|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 11/21/2008 2:45:54 PM PACIFIC |
 What are the odds? Seriously?, NOWAY, 20. May 2003 00:52 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| OK I will be blunt. I have been playing poker for years, and am a consistent winner in B&M's, Casinos, UB, and Paradise. I decide to try PokerStars because of the rep about tourneys and I like the picture icons they use to remember players by. Anyway last night I get in a 10 handed 3-6 game. There was a guy there who was a little chatty, and made a point to tell us how unreal every hand was, then got to talking crazy when a few of the miracle card winners talked shit to him. However, after the smoke settled I went back and looked through the 10-12 hands he was ranting and raving about and I now have to agree with the sick bastard that PokerStars does have the most unbelievable unrandomness of shuffling systems I have ever seen. These were the hands that were made out of a 10-12 section of hands dealt: AA wired vs. KK wired (TWICE) 99 wired vs. KK wired (9 comes on flop-4th street brings a K) A2 wired vs. 5 other hands(3 wired pairs) (Flop comes AAA) Flopped Quads. A Flopped Nut Flush A Flopped Nut Str8 AA wired against a Muck on the River (I am guessing KK's or QQ's) AA wired (Flopped Trips) Loser of Hand Mucked. AA wired vs. K7s (Flop comes J52 rainbow) Turn is 7 River K Is this possible? This is the most unreal run of cards in 10-12 hands in a row I have ever seen in over 20 years of poker. Am I missing something? Is Poker Stars reputable? I just can't imagine seeing this anywhere else? PS: I have no reason to make this up, I am not upset with PokerStars or am I ranting about a losing session. I just thought I would let what I saw with my own 2 eyes be known. Needless to say, however, this is just too "action oriented" for me to continue playing there. Anyone else have this experience there? ZOD | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| 1:1, Easy E, 20. May 2003 05:32 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| ...Since you just saw it. Tell me this- if you saw 2M hands, and that sequence was in there, but they averaged out to about the correct percentages, would you be writing about this? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: 1:1, NOWAY, 20. May 2003 09:44 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Why do people like Easy E, even waste the time to respond? I hate assholes like you who always think they know everything and want to reply with a smartass answer. If you don't have anything constructive to say, then keep it to yourself. Just because a person makes a post here asking about true probabilities and if this type of run of hands is "legit", doesn't mean that the person is a "whiner" or is "steaming because they lost money". People like Easy E make me sick. He is an arrogant waste of human flesh. Why is it impossible to get a sincere reply from someone with possibly some similar experiences or concerns of their own. This wasn't a bad beat cry baby story, you asshole Easy E. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: 1:1, MozMan, 20. May 2003 09:59 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Wish I had seen this before I posted my response. No offense man, but I think you went a little overboard here. In any case, I did post my response for what it's worth. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: 1:1, chasepoker, 20. May 2003 10:00 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think the point he was trying to make was that in the long run you will see sequences of cards that will fit every pattern possible ( as Mr Caro writes in one of posts on the MCU site ) In fact if these sorts of things DO NOT happen there is something wrong with the random number generator. Also i would say that if you ever think a site is cheating you dont play there any more, simple as that. You will find this topic has been written about quite a lot in the past few months check the archives for details, there are some great posts been made about it and some good explanations Also please keep this lovely site nice and happy as i get a great deal out of it and dont enjoy reading vitriolic posts. 7 High's Chasepoker | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: 1:1, stdioh, 20. May 2003 11:05 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Be nice now. Easy E is a frequent poster here and an intelligent player. I have a lot of respect for her so watch what you say. As for the run of cards, it is truely amazing. I would be suspicious myself...but it is not unheard of to get AA 5 times in one orbit and the likes. I wouldn't say it necessarilly means cheating. But definitely it is suspect. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: 1:1, Easy E, 20. May 2003 13:56 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 20. May 2003 11:05 stdioh wrote: > Be nice now. Easy E is a frequent poster here and an intelligent player. Okay, you really blew any respect I had for you, stdioh, with your erroneous conclusion there at the end.... > As for the run of cards, it is truely amazing. I would be suspicious myself...but it is not > unheard of to get AA 5 times in one orbit and the likes. I wouldn't say it necessarilly means > cheating. But definitely it is suspect. Actually, here i really AM disappointed in you. It's as likely to happen as any other specific hand combinations, based on sample sizes so small. Now, I would want to watch to see if OTHER things like that occurred on a "regular" (or is that irregular?) basis, but I wouldn't make any decisions for a fairly long time.... | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: 1:1, stdioh, 20. May 2003 14:41 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Oh, it is completely plausible that it could happen. Just that when you have something like that blip onto the radar it looks "funny" and you want to watch to see if it happens again...it would be like the lottery numbers coming up 1-2-3-4-5-6. It is just as likely as any other combination, but if it happened, people would be foaming at the mouth. If it happened twice, hey, it is possible, but that would really get some dander up, and with just cause. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: 1:1, Easy E, 20. May 2003 13:53 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 20. May 2003 09:44 NOWAY wrote: > Why do people like Easy E, even waste the time to respond? We have nothing better to do > I hate assholes like you who always think they know everything and want to reply with a > smartass answer. I DO know everything, and why would you expect any other type of answer as a result? > If you don't have anything constructive to say, then keep it to yourself. Yes, Mom. Do I wash out my mouth with soap now? (guess it would be fingers, actually) > Just because a person makes a post here asking about true probabilities and if this type > of run of hands is "legit", doesn't mean that the person is a "whiner" or is "steaming > because they lost money". And it doesn't mean the question has any "true" value, either, except to you. Not that I'm saying you shouldn't post it, but do you expect a serious answer based on a sampling size of 12 HANDS?!! Rethink about the 1:1 reply in a NON-smartass mode... you might be surprised at its simple logic... Besides, this and other newsgroups are FILLED with morons (before you flame me again, I did NOT say "other morons") who take 3- and 4-figure amounts of data and try to extrapolate a theory about probability violations, based on a puny amount of data. With over 2.5 million possible 5-card (or was that 7-card? I never remember, will have to check Hoyle) combinations FOR ONE HAND ALONE, why anyone thinks in less than million-hand blocks is beyond me.... So therefore, statements like this, well-intentioned (?) or not, are old news. > People like Easy E make me sick. Pepto Bismol and earplugs work wonders for that illness > He is an arrogant waste of human flesh. Arrogant? hmmmm... maybe. The second part? I think you could get a quorum on that one. > Why is it impossible to get a sincere reply from someone with possibly some similar > experiences or concerns of their own. Ahhhh, another sample size of puny dimensions being used to justify a grand conclusion..... odds of THAT were also, coincidently, 1:1 > This wasn't a bad beat cry baby story, you asshole Easy E. But it was a "serious" question, with this line? "Needless to say, however, this is just too "action oriented" for me to continue playing there" ------ That was fun! Tell you what, Noway- the asshole Asy A has an assignment for you. a) Search just THIS newsgroup, using "online" or "scam" (preferably run both searches) b) Read the original posts, some of the intelligent replies and some of the rants. c) Go back and think about your post some more d) Come back here and blow off my doors again! e) Repeat on RGP, others if you choose. I look forward to some more psychoanalysis, Doc! Believe or not, I DID have fun! PS- everyone else- thanks for the chime-ins! | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: 1:1, NOWAY, 20. May 2003 14:14 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| LOL, You must be one fat ugly bitch, to waste that much time with all your smartass samplings. Go eat another crispy creme you hog, and lick your fingers this time before touching the keyboard again. You think you are so smart? It doesn't matter how many millions of hands are used to come to a conclusion about the legitimacy of a sites online shuffle. If person A sits down and the first 10 hands are described as I did before, then why would person A need to sit through 999,990 more hands to realize that something is not right? The pure odds of someone sitting down and sampling a 10 hand run like that are more astronomical than the hand run itself. I am not saying that PokerStars are not on the up and up, but I just feel like compared to hundreds of thousands of hands that I have played in Casinos, B&Ms, UB, & Paradise....That PokerStars shuffling/hand distribution is not random at all. And in fact I have had many similar stories sent to me on other forums regarding PokerStars. Anyway good luck at the tables, buffet or poker, whichever applies. ZOD | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: 1:1, JunglingS, 20. May 2003 14:38 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Why do you post if you hold such disdain for feedback? Also, please consider the ridiculously astronomical probability of the following sequence of events: 1. Your parents meet. 2. They copulate right when a specific ovum is ready for fertilization. 3. A specific sperm fertilizes the egg. 4. Nothing fatally injures the fetus and it makes it to term. 5. You are born. This sequence of events is mathematically absurd. Never to be predicted, and yet it did happen. In fact if you look at me, or Easy E, or anyone else here as a single iteration of these events with different specifics, you'll find that it is mathematically absurd for any of us to have the specific genetic makeup we have. In fact, it is absurd for any specific genetic makeup to ever appear, but ONE specific genetic combination MUST be present in each iteration. And although any SPECIFIC makeup is absurd, it is EXACTLY as absurd as any other SPECIFIC makeup. Therefore it is absolutely CERTAIN that EVERY iteration will result in ONE SPECIFIC mathematically ABSURD genetic mix. That's the nature of things. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Didn't you just give away the plot..., Easy E, 20. May 2003 14:44 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| to "Matrix Reloaded"?? Shame on you | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Didn't you just give away the plot..., JunglingS, 20. May 2003 14:54 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Really?? I haven't seen it yet. I was just trying to make a point. Hmmm. . . Maybe I should write scripts. . . | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Didn't you just give away the plot..., stdioh, 20. May 2003 14:56 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| If you say, "I can write a script every bit as good as The Matrix: Reloaded," then I smell a career in automobile refurbishing for you...certainly not one as a writer :) | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Didn't you just give away the plot..., JunglingS, 20. May 2003 14:58 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I can write all kinds of scripts, they're just in PERL . . . OK, enough of that. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: 1:1, stdioh, 20. May 2003 14:52 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Well, assuming that we know who the parents are, we can figure out how many potential genetically different offspring there will be. Each person has 23 pairs of chromosomes and the child gets one from each parent. Thus we have 2^23 possible combinations, the first responsible for gender and a lot of other stuff and then on down the line. So for any two parents, there is a 1/8,388,608 chance that their second child is genetically identical to their first child (assuming no twins of course) ... And seeing as there are about 5,000,000,000 people on this Earth, there are probably many situations every year where two parents have a twin a couple of years after the first one. Of course this doesn't take into account single generation mutations, but they are rare and almost always ineffectual. Now if you had a family with identical twins bord 2 years apart, that would soud a lot crazier than the poker hand in question, so I think that Jungling really does prove a point here. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: 1:1, noiseboy, 20. May 2003 15:40 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Well, there's also the chain of improbability that goes all the way back to the very beginnings of life to consider. Your great grandfather had to run into your great grandmother, Caveman had to meet Cavewoman, all the way back to single-celled organisms somehow evolving into multi-celled organisms, back to life first forming out of the slime, the solar system forming, the big bang, whatever was before the big bang, etc.... Even the tiniest break in the chain, and you would not exist. If an ancestor, millions of years ago had been eaten by a sabre tooth tiger, there'd be no you. If one of the millions of sperm had been just a bit faster of a swimmer then the one that made you, then you'd be different. Multiply the odds of this one sperm beating all the others, times all of the millions of times it happened for your ancestors back to the beginning of life. The odds of us even existing as we do are beyond comprehension. Yikes my head is going to explode. Anyway, any improbability may occur if your time period and sampling size are large enough. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: 1:1, JunglingS, 20. May 2003 15:47 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Sampling size, etc. doesn't even have to be large. One single iteration can create mind-boggling probabilities. Hmmm. . . This is really turning into a philosophical discussion isn't it? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: 1:1, Wren, 21. May 2003 11:06 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Welcome to RGP, folks :O) | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: 1:1, stdioh, 21. May 2003 08:49 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Actually, I have to call a mulligan on that one. I'm a progressive creationist. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: 1:1, Easy E, 20. May 2003 14:42 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 20. May 2003 14:14 NOWAY wrote: > You must be one fat ugly bitch, to waste that much time with all your smartass samplings. Geez, you figured me out- what's a girl to do? > Go eat another crispy creme you hog, and lick your fingers this time before touching the keyboard again. Oink! Besides, sticky gives better traction, making typing faster... I get to 1M words much easier that way > You think you are so smart? > It doesn't matter how many millions of hands are used to come to a conclusion about the legitimacy > of a sites online shuffle. If person A sits down and the first 10 hands are described as I did > before, then why would person A need to sit through 999,990 more hands to realize that something is > not right? Ahhhhh... based on that logic, no need at all. I stand corrected (well, I would, but I can't stand) > I am not saying that PokerStars are not on the up and up, No, you're not saying that at ALL..... > And in fact I have had many similar stories sent to me on other forums regarding PokerStars. Good to know. Does the clubhouse still serve Shirley Temples? > Anyway good luck at the tables, buffet or poker, whichever applies. > ZOD Well, while i'm (smack) finishing off my (slobber) 12 Ding-dongs (lick), let's grade you out: a) Search just THIS newsgroup, using "online" or "scam" (preferably run both searches) - 1 b) Read the original posts, some of the intelligent replies and some of the rants. Okay, this one was a waste of time for you, so we'll eliminate it from the score. c) Go back and think about your post some more See #b d) Come back here and blow off my doors again! +1... you at least got ONE thing right. e) Repeat on RGP, others if you choose. see #b So, let's see.... using the logic premises given here..... carry the two..... CONGRADULATIONS! You've graduated Internet Poker 101, summa come loudah! I'll send you your diploma..... as soon as I get done with this turkey (slurp!) | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: 1:1, stdioh, 20. May 2003 14:55 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I nominate this one for post of the week! | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: 1:1, Mojo702, 21. May 2003 17:27 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 20. May 2003 14:42 Easy E wrote: > on 20. May 2003 14:14 NOWAY wrote: > > > You must be one fat ugly bitch, to waste that much time with all your smartass samplings. > > Geez, you figured me out- what's a girl to do? > Hmmm.....for some reason I had always assumed Easy E was a guy....well, you know what they say about assuming... | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: 1:1, stdioh, 22. May 2003 08:00 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I generally assume that anybody I meet online has no gender until they indicate one. IIANM, Easy said something about being female some time ago. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: 1:1, stdioh, 20. May 2003 14:46 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I don't think I'm alone when I say to you, GET THE HELL OFF OUR FORUM! Aside from your foul language, you neglect the fact that you show up out of the blue and instantly start a fight with one of our regulars. And when a post degrades into name-calling and bad language, nobody has time for it. I think I speak for everybody here when I say that we want to be inclusive. Rivalry is good and well, but this sort of crapola doesn't fly. So pretty please, with cherries on top, play nice or go away. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: 1:1, MozMan, 20. May 2003 14:48 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| For what it's worth... ditto. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: 1:1, JunglingS, 20. May 2003 14:57 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Wait a minute, Isn't this forum moderated. . . | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: 1:1, Risky Business, 20. May 2003 14:59 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Probably not during the WSOP. Very busy time. on 20. May 2003 14:57 JunglingS wrote: > Wait a minute, > > Isn't this forum moderated. . . | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| I'd rather it stayed there, Easy E, 20. May 2003 15:19 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| It'll be good for new posters to see the reactions that this kind of post brings from other UPF'ers. Thanks again- ya'll are sweet! | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: 1:1, stdioh, 21. May 2003 08:50 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| In theory this forum is moderated. In theory everything works the same in theory as it does in practice, but in practice this rarely holds. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: What are the odds? Seriously?, MozMan, 20. May 2003 09:52 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Let me tell you about a ring game I played at my local casino: I was very new, only my third session. Playing 3-6 hold em at a full table (9 players). Four hands running, I made the most incredible hands possible. First, I'm dealt 33 in middle position. I don't really know enough to be cautious, I know just enough to recognize that pocket pairs are good. I flop the set and show down a boat (3s full of Jacks) to 4 other players, all of whom had either complete hands (flushes), trips (jacks), or two pair. Next, I get 33 again. Flop the set AGAIN. Beat another flush with another full boat (8s) on the river. Third hand (now a kill-pot, playing 6-12), I flop a str8-flush, hearts, 3-7 (I was playing the 6-7 h). I was in early position by now, but again, very new and not aware that I shouldn't have been playing this hand. I beat a str8, two flushes and a full boat on this one. Fourth hand (again kill), I river a str8-flush to the K (missed the $50 royal bonus by one card). Beat a flush, and a lower-str8-flush draw that never came because I had his card in my hand. Everyone at the table was dumbfounded at the way the cards came, and I have not seen anything even close, live or online, since. Remember, this was a live game. My casino uses shuffling machines in the tables now, but this was before, so the casino-dealer was hand-shuffling. I was so new, the dealers didn't even know me yet. My point is this, like baseball, anything is possible in poker. I couldn't lose that night... I was like midas, the cards just turned to gold. But I doubt I will ever see that again... the odds against it are staggering, yet it happened, because it is possible., | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: What are the odds? Seriously?, noiseboy, 20. May 2003 16:15 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Man, that put's Varkony's run at the final table of the WSOP to shame! That was one helluva rush, you must've made a killing. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: What are the odds? Seriously?, MozMan, 20. May 2003 16:38 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Oh yeah! Fortunately, even as new as I was to Hold'em, I had a pretty good sense that this was not normal... so I haven't been disappointed that it hasn't happened again. :) | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: What are the odds? Seriously?, Jav, 20. May 2003 11:08 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I play at PokerStars (and some others) alot, and I have never seen AA against KK (or at least to where they were both shown down). I've experienced it plenty in B&M and other sites though. The thing about online poker is that there are a lot more hands dealt than in a casino. Therefor there are more chances for good (and bad) hands to be dealt. I've gone hours without a playable hand as well, but I don't think it was the shuffle. Anyway if you're inquireing about other peoples experiences, then no, I haven't seen a run of cards like that there. But I have seen runs like that... But I definately feel if you don't feel comfortable in any particular place where you are gambling real money, then you should go back to a place where you do feel comfortable. And by the way, your reply to Easy E was WAY out of line. This is one of the best forums I've seen with the genuine help people give to other people here. There is very little flaming that goes on here, and we really don't need it. Jav | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: What are the odds? Seriously?, Big_Slick, 20. May 2003 17:17 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I was playing craps years ago at a casino in Vegas and watched in amazement when the table I was at failed to pass 22 games in a row. That sort of stuff will leave you in a daze for a week. The odds must be incredible for that to happen. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: What are the odds? Seriously?, stdioh, 21. May 2003 08:51 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I was flinging cheap bets at the roulette wheel in Montreal and I always only bet on 12. I had 12 hit 4 times in 10 spins, including twice in a row. As it pays out 35:1 and I increased my bets a little as I kept winning and started with $5 bets, you can imagine how I left the place after it hit a fourth time and I decided not to press my luck. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: What are the odds? Seriously?, Risky Business, 21. May 2003 11:34 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Actually, I was at that table and '12' hit again right after you left. :) on 21. May 2003 08:51 stdioh wrote: > I was flinging cheap bets at the roulette wheel in Montreal and I always only bet on 12. I > had 12 hit 4 times in 10 spins, including twice in a row. As it pays out 35:1 and I > increased my bets a little as I kept winning and started with $5 bets, you can imagine how > I left the place after it hit a fourth time and I decided not to press my luck. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: What are the odds? Seriously?, stdioh, 21. May 2003 14:09 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Heh. I actually stuck around and came back to look at the table records just so that I wouldn't have to beat myself up if it didn't hit. The next 20 or so spins brought no 12. Of course it is very rare that I enjoy myself to the point of making -EV bets. I'll piss $5 into a slot machine if it means convincing myself to get up from a tilt at the $10-$20 and pissing much more money. I'll play $1 roulette while waiting for a table if I forgot reading material and I am there alone...since I'm only losing $0.05 per spin and can consider that pure entertainment. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network |
|