The fairness debate

Felt like the site hasn’t been as rigged recently. I have beaten others fairly and gotten beaten fairly. In fact it’s been almost suspiciously fair :wink:

1 Like

well the site has gone south on me i only play the 20k omaha hi/lo now i did the numbers it will take me 631.236 days to lose the rest of my chips everyone must have a mission

1 Like

I get more upset each time I play lately. I have complained before about how I think this site is ‘somehow’ fixed. I’m not smart enough to know how that is, but I do know about cards in real life. I’m also sure that as long as you do not buy any chips, I never have, the bad cards you are consistently dealt and the unreal beats you suffer, will never get better. Too bad. Takes all the fun out of the game.

1 Like

You might find this interesting.

2 Likes

I’ve been a player now for awhile, with some success, some failures. But to be constantly beaten by unlikely hands, at crucial moments on a continuous basis, is taking the fun out of the whole thing.
I constantly see, for example; Ace in the pocket, with what ever, doesn’t matter. Make a bet or call, then get rewarded with an Ace in the flop, only to see after the hand has played out. All the Aces on the table.
Not occasionally, but far to regularly to be considered normal card distribution, in a game of chance!
I average a half a dozen hands of 9 2 in a tournament. I’ve seen the same pair given in consecutive games on multiple occasions, I am continually given low ranking cards for hand a after hand, when I have won, consequently folding. Only to have them be the best hand in the hand and when I do call likely cards; ie ranking face cards and solid kickers, to be beaten by ridicules combinations!!
IF, your site, logarithms are legit?? Then some work needs to be done, to get close to the real thing.
Yours etc etc
Former player!

2 Likes

I just finished the data collection on how often I flop a set while holding a pocket pair. I did this to provide some actual data on at least 1 aspect of the pRNG.

I saw 1023 pocket pairs and flopped (or would have flopped) 120 sets. Note that, as long as I saw the flop, I noted it, even if I was no longer in the hand.

(120/1023) X 100 = 11.73%, it should be 11.75%, for a difference of 0.02%

The whole data set is here

A minor quibble - if you’re excluding the times you flopped (or would have flopped) quads, then your likelihood of getting a set on the flop when you have a pocket pair falls to 11.51%. The key question is whether that’s a statistically significant from your observed 11.73%.

Running this through a spreadsheet, we find an “expected value” of 117 sets in 1023 trials. However, this occurs with very low probability - less than 4% of the time. We have to expand this to the range 117+/-11 in order for us to capture one full standard deviation from this mean (about 68% of results), and 117+/-21 to capture two standard deviations from this mean (about 95% of results). Your observation of 120 sets in 1023 trials is well within this range.

Additionally, I think it’s notable that you flopped (or would have flopped) quads once after seeing 1023 pocket pairs. Statistically, this would happen roughly once out of every 408 hands, so you’d “expect” to see it 2-3 times on average. However, this is a very low-probability event, so there’s still a 20.44% chance it would happen just once in 1023 trials. Meanwhile, the chance of it happening twice is 25.65%, and thrice is 21.43%.

If the RNG were “juiced for action,” I’d expect to get quads on the flop given a pocket pair 5+ times with a sample size of 1023 - something that should happen with less than 11% probability.

2 Likes

This is a long thread, much makes sense, much is attributes to :the machine" vs “the human”.

Pre-flop Bingo is a real pain here…I seem to be forced to play this way in the first 20 minutes, or I have no leverage when unlimited buy-ins end. The BINGO yahoos, go in big, then lose it cos thats all they know, BINGO.
I have a suggestion to consider, that is to implement the Manila version of poker, using 32 cards, 7’s to ace, and ace does not count as 1, and all the other rules regarding Manila Poker rules. The advantage would be, it just might eliminate the bingo ideaology because in manila, each get 2 cards dealt, and 1 card pre-flop. So if you are holding 7 9, and the preflop 1st card is Ace, would you go bingo all in ?
And, no rags to mess things up like the 2,3,4,5 and 6’s. This game is very popular elsewhere in the world, especially Australia and parts of Europe. It does not HAVE to be Texas holdem everywhere, suggest to consider some balance here to ?

That’s just the way rebuy tournies run. It’s actually a sound strategy.

We play Holdem because it’s the most popular game. This site also offers Royal, Omaha, and Omaha hi/lo. You might want to make your suggestion in the Suggestions and Feedback category.

SunPowerGuru
That’s just the way rebuy tournies run. It’s actually a sound strategy.

So what you are saying, it was designed with “bingo” in mind ? or was this strategy thought of later ?

Obviously it may seem you have never played manila, or you would be endorsing it to.
I have suggested it, but no reply.

I don’t know. There are 2 basic strategies people play in those, super aggressive or super tight. The format doesn’t leave much middle ground.

I have never played Manila. I’m not against the idea. If you think my endorsement means anything, then I endorse the idea. They did a poll awhile back, and said they will be adding 7 stud next.

And yes, it’s a shame that they don’t even bother to acknowledge most suggestions.

1 Like

I probably should have counted the quads. Since it only happened once, it wouldn’t make much of a difference though.

What I did was calculate the chance of NOT making a set, then subtracted it from 100% to get the chance of making the set, so…

100% - ((48/50) X (47/49) X (46/48) X 100) = 11.755%

I probably should have rounded this to 11.76%.

If we count the quads, we get… (121 / 1023) X 100 = 11.83% for a difference of 0.07%.

As far as I’m concerned, this is well within the margin of error for this sample size.

How did you get the 11.51%? You obviously know more about statistics than I do, I’m just curious.

Homeboy, that relates to that particular dealt hand. In that hand there are 2 kings free but only 1 ace. Come on man, get with the program.

Thought process is similar. To make a set, but not quads, you have to multiply (2/50 unseen cards that will make a set)x(48/49 unseen cards that won’t make quads)x(47/48 unseen cards that won’t make quads)x3. This simplifies to (3x47)/(25x49), and is approximately 11.51%.

The factor of 3 comes from 3[choose]2, or 3!/((3-1)!x1!), since the card that makes the set can be any one of the three cards on the flop. 3x2x1/((2x1)x1) = 3.

You can get the same result by subtracting the probability of getting quads from the 11.76% probability that you will make quads or a set. I’ll leave that exercise to the reader, “Dr. Sun.” :smile:

No comment

Hand 482180704

1 Like

had worse one and wished had saved it, but long story short, was 2 quads and runner runner for royal flush.

I just can’t believe he went all in with absolutely nothing and ended up with a royal flush. What was he thinking? AAK on board and he had Q10, what was he hoping for? A straight? He’s a regular Royal player and he knows a straight is a very weak hand. A royal flush? There was only 1 heart on board. So what on earth was he thinking? I don’t know. But those miracles keep happening for some reason.

2 Likes

I know Maya. it just nothing makes sense at all. me I would had folded the straight and another reason cause I never hit runner runners. had a had few days ago. was me in BB and guy in SB, board showed 2 aces and I had two pairs and was short stacked, so I jammed he called with nothing except for one diamond, he hits running diamonds for a flush. how can you call with nothing when there are two aces on board? its just disgusting.

1 Like

When players call with such hands, especially when they’re good players, it just makes you wonder sometimes. Do they know something I don’t? Do they recognize a certain pattern that I’m unaware of? He’s a good player, and his hand is the weakest, why would he do something like that? And look, he won lol. It’s either a psychic ability or a recognizable pattern. He’s neither dumb nor a bad player. Must be something else.

3 Likes

and if it is a recognizable pattern, and lot players know the pattern, then I think replay poker need to change program or rng whatever want to call it. there are patterns and I notice them at times and if I can recognize patterns, then someone who is a lot smarter than me can definitely figure it out.

2 Likes