's not like someone is watching over the table and says "ok..give him the 5h. He's a bad player and he needs money. That other guy is good and will probably w/d if we let him win again"Seriously. Serioulsy Explain to me how this works???No one ever answers this question

[Actuary 3]

I don't want to believe that the dealing is dishonest online.

when you listen to some of the talk radio pros, they can identify prop callers.those that have an agenda but cxome off as being on the side of the host, at first.More and more, I think this is a set up for the later posts.But that requires motive beyond "I want to explain why I lose"

[TheCinciKid 0]

http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...showtopic=79429

Bad example...I'm pretty sure that thread is somewhat tongue in cheek. Most of those people are at least marginal winners.I know this had been discussed ad nauseum, but maybe the OP has never seen it. There are a couple of reasons why it looks like "all online players are winners." First, the people who come to forums and post are more likely to be serious about the game and hence to doing everything they can to learn, get better and win. Second, many people lie, it's the internet. Third, I've actually seen many people on FCP admit to being losers either online or live. And, finally if you are a losing player chances are you're not gonna want to talk about it on an internet forum, so you might just be silent about whether you win or lose instead of claiming either.

[Jw_513 0]

While playing well is certainly a requirement in live games, and I suppose in high buy in online games as well (though I can't speak from personal experience there), it is no benefit at all in low limit or buy in games online. In fact, I would go so far as to say that playing well is a handicap in these games. I am talking about SNG and MTT under $50 and NLHE ring games below $3/$6. The successful player there is invariably seeing 70-80% of the flops, going all in on draws or with small pairs, and calling raises with any draw. In a live game these are dream opponents. Online these are big winners.My question is - why? It is not just the faster play. Yes we see more bad beats in an hour but we should get lucky more often too. Annonymity may make bad play easier, but should not effect its success. I don't want to believe that the dealing is dishonest online.I have played poker for 30 years. I am successful at modest buy in live games in casinos and small tournaments. I started playing online 4 years ago and tracking my play with PokerOffice. I have tracked my own play and others I see frequently, for many hundreds of thousands hands. Maniacs win and tight aggressive players lose in the long run. They don't just appear to - they actually do.Bottom line:1. Why? and2. Without becoming a maniac, how does a solid live game player adjust online?I don't want to quit playing online, but right now I don't see how to continue.

the reason anyways plays online is the fact we are too lazy to get our *** to the casino

[Zach6668 513]

the reason anyways plays online is the fact we are too lazy to get our *** to the casino

And I can play 200x more hands per hour...

[mtdesmoines 3]

troll ?...If I could conjure up a motive, I'd speculate that these more-than-occassional "Rigged!" whiners are lying and on the payroll of some Casino. ... How, logistically, would this favortism to "bad" players be programmed? ... It's not like someone is watching over the table and says "ok..give him the 5h. He's a bad player and he needs money. That other guy is good and will probably w/d if we let him win again"Seriously. Serioulsy Explain to me how this works??? ... No one ever answers this question

The only explanation I've ever come up with that no one can refute is the RNGs (?) are geeked toward more "hand confrontation" and more "big hands." By that, I mean the site deals out big hands against big draws more consistently than live cards fall. I know I see big hands open mucked live all the time, because no one even has a draw to call them or chase them down. You don't see that on the internet. Seems like every flop is an action flop. (OK, maybe not that bad, but you get the point.) Anyway, tweaking the RNGs would boost play, add players (because it's exicting) and boost rake. That's a tremendous motive; just tremendous. Further, doing that could probably be pretty well hidden within any statistical analysis of community cards AND/OR hole cards. But I dunno. Lots of smart people out there. Smarter than me. Smarter than you. And there are lots of cheaters out there -- especially in the world of "gambling" and "casinos." For those who think poker is this big, open, honest game now ... read some history. Nearly every big game and every big name player has "cheat" in their history, somewhere, somehow. What do you believe has changed just because you're playing small stakes online poker? I don't immediately discount the possibility that some of these sharps have moved into online poker. And just to be pointed, not many people have ever cared about reputation and regulation when there's enough money on the line. If you disagree with that, you ain't lived. People get killed every day over a few bucks. Tweaking software leaves no bodies.So don't think about the sites being aimed at getting your money via bad play -- they are there to get your money via rake. Think about how they can boost rake. ******Now, this online vs. live thing. ... I can win online when I'm patient enough. Winning online isn't tough at low levels: just multi-table and nutbar. You'll get paid off every night. Fcuk variance. There is no variance when you do that. Period. But Jesus, that's boring and it's not outplaying anyone. It's "out-waiting."That's what I like about the live game. That's why I prefer it. You have a table of living, breathing people to look at and talk to. God, I love some of the conversations I've had playing live poker. You can't get that from an avatar and a chatbox. I love going to Vegas .. you play people from all over the world. It's very cool, baby.And you are forced outplay the live game, vs just out-waiting it.I love the threads that go something like, "Jesus, live players suck." They always come from some online nutbar who can't make a read and won't take a calculated risk. The limited number of hands you see at a live game are a guarantee of action. 20 hands an hour vs. 60/hr on five tables for 300 hands will open up your game a little bit, Scooter, if you're serious about getting a decent return on your money. That doesn't mean online players suck: I've been seriously outplayed online. There are some high quality players online. That doesn't mean live players suck. But I've also seen some seriously skilled play live.It's just different. And I think you can be a winner in one game and not in the other if you don't understand the difference. And I especially get a kick out of all the big posters here posting about their "first" casino experience in one thread, then lecturing players about the live game in another thread. OFMG, folks. Just sayin.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

The reason you CLAIM to be a winning player is because you know there is no way to disprove it so you pretend to be what you are not. The winning players are the ones actually playing poker. The phoney wannabes are the ones making 9,000 posts and trying to play some role, since they can't play. An actual winning player would have been able to discuss the issue of poker site integrity without resorting to persnal attacks. An actual winning player would not be so threatened by the question that they could not even admit the possibility that they are wrong.I hear that the widow of a Nigerian diplomat needs help transfering money out of the country. You should e-mail her. As long as you believe in her I'm sure she is honest too.

I love that there have been 2 posts about the independent audits Starz/Paradise/Party etc. submit to in order to guarantee the efficacy of their randomizers, but ChipNut has just refused to respond to them. Flat out refused. Skipped right by them.If it'll make me more credible, when I first started playing poker, I blew through like 200 bucks before I became a winning player. I could beat tiny games, and leaked some of it off at bigger games. Then I learned how to play, and quickly became a winning player. I've had losing sessions, and I've even been unable to beat certain limits from time to time. But that doesn't change the fact that I'm a winning player now. Nor does it change the fact that my tracker DB with hundreds of thousands of hands in it- as well as those of all my friends who keep track- refute your claims. I still want to see this Database of yours, if you didn't make it up. I bet we can find a leak or two that explains your losses.Wang

[Abbaddabba 0]

Ill bet he's absolutely horrible. Which would beg the question as to why the RNGs dont favor him.

[shpaget 0]

I love that there have been 2 posts about the independent audits Starz/Paradise/Party etc. submit to in order to guarantee the efficacy of their randomizers, but ChipNut has just refused to respond to them. Flat out refused. Skipped right by them.

Because independent audits are irrelevent.Enron and Worldcom had independent audits in the past too.If you know what independent auditors look for, and where they look, independent audits of ANY capacity in any realm are relatively easy to pass.And, ftr, I don't believe online sites cheat, or give favourable draw outcomes to bad players, or predetermine winners, or anything like that.I do, however, believe, that they have tremendous incentive to increase action to increase rake, and can, if they wanted to, code their RNG's to create scenarios that have statistically proper outcomes (ie. flush draws arrive as often as they should), but strangely have a high number of good hands against good hands, or good hands against good draws - but the preflop deal, the flop, the turn, and the river, can still look statistically sound.Whether or not they do it is another issue, but the motive is there for that scenario.My personal belief is it can appear that there are more big hands against big draws, but that is typically because online players are looser, so if more players see the flop, you are more likely to see a big hand against a big draw - add that to the fact that there are 3x as many hands played online, it's easy for the illusion to appear.When estimates say that 99% of online players lose money, it's hard for me to believe that the 1% are the guys who play 80% of their hands.

[mtdesmoines 3]

...but that is typically because online players are looser...

?

[Shimmering Wang 1]

Ill bet he's absolutely horrible. Which would beg the question as to why the RNGs dont favor him.

He's bad AND unlucky.

[Abbaddabba 0]

When estimates say that 99% of online players lose money, it's hard for me to believe that the 1% are the guys who play 80% of their hands.

No estimates say that.It's far more than 1%. Especially after you count rakeback and bonus benefits.What percent of players are winners depends on the differences in skill. Ive sat in games where, if the conditions at that time were to persist, 9 out of the 10 players would be long term winners.Ive sat in games where, if the conditions at that time were to persist, every single person would be a long term loser.

[Dogpatch 2]

Ok, I tried reading the whole thread but couldn't do it.To me it seems the OP is bitching because you can't bluff and steal at low limit quite like you can in higher limit games with more skilled players who understand bluffing and stealing. Yea, the maniac is hitting his hand and draws because you're calling him with crap because you're on tilt, because he's hitting. SSHE lays it out real simple. Playing low limit you have to turn yourself into the house. You have to put yourself in with the best odds and get the idiots to bet against you. Over time you will win. Sure, there will be losing days but in the long run you win. Trying to get cute against a bunch of landmines who will limp in any A and call you down with top pair isn't gonna work. Screw it, what do I know. This guy has been playing 30 years, I'm sure he gets it.

[shpaget 0]

No estimates say that.It's far more than 1%. Especially after you count rakeback and bonus benefits.What percent of players are winners depends on the differences in skill.

Several estimates say that.And, if you think about it, it's pretty simple to achieve it.When you consider the number of players who go in, throw in $25, $50, $100, try it out, lose their money, and never play again, compared to the number of people who try to play smart and improve....and there are a lot more of the people who've tried it and taken their lumps than the people who've stuck it out...and then of all the people who do stick it out a very high percentage of them will lose money long term (many of them see it as pure gambling and will just as easily drop $50 on number 39 as they will drop $50 on a poker game...usually with the same results).For every person who buys a poker book, or joins and Internet poker message board, to improve their play, there are EASILY 100 players who do not.

Ive sat in games where, if the conditions at that time were to persist, 9 out of the 10 players would be long term winners.

This is essentially what happens in the "big game" - one guy comes in, loses his money, and is replaced by another guy, who loses his money....continue that to its logical conclusion and you can see how, over, say, the course of a year, you could have a couple thousand guys who have lost money, and less than 20 that are long-term winners.

Ive sat in games where, if the conditions at that time were to persist, every single person would be a long term loser.

And this is where most of the 99% losers come from - many players would make a small profit if there wasn't a rake, they just don't have a big enough edge against a typical opponent....and if you need rakebacks and cleared bonuses to actually show a profit in poker, they only way you won't be a long-term loser is if you continue bonus whoring....and in reality, you are losing money at "poker".

[Sluggo 0]

Only 61% of the players in my database are losers.Care to define player?

[Abbaddabba 0]

Several estimates say that.And, if you think about it, it's pretty simple to achieve it.When you consider the number of players who go in, throw in $25, $50, $100, try it out, lose their money, and never play again, compared to the number of people who try to play smart and improve....and there are a lot more of the people who've tried it and taken their lumps than the people who've stuck it out...and then of all the people who do stick it out a very high percentage of them will lose money long term (many of them see it as pure gambling and will just as easily drop $50 on number 39 as they will drop $50 on a poker game...usually with the same results).

Depends on how you define player.Im talking more along the lines of players at any given table.If better players play 8 tables for several hours and the shitty ones play 1 for an hour at a time, then yeah - you'll have significantly more losers.

And this is where most of the 99% losers come from - many players would make a small profit if there wasn't a rake, they just don't have a big enough edge against a typical opponent....and if you need rakebacks and cleared bonuses to actually show a profit in poker, they only way you won't be a long-term loser is if you continue bonus whoring....and in reality, you are losing money at "poker".

Not if the bonus and rakeback plans are sustainable. It's just reducing what the site takes out of your poker winnings. It's still part of the poker itself, it's just paid slightly differently. If you think that rakeback adn bonus dont count, then i can see why the number would be so low. But in my opinion, they count as part of your 'poker winnings'.

Only 61% of the players in my database are losers.Care to define player?

You dont have enough hands on these people for it to be meaningful.It's far more accurate to have a significant number of hands on a smaller number of players than a ton of players with a negligable number of hands.But you wont ever be able to find these numbers if you're approaching it like that, because the bad players wont stick around long enough to get a significant sample.

[Doug 0]

Several estimates say that.And, if you think about it, it's pretty simple to achieve it.When you consider the number of players who go in, throw in $25, $50, $100, try it out, lose their money, and never play again, compared to the number of people who try to play smart and improve....and there are a lot more of the people who've tried it and taken their lumps than the people who've stuck it out...and then of all the people who do stick it out a very high percentage of them will lose money long term (many of them see it as pure gambling and will just as easily drop $50 on number 39 as they will drop $50 on a poker game...usually with the same results).For every person who buys a poker book, or joins and Internet poker message board, to improve their play, there are EASILY 100 players who do not.This is essentially what happens in the "big game" - one guy comes in, loses his money, and is replaced by another guy, who loses his money....continue that to its logical conclusion and you can see how, over, say, the course of a year, you could have a couple thousand guys who have lost money, and less than 20 that are long-term winners.And this is where most of the 99% losers come from - many players would make a small profit if there wasn't a rake, they just don't have a big enough edge against a typical opponent....and if you need rakebacks and cleared bonuses to actually show a profit in poker, they only way you won't be a long-term loser is if you continue bonus whoring....and in reality, you are losing money at "poker".

I couldn't agree more, good post.