Is SnG rigged?

Phil_321

Here's my math:
1/10 * 1/5 * 1/4 * 1/4 *1/3 = 1/2400

I'm not 100% about the last one (1/3) but I think that's approximately correct. I think there was a sixth, but I didn't take it down so I left it out of the equation.

I'll say it again, I've no problem with bad beats, **** happens. But I didn't get a one off bad beat to put me out yesterday, I got 5 or 6 very bad beats in a row. There's a big difference.

There was a 1/2400+ chance of me catching the consecutive bad beats that I caught yesterday.

I'm going to play it again today, and if I see the same crap happening again I'm off to another site.

Iago

Phil_321 wrote:

Here's my math:
1/10 * 1/5 * 1/4 * 1/4 *1/3 = 1/2400

I'm not 100% about the last one (1/3) but I think that's approximately correct. I think there was a sixth, but I didn't take it down so I left it out of the equation.

I'll say it again, I've no problem with bad beats, **** happens. But I didn't get a one off bad beat to put me out yesterday, I got 5 or 6 very bad beats in a row. There's a big difference.

There was a 1/2400+ chance of me catching the consecutive bad beats that I caught yesterday.

I'm going to play it again today, and if I see the same crap happening again I'm off to another site.

and it may not happen for another 5M hands, ok that's unlikely but it's as possible as it happening in the next 5 hands...that's what makes it random.

The sheer volume of hands dealt online mean that more often than not you're going to see random occurences. It's not rigged just bad luck

ocallagh

Phil_321 wrote:

Here's my math:
1/10 * 1/5 * 1/4 * 1/4 *1/3 = 1/2400

I'm not 100% about the last one (1/3) but I think that's approximately correct. I think there was a sixth, but I didn't take it down so I left it out of the equation.

I'll say it again, I've no problem with bad beats, **** happens. But I didn't get a one off bad beat to put me out yesterday, I got 5 or 6 very bad beats in a row. There's a big difference.

There was a 1/2400+ chance of me catching the consecutive bad beats that I caught yesterday.

I'm going to play it again today, and if I see the same crap happening again I'm off to another site.

Unless some sadistic coder somehow managed to bypass audit trails and dump some rogue code it is absolutely absurd to say that online poker is rigged.

These sites are hardly going to risk everything to increase profit margins by a few percent. Pacific Poker was valued at 300M when it sold out to Sporting Bet. 300M.. They'd have lost it all if their code was rigged- Online Poker is a HUGE industry and you can be sure that it is run by CEOs that know what they are up to. Risking 300M to increase profit margins by a few percent makes no business sense whatsoever.

2400/1.. nothing. a run of consecutive badbeats i had a few monthsback was well into the 100,000s/1. And this included live tournys. I'll post if u want the list. I recorded it because I was in such shock but it happened.

Phil_321

ocallagh wrote:

These sites are hardly going to risk everything to increase profit margins by a few percent. Pacific Poker was valued at 300M when it sold out to Sporting Bet. 300M.. They'd have lost it all if their code was rigged- Online Poker is a HUGE industry and you can be sure that it is run by CEOs that know what they are up to. Risking 300M to increase profit margins by a few percent makes no business sense whatsoever.

A few percent? Well in a multi million(billion?) dollar business a few percent is a lot of money. Don't tell me you think it's beyond the bounds of probability to suggest that a business might try to manipulate a situation to their benefit. Especially when it's almost impossible for them to be found out.

I'm just very suspicious after my results yesterday, I'm not saying it's definately rigged.

Amaru

I'd just like to remind everybody that my original post was not about online poker being fixed, it was specifically real money tables. It wasn't because i had lost any money playing or taken several bad beats, it was because i was shocked by the huge amounts of high hands coming out.

Strings of bad beats happen. They do. If you look at games like craps or roulette, the odds are stacked in the favour of the casino, so whenever anybody wins any money, the casino is effectively the victim of a "bad beat". Yet people have still made big money, somtimes 5 and 6 figures, playing games such as this, just because of the fact that sometimes the odds don't follow distributions. Even in a 50/50 situations, its not always going to be "one favourable outcome" followed by "one unfavourable". You could get a string of 10 unfavourables in a row. It can happen. Its unlikely, but it can happen.

Phil_321

I'm not bitter over some 50/50 situation, my consecutive bad beat odds for yesterday were 1/2400+.

henbane

Phil_321 wrote:

I'm not bitter over some 50/50 situation, my consecutive bad beat odds for yesterday were 1/2400+.

And now you're whining about it. Good for you!

Amaru

I never said you were in a 50/50 situation, i was just using that as an example for distributions. The odds in casinos are usually stacked much worse that 6/5, and people occasionally do still win.

Krusty_Clown

What I can't take is at least 5 or 6 very bad beats consecutively. Work out the odds and it's ridiculous.

AT Vs A8 - 71% Vs 29%
QT Vs Q5 - 71% Vs 29%
JJ Vs 88 - 80% Vs 20%

I'd hardly describe these as very bad beats.. Now the Champions League final, there's a bad beat..

I'm getting numerous consecutive bad beats knocking me out left right and centre...Q-10 vs Q-5 on the flop, both all-in...

Why were you going all-in with QT anyway? Or probably a more fundamental question: Why did you go all-in several times consecutively?

Phil_321

Krusty_Clown wrote:

AT Vs A8 - 71% Vs 29%
QT Vs Q5 - 71% Vs 29%
JJ Vs 88 - 80% Vs 20%

The flop was QJrag. I had QT against up against one of the blinds in an unraised pot. I wanted to take the pot there and then but I was 80% sure of taking the pot anyway if he called my all-in.

QT Vs Q5 - 88% Vs 12%, post flop

And I've just checked and the AA vs QT with the AQrag flop, where I was beaten with a backdoor flush was 96% vs 4%. So my bad beat odds were actually much larger than 1/2400.

Krusty_Clown wrote:

Why were you going all-in with QT anyway? Or probably a more fundamental question: Why did you go all-in several times consecutively?

I mean consecutively as in consecutive games, when I went all in or called an all in. Usually quite late in the game, ie 4 left.
When you've got the best hand late in the game what are you gonna do, get blinded away, bluffed out of it or take your pot? Every call/all-in I made was shown to be the right decision when we both threw up our cards.

Waylander

It is not really a bad beat if you are already behind when all the chips go in Phil, you are manipulating the figures here to make your situation look bleaker.

Iago

Phil_321 wrote:

The flop was QJ5. I had QT against up against one of the blinds in an unraised pot. I wanted to take the pot there and then but I was 80% sure of taking the pot anyway if he called my all-in.

QT Vs Q5 - 88% Vs 12%, post flop

I'm sure I'm reading this wrong, what did your opponent have here? Was he holding Q5? because if he was then you're all-in move wasn't the right move and you were behind?

I've probably misread your post though...

Phil_321

Sorry, you're right. I can't remember the 3rd card on the flop, it was some rag. He caught the 5 on the turn.

DeVore

My worst single bad beat ever was AA vs QQ vs QT (all in preflop pretty much).... I came third to lose both pots... THATS a bad beat.

Poker stars just celebrated their 2 billionth hand and 5th birthday (roughly).
There are easily 1 million players online at any given time between all the sites. Thats 1 million chances per half hour for a run of bad luck like yours. Lets make yours worse then it really was and say its 1:10,000 against it happening. Every half hour 100 people suffer your fate. Were you unlucky to be one of that one hundred? Yes.... Is it statistically likely to happen to SOMEONE, yes.

This is what mathematicians refer to as a Gamblers Fallacy (and more specific to this cae, the Inverse Gamblers Fallacy). Its linked to the Antropic Principle which you can find explained in Wikipedia.org too, but which deals with the chances of life arising on Earth.

The fact is that counter-intuitively, if people WERENT complaining about bad beats (and by extention, runs of bad beats) then I would consider that STRONGER proof of rigging then the reverse. If you roll two dice 500 times and they NEVER came up snake eyes, something is clearly VERY wrong, even though 1,1 is a 1:36 shot!

DeV.

Hitman Actual

Just got to read this thread now, and cant believe some of the s***e being spouted! Phil_123, how long are you playing poker? Not very long, I think.

The game is full of crazy probabilty, both online and live, and tbh a 2400/1 situation is tame. Everyone here has more than likely gone through the same beats, and will get worse runs in the future (It's happened to me playing live, but I didn't request to have any dealers sacked!).

Have you ever seen two players getting AA at the same time: 48,000/1. On top of that, someone once posted here about getting AA in two online games simultaneously, and flopping a set in both: about 4,000,000/1. A few weeks ago I was playing a draw poker game and someone was dealt a Royal Flush cold: 660,000/1.

The fact is, if you play long enough, you'll see everything. I'd vote that these 'online poker is rigged' threads be banned, but the conspiracy theorys always provide some great light entertainment.

padser

Phil i have to say i think there is a falel flaw in your stats that what happened is 1/2400. if you pick any selection of hands then the odds of them happening is going to miniscule.


also btw if you play 30 hands and hour then that 1/2400 then it happens statisically inside 80 hrs.

OilBeefHooked2

Amaru wrote:

Has anybody else any views on this? I play a lot of STTs, but recently i've ventured into SnG to see what the returns are like(this is on VC). The hands coming out are obscene! Its like the play money tables. In one hour sessions, i counted 18 flushes! Somebody told me before that they give good hands to drive up the pots, thereby they make money on the rake, and i'd be inclined to agree. Am i wrong? Is it just a coincidence(i've actually seen this numerous times, not a once off)? And is it just on VC?

oh yes of course they are all rigged :rolleyes: with the one clear objective in mind to take your rake and your money.

Especially yours, they know when you log on and a program kicks into action to deal YOU ****e marginal cards! :rolleyes:

I'm not being at all sarcastic!

Dont forget you and you only decide wheter( or how) you play the hand's your dealt !

Amaru

david-k wrote:

oh yes of course they are all rigged :rolleyes: with the one clear objective in mind to take your rake and your money.

Especially yours, they know when you log on and a program kicks into action to deal YOU ****e marginal cards! :rolleyes:

I'm not being at all sarcastic!

Dont forget you and you only decide wheter( or how) you play the hand's your dealt !

You know, i love when people don't read the whole of threads and then decide to make stupid statements based only on what they've read. So let me fill you in on what you missed in the rest of the thread:

1) I already said that i'd used this "rigging" to my advantage, using it to win money. This wasn't rigging accusation based on a bad beat.

2) My accusation wasn't about all online play, only real money, and only on VC.

3) There actually is a plausible reason for what i'm seeing, explained by DD, and its not to do with rigging. It has to do with how people play differently at low limits real money to low limit STTs

4) I accepted this explanation and moved on

Now in light of all this, do you feel like a dumbass yet?

Spiritus

Amaru wrote:

1) I already said that i'd used this "rigging" to my advantage, using it to win money. This wasn't rigging accusation based on a bad beat.

:eek:

You may find this of interest:

http://www.reptilianagenda.com/research/r110199k.shtml

Amaru

Spiritus wrote:

:eek:

You may find this of interest:

http://www.reptilianagenda.com/research/r110199k.shtml

You might find this headline of interest:

Link

Juan Pablo

Amaru wrote:

And isn't 18 flushes in an hour not a little high? Its not just flushes either. Its houses, quads etc. Two pair RARELY wins it for you, and trips is a stretch.

Did each player have 4 cards in front of them? Because this may be what we are missing with this post.....



I think Hectorjelly is rigged btw

Amaru

No, that post was about the ideal statistical distribution of hands, and how what i was seeing didn't seem to stick to that.

And seen as i don't seem to be saying this right, i'm try make myself clearer

All questions have been correctly explained and all concerned are happy.

Now please, if you have nothing worthwhile to add, can we let this die?

Dub13

lenny_leonard wrote:

Have you ever seen two players getting AA at the same time: 48,000/1. .

I have seen this twice in one week...once in the fitz 110 game and then a few days later online.

Amaru

Last night i got AA, KK, AA on consecutive hands! Whats the chances of THAT!

(Actually, i really would like to know)

OilBeefHooked2

Amaru wrote:

You know, i love when people don't read the whole of threads and then decide to make stupid statements based only on what they've read. So let me fill you in on what you missed in the rest of the thread:

1) I already said that i'd used this "rigging" to my advantage, using it to win money. This wasn't rigging accusation based on a bad beat.

2) My accusation wasn't about all online play, only real money, and only on VC.

3) There actually is a plausible reason for what i'm seeing, explained by DD, and its not to do with rigging. It has to do with how people play differently at low limits real money to low limit STTs

4) I accepted this explanation and moved on

Now in light of all this, do you feel like a dumbass yet?

No I dont.


First of all I did read all of the thread and found it quiet amusing!

You call me a "Dumbass"
I'm not the one who started this moronic thread.

PPP-Pit Boss

Amaru wrote:

Last night i got AA, KK, AA on consecutive hands! Whats the chances of THAT!

(Actually, i really would like to know)

Personnally I wouldnt be complainin'
If for instance AAKKAA were your whole cards I would be highly suspicious of foul play particularly in holdem.

Amaru

I'm not suspicious, i was just throwing it in as an anecdote to add on to the 2 pocket aces question. I probably won't see that again in my life. And i do genuinely want to know what the odds of that are happening.

Samba

I saw KK v KK a short while ago.....when the cards were flipped I just had a bad feeling and typed in the chat box... here comes the flush


Behold 4 clubs on the board, felt terrible for the guy this was in a 2/4 game both deep stacked.

Imposter

Samba wrote:

I saw KK v KK a short while ago.....when the cards were flipped I just had a bad feeling and typed in the chat box... here comes the flush

I seen that happen with AA v AA once. It was NL and they were both all-in preflop. Would be sick if that happened to me.

Crumbs

Amaru wrote:

Last night i got AA, KK, AA on consecutive hands! Whats the chances of THAT!

(Actually, i really would like to know)

As you probably know, the probability of getting a specific pocket pair (such as AA) is 1/221, so to find the probability of getting three consecutive specific pocket pairs (such as AA, KK, AA), you just cube it, which is 1/10,793,861.

However, the probability of getting any pocket pair is 1/17, so for any three consecutive pocket pairs, it's 1/4,913