Independent Variance Research

AyrGraeme

I'm going to carry out a bit of research to see if I can put to bed this idea that the site is rigged.  I am going to attempt to analyse a large number of hands to see if true variance seems to hold up.  I tend to only have time to play Friday and Saturday nights now so I will hopefully chip in with a couple of weekly updates.

The only situation I can see where you can remove every variable is removed other than the randomness of the cards is when every player left in the hand is all-in and there is 1 or more cards to come.  I will post the results for each of these situations for each session played.  I know it doesn't analyse every hand but over time it should provide sufficient data to look at.

All opinions and contributions welcome.

AyrGraeme

Tonights Session

Total all in hands with cards to come: 9

Hands where I was favourite: 8/9

Hands won: 6/9

Below detailed is my % chance of winning at the all in point versus whether I won or lost (W/L)

1. 97% - W

2. 72% - L

3. 95% - W

4. 81% - L

5. 82% - W

6. 19% - L

7. 59% - W

8. 93% - W

9. 82% - W

hhyftrftdr

In Response to Independent Variance Research:

I'm going to carry out a bit of research to see if I can put to bed this idea that the site is rigged.  I am going to attempt to analyse a large number of hands to see if true variance seems to hold up.  I tend to only have time to play Friday and Saturday nights now so I will hopefully chip in with a couple of weekly updates. The only situation I can see where you can remove every variable is removed other than the randomness of the cards is when every player left in the hand is all-in and there is 1 or more cards to come.  I will post the results for each of these situations for each session played.  I know it doesn't analyse every hand but over time it should provide sufficient data to look at. All opinions and contributions welcome.
Posted by AyrGraeme

Great, I look forward to the 'results' in 2028.

markycash

To get results that you could give any weight to and make generalisations you would need to analyse hundreds of thousands of hands or more ideally millions. Variance will iron out to a degree but could still give misleading results over a very small sample of a few thousand hands.

People ask the rigged question on every poker site, there is a simple reason underpinning this...

It has been psychologically proven that people when they do not get the desired results (in poker, exams, job promotions etc etc) they are faced with 2 options; either they are to blame (tweaks could be made to their game)  or outside factors (the site is rigged). It is an easier pill to swallow that outside factors are to blame (the site is rigged) and thus people generally elect for this option as it resolves their own cognitive dissonance.

If you want results to improve the best option is to look inward and try to improve your own game (there are always ways you can improve and most of the best players realise this and continually try to find ways to tweak and improve their game).

P.S. I am not saying any of this personally at you as I do not know you, your game or results; I am just addressing the 'rigged question'.

I would stake an awful awful lot that Sky is not rigged.

AyrGraeme

In Response to Re: Independent Variance Research:

In Response to Independent Variance Research : Great, I look forward to the 'results' in 2028.
Posted by hhyftrftdr

LOL - I'll be happy if I see 2028 never mind the results

AyrGraeme

In Response to Re: Independent Variance Research:

To get results that you could give any weight to and make generalisations you would need to analyse hundreds of thousands of hands or more ideally millions. Variance will iron out to a degree but could still give misleading results over a very small sample of a few thousand hands. People ask the rigged question on every poker site, there is a simple reason underpinning this... It has been psychologically proven that people when they do not get the desired results (in poker, exams, job promotions etc etc) they are faced with 2 options; either they are to blame (tweaks could be made to their game)  or outside factors (the site is rigged). It is an easier pill to swallow that outside factors are to blame (the site is rigged) and thus people generally elect for this option as it resolves their own cognitive dissonance. If you want results to improve the best option is to look inward and try to improve your own game (there are always ways you can improve and most of the best players realise this and continually try to find ways to tweak and improve their game). P.S. I am not saying any of this personally at you as I do not know you, your game or results; I am just addressing the 'rigged question'. I would stake an awful awful lot that Sky is not rigged.
Posted by markycash

Aye all very true.  Its a bit like football fans / players / managers thinking refs decisions go against them.  They all remember the decisions against them but never those for them.

I'm coming at this from a completely impartial point of view for what it is worth and agree it is very unlikely it is rigged

AyrGraeme

Session 2

Total all in hands with cards to come: 8

Hands where I was favourite: 4/8

Hands won: 5/8

1. 97% - W

2. 2% - L

3. 42% - W

4. 72% - W

5. 46% - W

6. 44% - L

7. 97% - W

8. 61% - L

Culmulative Total

Total all in hands with cards to come: 17

Hands where I was favourite: 12/17

Hands won: 11/17

stuarty117

In Response to Re: Independent Variance Research:

Session 2 Total all in hands with cards to come: 8 Hands where I was favourite: 4/8 Hands won: 5/8 1. 97% - W 2. 2% - L 3. 42% - W 4. 72% - W 5. 46% - W 6. 44% - L 7. 97% - W 8. 61% - L Culmulative Total Total all in hands with cards to come: 17 Hands where I was favourite: 12/17 Hands won: 11/17
Posted by AyrGraeme

Would you not need to take the average % of the Allin hands  eg 60/40 you not that much of a favourite

Your average % allin is 67% by doing this it is a more true reading.

11/17 is 65% so at the minute the RNG is near perfect

AyrGraeme

In Response to Re: Independent Variance Research:

In Response to Re: Independent Variance Research : Would you not need to take the average % of the Allin hands  eg 60/40 you not that much of a favourite Your average % allin is 67% by doing this it is a more true reading. 11/17 is 65% so at the minute the RNG is near perfect
Posted by stuarty117

Yep that seems a decent idea. I'm just putting the info out there.  If anyone finds useful ways to analyse the data then feel free

markycash

Analysing the data isn't a problem, I could put it through SPSS statistical correlation software but it is pointless with the sample size. Your results could show 95% rigged 5 % not rigged and the data would be meaningless due to the sample size.

I mean if you done it over 10,000 hands which might seem a lot, that is a cash game session to some players who might lose over that session but know they are winning players and it will likely average out in their favour over 20 sessions (200,000 hands) if not 50 sessions (1/2 million hands).

The number of hands you need to garner results that in any way make inferences you can generalise to the reliability of the RNG on a site is mind boggling.

There is an incentive for poker sites to have things 'rigged' in favour of the weaker players (the fish will keep money, not go bust so quickly, and generate mucho rake for said site). This has to be tempered by the fact that if said site ever done such a thing their credibility and site would be destroyed if they were found out. It is quite easy to see in this light it isnt worth the bother to get involved in such practice.

On top of that Sky has a huge brand name that goes way beyond their poker endeavours, why would they ever risk that by 'rigging things'?

AyrGraeme

1. 97% - W

2. 72% - L

3. 95% - W

4. 81% - L

5. 82% - W

6. 19% - L

7. 59% - W

8. 93% - W

9. 82% - W

10. 97% - W

11. 2% - L

12. 42% - W

13. 72% - W

14. 46% - W

15. 44% - L

16. 97% - W

17. 61% - L

18. 82% - L

19. 97% - W

20. 84% - W

Total all in hands with cards to come: 20

Hands where I was favourite: 15/20

Hands won: 13/20

Average chance of winning: 70%

Hands won: 65%

percival09

My nomination for best thread of 2016

rainman397

Good afternoon everyone.

I believe variance exist's because i am s*** and every now and again i win a tournament.

All the best.

Rainman397.

P.S HAS ANYONE MENTIONED THE £2.20 @2.20 DEEPSTACK YET.(VARIANCE FREE TOURNAMENT). 

craigcu12

Research like this will never work, KK could have 5 AI against AQ and lose 5/5 but that proves nothing because you'll have a selection of times when AQ would have folded post flop. those chasing and hitting a flush draw will have made a large number of folds on one of the streets.

The real winning percentages are done preflop because this is when the board is unknown


overpairs will win 80% of the time when against underpairs. Your unlikely to see them call all the way down to the river unless they have a set. the only exception is  when AA-QQ get all in pre or when middle pairs  make hero calls.

KK will lose around 30% of the time against Ax, the reason they look more common is because Ax has been able to see the river card, if betting is made they'll fold a number of times on the flop or turn it's being weak or getting in preflop cause the most losses. The same thing applys when Ax is defeated by a less dominating one they amking very weak bets or getting chips in pre.

When it's a spot like AK v98s it's 60/40 preflop so getting all in preflop is sure to see a number of beats, the AK makes it's cash thanks to a dry flop containing a high card and chargeing them high odds for a flush draw because if this is done they'll fold these often enough making the AK get is winnings.

The final one is your flip and at showdown these will have as many wins as they have losses, they cash is won through decent aggression with the overcards putting pressure on whether or not they'll believe you have over cards or premium pair.

AyrGraeme

In Response to Re: Independent Variance Research:

Research like this will never work, KK could have 5 AI against AQ and lose 5/5 but that proves nothing because you'll have a selection of times when AQ would have folded post flop. those chasing and hitting a flush draw will have made a large number of folds on one of the streets. The real winning percentages are done preflop because this is when the board is unknown overpairs will win 80% of the time when against underpairs. Your unlikely to see them call all the way down to the river unless they have a set. the only exception is  when AA-QQ get all in pre or when middle pairs  make hero calls. KK will lose around 30% of the time against Ax, the reason they look more common is because Ax has been able to see the river card, if betting is made they'll fold a number of times on the flop or turn it's being weak or getting in preflop cause the most losses. The same thing applys when Ax is defeated by a less dominating one they amking very weak bets or getting chips in pre. When it's a spot like AK v98s it's 60/40 preflop so getting all in preflop is sure to see a number of beats, the AK makes it's cash thanks to a dry flop containing a high card and chargeing them high odds for a flush draw because if this is done they'll fold these often enough making the AK get is winnings. The final one is your flip and at showdown these will have as many wins as they have losses, they cash is won through decent aggression with the overcards putting pressure on whether or not they'll believe you have over cards or premium pair.
Posted by craigcu12

Thanks for the feeback.

With regards the highlighted section, that is the reason I am only counting hands where the cards are face up and there are still cards to come.  That way the only variable is the randomness of the cards, the style of play, quality of play, aggressiveness or anything else do not factor. 

Please not I am calcultaing % at the point the cards are turned face up not the preflop % of the 2 hands against one another.

AyrGraeme

1. 97% - W

2. 72% - L

3. 95% - W

4. 81% - L

5. 82% - W

6. 19% - L

7. 59% - W

8. 93% - W

9. 82% - W

10. 97% - W

11. 2% - L

12. 42% - W

13. 72% - W

14. 46% - W

15. 44% - L

16. 97% - W

17. 61% - L

18. 82% - L

19. 97% - W

20. 84% - W

21. 72% - W

22. 67% - L

23. 14% - L

24. 27% - L

Total all in hands with cards to come: 24

Hands all in as favourite: 17/24

Hands won: 14/24

Average chance of winning: 66%

Hands won: 58%

AyrGraeme

In Response to Re: Independent Variance Research:

Good afternoon everyone. I believe variance exist's because i am s*** and every now and again i win a tournament. All the best. Rainman397. P.S HAS ANYONE MENTIONED THE £2.20 @2.20 DEEPSTACK YET.(VARIANCE FREE TOURNAMENT). 
Posted by rainman397

Thanks man, I'll give that tourney a try

AyrGraeme

In Response to Re: Independent Variance Research:

My nomination for best thread of 2016
Posted by percival09

LOL - I can't decide if you are sincere or not but cheers anyway ;D

fi33er

Great Idea to independently test the run of cards on this site.
I have run bad on here for a seriously long time, today alone I lost with over pair vs under pair all in pf 8 times.
7-1 chance of them flopping trips on me. and it happened 8 out of 14 hands I played.
the other hand  I had trips on the flop and shoved and they made a straight with runner runner, and 1 other hand the guy made a 4 flush with 2 unsuited cards.  I won the other 4 pots, 1 with the worst hand.
I know how to calculate my odds, the number of outs etc. I'm not a great player but I can do simple maths and I do run bad most of the time.

I don't think the site is fixed, it is silly to believe that, I mean why would they need/want to fix it?

I do however run bad.
I also know players on here who do run good, and they win the flips, or split pots more than others.

People can say that it is just the player noticing the pots they get a bad beat in, and not the ones they get lucky on.
people can say its easier to blame the site or luck, but I am doing neither.
I'm not the best player, I am not full of ego trying to big myself up.
I do think that some people are luckier on here than others.
If anyone wants to use me as an experiment I am more than happy.
If I am proven to run even then I will be very happy.
I am trying to improve my game every day and I have had lots of advice and support form great people and players on this site.  I would 1 day like to get somewhere in the poker world and say thank you to the kind players who have spent their time helping me along.
Today was a particularly bad day of beats so sorry if I sound very negative, I am normally very happy;)

I do just play the spin tables now and I know that they have more variance as people go with any old junk often. But it is good to see how you run because often people are all in pf.

good luck at the tables and if I can be apart of your test then use me please
I would love to let someone analyse the hand history from a certain time and actually see how sick it is.

fi33er

Oh Yeah I forgot to mention the 1 outer that the guy hit on the river yesterday haha
#STANDARD

AyrGraeme

In Response to Re: Independent Variance Research:

Great Idea to independently test the run of cards on this site. I have run bad on here for a seriously long time, today alone I lost with over pair vs under pair all in pf 8 times. 7-1 chance of them flopping trips on me. and it happened 8 out of 14 hands I played. the other hand  I had trips on the flop and shoved and they made a straight with runner runner, and 1 other hand the guy made a 4 flush with 2 unsuited cards.  I won the other 4 pots, 1 with the worst hand. I know how to calculate my odds, the number of outs etc. I'm not a great player but I can do simple maths and I do run bad most of the time. I don't think the site is fixed, it is silly to believe that, I mean why would they need/want to fix it? I do however run bad. I also know players on here who do run good, and they win the flips, or split pots more than others. People can say that it is just the player noticing the pots they get a bad beat in, and not the ones they get lucky on. people can say its easier to blame the site or luck, but I am doing neither. I'm not the best player, I am not full of ego trying to big myself up. I do think that some people are luckier on here than others. If anyone wants to use me as an experiment I am more than happy. If I am proven to run even then I will be very happy. I am trying to improve my game every day and I have had lots of advice and support form great people and players on this site.  I would 1 day like to get somewhere in the poker world and say thank you to the kind players who have spent their time helping me along. Today was a particularly bad day of beats so sorry if I sound very negative, I am normally very happy;) I do just play the spin tables now and I know that they have more variance as people go with any old junk often. But it is good to see how you run because often people are all in pf. good luck at the tables and if I can be apart of your test then use me please I would love to let someone analyse the hand history from a certain time and actually see how sick it is.
Posted by fi33er

Would take too long to go through your hand history but if you want me to clarify the system for you to do it yourself I'd be happy to.  And thanks for the support!