Poker Topics
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
-
-
CommentAuthorjack-actionhero
- CommentTimeJan 31st 2006
hahaha, dude, you crack me up...
Any interest in hitting that tournament again and going further than just the final table on thursday??
-
-
-
CommentAuthorgriffinlord
- CommentTimeJan 31st 2006
Let's start with a lesson on Occam's Razor: The simplest explanation that is consistent with the facts is the best.
Your behavior modification theory is entertaining, but wrong--too complicated.
The most effective reinforcment schedule used for behavior modification is the random interval schedule--the same reinforcement schedule used in slot machines and at craps tables. The random interval schedule is perfectly created by an honest random number generator.
There is absolutely no need to modify or fix the random number generator in order to get the effects you identify. In fact any effort to fix the RNG would result in reduced reinforcement levels which would be counterproductive.
Since an honest RNG is both a simpler explanation, and a better explanation, Occam's Razor is satisfied by the honest RNG.
-
-
-
CommentAuthorrtgpoker
- CommentTimeJan 31st 2006
I've personally seen AA v KK v KK v QQ v 99 at a 9 handed table in a casino. It was a 1/2 NL game at Casaers in AC. Everyone all in pre-flop. My friend was in the hand holding QQ and called me over while the dealer was sorting out all the side pots. All said and done it was over 1200 with 2 sides. Main pot of about 1000, 1 side pot with about 150, another with about about 50. It literally took about 10 minutes to get everything squared away. I watched as my friend spiked a queen on the flop and took down the main pot and the bigger sidepot. He more than quadroopled up. Unreal. I think the guy with aces had everyone covered and took down the small side pot. Point being, these things can and do happen. It's the nature of the game.
-
-
-
CommentAuthorBlacksting
- CommentTimeJan 31st 2006
Well... that was a good counter argument....
Take a look at the description of the Poker Stars random number generator on their web site. You will see a system that is completely consistent with the argument I prescribed.
Your logic is flawed in that you apply Occam's Razor to gambling.... where poker is game based on chance AND skill. The variables used in describing an environment for mathematical analysis are thus increased when dealing with poker..... also Occam's Razor is not a guarantee in and of itself it is a probability.
An interval schedule only works if all the players and the play is equal. As I said.... a mathematical nudge of the cards would take in to account expected ratios of the LEVEL of the players to give an added edge to the less skilled. Considering that the Poker Stars RNG uses an algorithm AFTER the entropic realignment algorithm to further realign data (and that alrgorithm in the past has been used by the government for code breaking and is very sophisticated) I find the Poker Stars RNG perfectly suitable for rigging without breaking oversight rules.
-
-
-
CommentAuthorlmathis421
- CommentTimeJan 31st 2006
I appreciate all of the replies to my post. As usual, the brain childs that responded negatively MISSED my point entirely. First off, my initial post could have literally been pages and pages long, and partially, I was blowing off some much needed steam, BUT, after a closer look at how some of the idiots dissected my post, I see now why leaving this site is best. FIRST, I am not arguing that pocket 7's beat pocket 6's. Of course, that should happen 90% of the time! My argument is that the board shows two 7's and two 6's. Not impossible, but HIGHLY unlikely. Also, I am not arguing that one suited connector beat another. My problem is that a Straight Flush and Full House were both on the board.
I know that Full Tilt Poker has nothing to gain on a sit-n-go, where the rake happens immediately during the buy-in. Again, that is not the point. If anyone wants to take the time to properly think about my original post and reflect, fine. If your only desire is to take everything I said out of context to make yourself look like the next Sklansky, Caro, Brunson, Hellmuth, Greenstein, whomever, that's fine too.
Maybe I do play with emotion. Next time anyone wants to contest emotion playing a vital role in poker players, ask Phil Hellmuth or Mike Matusow their opinion.
-
-
-
CommentAuthor4tatiana
- CommentTimeJan 31st 2006
There is little gain or motive to rig a site. It's like winning the lottery and then robbing a bank so that you can get more money. Rigging is simply not necessary, and the potential risks of rigging jeopardize the solid income that can be gained through an honest environment.
This is where the theory of rigging really falls apart. Casinos that host poker rooms make money hands over fist and obviously do not rig. People who play a strong poker game, taking into account pot odds, position, fold equity, etc would not last long at a site that was engineered to give the underdog a win, therefore would bust newcomers fewer times, and as a result have people investing less money in the site.
The big failure of this theory is that it counts the rake as the money the house makes, when in fact much more is to be gained by money that is tied up with the house.
Black if you really have been playing off of your initial investment of 2 years, then there is no motive for you to come here and give a complaint about bad beats, unless of course you built your bankroll on bad beats, which in turn means that you're a bad player, and as a result lack the insight into poker needed to make such a sophisticated analysis. Think about it.
Uh, seeing more hands per hour has everything to do with the quantity of suckouts. You couldn't be more wrong.Last edited by 4tatiana on Tue Jan 31, 2006 2:11 am; edited 1 time in total
-
-
-
CommentAuthor4tatiana
- CommentTimeFeb 1st 2006
Nah, I understood perfectly, and was commenting that your statement of
was ridiculous. You were alluding to the idea that tournaments knock people out quicker so people can rebuy into another tournament, for maximum house profit. You failed however, to understand that the reason online tournaments go much faster than live is due to dealing, shuffling, chip counting, these sorts of things. Major oversight on your part.
Yeah I've heard of bots, as a matter of fact there have been a couple of poker sites where the house has used bots, and not only did they use the bots they SAID they used bots and IDENTIFIED their bots. Hmm, since it is so unregulated, I wonder why these other sites would admit to it. The stories you're hearing about bots being used probably come from the only sites that used them, and not only that but sites that said they were using them.
I play live poker 3 times a week sometimes more, and I am making my own judgements. By experience seeing so many hands in both live and online, I have to say I don't see rigging. Last night perfect example; AA over KK, later had a short stack move all in preflop with 57o to my AsKs, showdown revealed a straight for the 57o. Lost top 2 pair to an inside straight draw that a guy wouldn't lay down... this and many other wierd things all happening at the same table last night. I don't wanna hear it.
-
-
-
CommentAuthorBlacksting
- CommentTimeFeb 2nd 2006
Griffin:
Damn... though I would slip away.
Your Occam's Razor solution I still contend is for an completely different argument.
It is my assertion that pyschological behavior of a poker player can not be equated to the behavior of a gambler when trying to come up with environmental stimuli that affect his decisions because the conflict resolution goes from fixed in gambling to variable in poker depending on skill level and many other things. Applying Occam's Razor to a problem concerning the behavior trends of 50,000 people seems a bad use of its precepts when the behavior modifiers are (I guess in my opinion) extremely different.
-
-
-
CommentAuthor4tatiana
- CommentTimeNov 30th 2007
So even you can admit that the author is biased... don't see how this supports your argument.
Nice, trying to twist the meaning of my words.
I never said that that the rigging of a poker site was improbable, I said that your theory is improbable.
Eh, well if we do the math, we see that 2,000 players only need to each play 96 hands to FLOP a royal flush, many fewer hands need to be played to draw out on one. So let's consider that it has to be flopped, and there has to be 3 of them with 2,000 players, this means that each player must play an average of 288 hands. Wow, not only does this the possibility of this happening, but the PROBABILITY that it WILL happen. Needless to say, I'm still unconvinced.
Uh... hehe you totally did not address my statement about 50,000 players, you took one line completely out of context, then responded to it based on an entirely different subject.
You were advocating that the use of Occam's Razor was inappropriate when considering the variations that go into a 50,000 player base. I was telling you that designing software to generate a profit for the house that could not otherwise be obtained by being honest, that fits into the style and probabilities of 50,000 players was just as unlikely.
Of course, you ducked this issue altogether. I'd go all in on the fact that you're a losing player, not someone with some groundbreaking insight. And like all losing players, losers, and sociopaths alike, the problem is everyone else, not them.
-
-
-
CommentAuthor4tatiana
- CommentTimeNov 30th 2007
Not an unreasonable assumption at first glance, but the fact that even 6 handed SNG's get a 4 minute break kind of defeats the whole purpose of having some elaborate, well calculated, sophisticated system in place to generate more money per minute when you give players time off from a game they're in...
Do you know why this is? Because it takes longer to shuffle cards, count chips, deal, etc when you're playing with real cards than it does online where a computer handles all of that. This is really a no brainer.
Now this is where it really gets ridiculous. I doubt it would be necessary to have this type of software in order to rig a site, furthermore I doubt that poker sites, which many states have ruled against, have some privy to high level government tools espeically if they are based in Aruba, Costa Rica, etc. This is just beyond ridiculous.
-
-
-
CommentAuthorBlacksting
- CommentTimeNov 30th 2007
..... and Dutch Boyd looting his poker site to pay his bills certainly is a great endorsement for the integrity of online poker life
How much are we supposed to take on faith eh? How far do we take arguments that are based on ASSUMING the default position is integrity/competency etc.? Is that assumption wise?
-