Given that you seem to be making allegations about the site with no proof, I think sensationalism is all you are doing in this post..
Agreed.
In fact, even if proof is offered, I'm not sure whether I would believe that, or the statistics I have collected myself. I can't see any possible way to authenticate someone else's data.
Let's forget about the "Online site X is rigged" posts before this forum turns into RGP, okay?
It's hard to believe anything when people say something like this. Their explanation could be as lame as "my aces got cracked twice in a row!" or based on something they think is happening every '4th hand' (like a four flush happens every 4th hand). *shrug*
I'm sorry you may feel like you are being ganged up on, but look at it from other's point of view. Why even post about this?
As a side note, I found it interesting that pokerroom.com decided to post their dealing stats:
"The analysis here was made from over 500,000 real money hands dealt at PokerRoom.com's Texas Hold'em game between February 22 and March 22, 2002 (hands #11,401,041 - #13,395,065). "
In fact, even if proof is offered, I'm not sure whether I would believe that, or the statistics I have collected myself. I can't see any possible way to authenticate someone else's data.
Let's forget about the "Online site X is rigged" posts before this forum turns into RGP, okay?
ScottyZ
What happened to freedom of speech and expression? The ongoing debate about whether or not online sites are rigged is not yet over. Does anyone here have any solid proof that they are not rigged? It seems that you can post all you want about why they are NOT rigged but Harthgosh gets *snipped* when he has something seemingly intelligent to say about the topic. I don't think that's right.
Scotty...you don't have to believe anything that is written here if you don't want to but why censor something that others may want to hear. You stated that you wouldn't believe it because you have data yourself and that you would have no way to authenticate someone else's data, IMHO you don't need to authenticate someone else's data for it to remain valid. The public has a right to investigate and to know if they are being cheated or manipulated, I find it hard to believe that people would rather turn a blind eye than educate themselves about the possibility of online sites being rigged.
I for one have absolutely no idea whether or not they are but am atleast willing to listen to any well thought out reasons why they may be.
What happened to freedom of speech and expression? The ongoing debate about whether or not online sites are rigged is not yet over. Does anyone here have any solid proof that they are not rigged? It seems that you can post all you want about why they are NOT rigged but Harthgosh gets *snipped* when he has something seemingly intelligent to say about the topic. I don't think that's right.
Actually, he had NOTHING to say. All he did was make allusions to some sort of proof that may or may not exist.. Why bother posting "I think online poker is rigged and I might have proof in the future.." Wait until you actually HAVE something before you start ramping up the 'is poker rigged' threads. If HG has something of merit to say, I'm all for it but the original post did not.
I read the original post before it was snipped. My reasoning for posting my rant was that it sounded as though whatever he was going to say was going to be censored/ not allowed. I don't think that's right, lets hear what you have to say HG.
What happened to freedom of speech and expression? The ongoing debate about whether or not online sites are rigged is not yet over. Does anyone here have any solid proof that they are not rigged? It seems that you can post all you want about why they are NOT rigged but Harthgosh gets *snipped* when he has something seemingly intelligent to say about the topic. I don't think that's right.
I'm not sure if you are confused or I am, but I don't think ScottyZ edited his post? I had thought that the original poster editing his/her own post.
As far as freedom (expression/communication) goes, ScottZ said: "Let's forget about the "Online site X is rigged" posts before this forum turns into RGP, okay? "
He didn't say 'you can't say this here or I will edit your post'.
I don't see what other reaction was expected by the original poster. Most of the time this stuff happens on other forums around the Internet people would call this 'trolling' or 'flamebait'. He's making sensational claims with nothing to back them up about a subject that is pretty controversial. To me it seems like he got huffy at the first sign of a negative response to his post, and removed his original post. *shrug*
I'm not sure if you are confused or I am, but I don't think ScottyZ edited his post? I had thought that the original poster editing his/her own post.
I was fairly certain that Scotty edited his post. I agree that HG should have posted all the information rather than throw out a teaser but at the same time, why censor it? Comments from Scotty and HG appreciated
Yes, I was the one who editied the original post. A moderator (or admin) can edit a post without necessarily indicating that this has been done. I should have indicated that I editied the post for clarity.
Most of the time this stuff happens on other forums around the Internet people would call this 'trolling' or 'flamebait'. He's making sensational claims with nothing to back them up about a subject that is pretty controversial.
hers some quick advice. one bad beat after another lead me and 5 of my friends to quit playing stars we all moved to party. 4 of the 5 of us are making pretty good money know. the 5th guy is a bad player and would lose where ever he goes.
Someone is claiming that he/she knows the true conditional probability distribution of the 7th street card in Stud8 beginning the hand with a fairly shuffled deck?
(The "conditional" refers to conditioning on the hand getting to 7th street, among other conditions.)
My guess is that the computation of the "true" probability of drawing to the low assumed that the 7th street card was drawn uniformly at random from the unseen cards.
Assuming that the card dealt on 7th street is uniformly selected from a deck containing the yet unseen cards would be quite wrong. Why? Some of the unseen cards (i.e. your opponents' hole cards) have determined whether or not the hand will actually get to 7th street.
Any statistical test of fair vs. unfair shuffle distribution of a card who's arrival (e.g. Do we get to 7th street?) is conditional on players' actions during a hand cannot be based on assuming the true probability distribution of the card is uniform (drawn from the yet unseen cards).
I would think one way around that would be to compare similar data from different sites. That would eliminate a lot of the factors you are talking about.
Note, I am not sure who would have that data, but that would be the best comparison. The %s should be very very close between sites once you hit the millions of hands in terms of data.
I understand that what harthgosh is saying is unproven, but people responding with childish posts is ridiculous.
If he believes something is wrong at stars, what harm is there in finding out. Unless someone can tell me what he has to gain by discrediting the site or show that he has some desire for revenge i'm willing to at least stay partial on his intent.
Harthgosh answer this question?
Do you have anything to gain if it turns out pokerstars is rigged?
Did % of your overall play was at pokerstars?
Do you work or are you about to work with any other online gaming site?
Yes or no: has pokerstars been profitable to you since day one? recently also?
again unless from those questions i can see a motive for him to lie, i'm willing to wait and see what he has to present
If he believes something is wrong at stars, what harm is there in finding out.
Nothing wrong with trying to find out.
Something wrong with broadcasting such claims in a public place based on missing and/or incorrect statistical analysis. In legal terms, this is known as slander, or libel, depending on the semantics you prefer.
I ve followed this thread a little over the past day. I didnt see the original post that was edited.
No offense to the rest of us but if Harthgosh has a problem with pokerstars I think the rest of us should listen.
Many of us play poker online, whether it be pokerstars, other sites or both stars and other sites.
I feel I know my way around online poker as good as anyone, and I certainly have more experience than the average lurker/player.
With that said, Harthgosh is one player, (of which there are about a handful who post here) that I will be sure to listen to, when it comes to concerns about online poker. Although a few of us have some good experiences with pokerstars and their tournies noone from our group of players has had anywhere near the amount of consistent, good finishes that Harthgosh has had over the past year.
I would sure like to hear what he has to say.
Solid proof that they aren't rigged is false logic.You cannot prove the negative.The onus of proof is on the the one asserting something.ie x site is rigged.Prove that.
People.. The original post was not some holy grail that Scotty removed because it so factual and truthful that it blew his mind. It was just another 'I think stars is rigged and I have no proof' post. Once HG actually has something more than random allegations, he is more than welcome to post it and we can go through this whole ordeal again.
Whether you know what they mean or not, I don't really care, and am not about to give free law lessons.
I know what these terms mean. I was simply refering to the fact that it's a legal grey area whether or not internet forum posts would be considered to be written documents in any legal sense.
I agree with your point that it would be highly unlikely that someone would be sued by an online gaming company for something like this. Whether ot not they could do such a thing is unclear to me.
I suppose that I shouldn't have even mentioned this sort of legal issue, as this is highly peripheral to the main subject. I feel much more strongly that the statictical evidence that you may have seen might be based on incorrect statistical analysis. Of course, I have no clue what you have and have not seen so far, but the validity of the statistical analysis behind Stud8 example you have already given seems questionable to me.
Comments
Given that you seem to be making allegations about the site with no proof, I think sensationalism is all you are doing in this post..
Agreed.
In fact, even if proof is offered, I'm not sure whether I would believe that, or the statistics I have collected myself. I can't see any possible way to authenticate someone else's data.
Let's forget about the "Online site X is rigged" posts before this forum turns into RGP, okay?
ScottyZ
I'm sorry you may feel like you are being ganged up on, but look at it from other's point of view. Why even post about this?
As a side note, I found it interesting that pokerroom.com decided to post their dealing stats:
http://www.pokerroom.com/main/page/games/cardStats
"The analysis here was made from over 500,000 real money hands dealt at PokerRoom.com's Texas Hold'em game between February 22 and March 22, 2002 (hands #11,401,041 - #13,395,065). "
What happened to freedom of speech and expression? The ongoing debate about whether or not online sites are rigged is not yet over. Does anyone here have any solid proof that they are not rigged? It seems that you can post all you want about why they are NOT rigged but Harthgosh gets *snipped* when he has something seemingly intelligent to say about the topic. I don't think that's right.
Scotty...you don't have to believe anything that is written here if you don't want to but why censor something that others may want to hear. You stated that you wouldn't believe it because you have data yourself and that you would have no way to authenticate someone else's data, IMHO you don't need to authenticate someone else's data for it to remain valid. The public has a right to investigate and to know if they are being cheated or manipulated, I find it hard to believe that people would rather turn a blind eye than educate themselves about the possibility of online sites being rigged.
I for one have absolutely no idea whether or not they are but am atleast willing to listen to any well thought out reasons why they may be.
Actually, he had NOTHING to say. All he did was make allusions to some sort of proof that may or may not exist.. Why bother posting "I think online poker is rigged and I might have proof in the future.." Wait until you actually HAVE something before you start ramping up the 'is poker rigged' threads. If HG has something of merit to say, I'm all for it but the original post did not.
stp
I'm not sure if you are confused or I am, but I don't think ScottyZ edited his post? I had thought that the original poster editing his/her own post.
As far as freedom (expression/communication) goes, ScottZ said: "Let's forget about the "Online site X is rigged" posts before this forum turns into RGP, okay?
He didn't say 'you can't say this here or I will edit your post'.
I don't see what other reaction was expected by the original poster. Most of the time this stuff happens on other forums around the Internet people would call this 'trolling' or 'flamebait'. He's making sensational claims with nothing to back them up about a subject that is pretty controversial. To me it seems like he got huffy at the first sign of a negative response to his post, and removed his original post. *shrug*
I was fairly certain that Scotty edited his post. I agree that HG should have posted all the information rather than throw out a teaser but at the same time, why censor it? Comments from Scotty and HG appreciated
stp
Yes, I was the one who editied the original post. A moderator (or admin) can edit a post without necessarily indicating that this has been done. I should have indicated that I editied the post for clarity.
It's a moderated forum.
When registering for this forum, everyone agreed to the following:
"The owners of Canada's Poker Forum reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason."
Djw put it best, and I probably would have responded with pretty much exactly the same thing:
ScottyZ
if you wanted remove the name of the site, but the basis of what he said was simple.
"I will no longer play at site XXXXXXXXXX.com because me and other large players at this site have found something that bothers us. "
"he also said i have no proof, but let others know the he *personally* would no longer play at that site"
Considering certain tournaments that people on this site may be involved with, it was a fair piece of information to share.
but there was no information... it was simply FUD...
also, you recommend he remove the site name but then mention that it was relevant to people playing tournaments... how is that helping anyone?
I sent you my email address like you asked. I await the proof.
and I hope it's something better than the fact your AA got cracked 0.001% more often than it should.
(The "conditional" refers to conditioning on the hand getting to 7th street, among other conditions.)
My guess is that the computation of the "true" probability of drawing to the low assumed that the 7th street card was drawn uniformly at random from the unseen cards.
Assuming that the card dealt on 7th street is uniformly selected from a deck containing the yet unseen cards would be quite wrong. Why? Some of the unseen cards (i.e. your opponents' hole cards) have determined whether or not the hand will actually get to 7th street.
Any statistical test of fair vs. unfair shuffle distribution of a card who's arrival (e.g. Do we get to 7th street?) is conditional on players' actions during a hand cannot be based on assuming the true probability distribution of the card is uniform (drawn from the yet unseen cards).
ScottyZ
Note, I am not sure who would have that data, but that would be the best comparison. The %s should be very very close between sites once you hit the millions of hands in terms of data.
If he believes something is wrong at stars, what harm is there in finding out. Unless someone can tell me what he has to gain by discrediting the site or show that he has some desire for revenge i'm willing to at least stay partial on his intent.
Harthgosh answer this question?
Do you have anything to gain if it turns out pokerstars is rigged?
Did % of your overall play was at pokerstars?
Do you work or are you about to work with any other online gaming site?
Yes or no: has pokerstars been profitable to you since day one? recently also?
again unless from those questions i can see a motive for him to lie, i'm willing to wait and see what he has to present
Nothing wrong with trying to find out.
Something wrong with broadcasting such claims in a public place based on missing and/or incorrect statistical analysis. In legal terms, this is known as slander, or libel, depending on the semantics you prefer.
ScottyZ
No offense to the rest of us but if Harthgosh has a problem with pokerstars I think the rest of us should listen.
Many of us play poker online, whether it be pokerstars, other sites or both stars and other sites.
I feel I know my way around online poker as good as anyone, and I certainly have more experience than the average lurker/player.
With that said, Harthgosh is one player, (of which there are about a handful who post here) that I will be sure to listen to, when it comes to concerns about online poker. Although a few of us have some good experiences with pokerstars and their tournies noone from our group of players has had anywhere near the amount of consistent, good finishes that Harthgosh has had over the past year.
I would sure like to hear what he has to say.
I find it very hard to win on stars, but I contribute that to my inability to adjust to the site(game style).
ScottyZ
I know what these terms mean. I was simply refering to the fact that it's a legal grey area whether or not internet forum posts would be considered to be written documents in any legal sense.
I agree with your point that it would be highly unlikely that someone would be sued by an online gaming company for something like this. Whether ot not they could do such a thing is unclear to me.
I suppose that I shouldn't have even mentioned this sort of legal issue, as this is highly peripheral to the main subject. I feel much more strongly that the statictical evidence that you may have seen might be based on incorrect statistical analysis. Of course, I have no clue what you have and have not seen so far, but the validity of the statistical analysis behind Stud8 example you have already given seems questionable to me.
ScottyZ
New plan of attack:
Tournaments = Stars
Cash games = PokerRoom 50/100
So far, so good.
I'm a conspiracy theorist at heart HG, so I await your findings.
Regards,
all_aces