Independent Variance Research

Nuggy962

On another site, they have the option at all stakes to run the hand twice in cash games. For example, all in on the flop 10 6 2 and is KK vs QQ.

In the above example they agreed and ran it twice.

First hand turn Q and river 7 for happdays QQ man

Next hand QJ for the lot for QQ man.

KK guy says rigged never playing again bla bla blaFACT , it's massively unlikely to see last two Q's in 4 cards but that's poker chaps.

Like others said, never going to get enough hands to prove anything and any way, one player could have positive variance and another negative over a large sample size. Just how you run sometimes.

Interestingly, some of the better players who play multiple sites seem to do well on all sites and the same goes for some loosing players who seem to loose on all sites. Maybe that goes to show it is, correctly, skill not site making them these ways

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

25. 15% - L

26. 95% - W

Total all in hands with cards to come: 26

Hands all in as favourite: 18/26

Hands won: 15/26

Average chance of winning: 65%

Hands won: 58%

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

25. 15% - L

26. 95% - W

27. 23% - W

28. 74% - W

29. 69% - L

30. 95% - W

Total all in hands with cards to come: 30

Hands all in as favourite: 21/30

Hands won: 18/30

Average chance of winning: 65%

Hands won: 60%

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

25. 15% - L

26. 95% - W

27. 23% - W

28. 74% - W

29. 69% - L

30. 95% - W

31. 95% - W

32. 82% - W

33. 71% - W

34. 5% - L

Total all in hands with cards to come: 34

Hands all in as favourite: 24/34

Hands won: 21/34

Average chance of winning: 65%

Hands won: 62%

Diogenes

sack your thread dude. you won't get the truth or information you require sampling like that but rest assured your motives will be correct. Online poker is not a replication of a deck of cards shuffled at random, its an algorithmic representation of it which is impossible to replicate. It is however possible to manipulate and these bozos wont tell you that's the reality. play as well as you can and analyse your game through some software programme. good luck.

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

25. 15% - L

26. 95% - W

27. 23% - W

28. 74% - W

29. 69% - L

30. 95% - W

31. 95% - W

32. 82% - W

33. 71% - W

34. 5% - L

35. 65% - L

36. 64% - L

Total all in hands with cards to come: 36

Hands all in as favourite: 26/36

Hands won: 21/34

Average chance of winning: 65%

Hands won: 58%

AyrGraeme

In Response to Re: Independent Variance Research:

sack your thread dude. you won't get the truth or information you require sampling like that but rest assured your motives will be correct. Online poker is not a replication of a deck of cards shuffled at random, its an algorithmic representation of it which is impossible to replicate. It is however possible to manipulate and these bozos wont tell you that's the reality. play as well as you can and analyse your game through some software programme. good luck.
Posted by Diogenes

I have no actual motive but thanks for the response mate.  I just like crunching numbers in a geeky kinda way so thought doing this might be a good way to spot some random patterns running to form that might dispel the rumours its rigged.  I know a small sample size couldnt conclusively say of any rigging, but the more you analyse the more you should see some sort of levelling out towards the norms with a lot of the data.

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

25. 15% - L

26. 95% - W

27. 23% - W

28. 74% - W

29. 69% - L

30. 95% - W

31. 95% - W

32. 82% - W

33. 71% - W

34. 5% - L

35. 65% - L

36. 64% - L

37. 91% - L

38. 40% - L

39. 90% - W

40. 86% - W

41. 39% - L

42. 61% - L

43. 70% - W

44. 85% - W

Hands all in as favourite: 32/44

Hands won: 25/44

Average chance of winning: 66%

Hands won: 57%

swanstu

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

Poker is essentially glorified Bingo when it comes down to it - some players win a lot, some lose a lot, but I don't believe people saying they win because they are 'great players' or skillful etc - you can bind opponents up in losing positions over and over and still be a losing player when the luck factor hits in. Yes, there is some strategy and self-control involved, but even playing perfectly with discipline you can be massively down in Poker. That's because Poker is essentially still a casino game where luck decides every single hand. If that's ever forgotten then a player has become deluded. Whether sites are rigged is one debateable question (I personally prefer juiced rather than rigged as a theory), but regardless the game is luck based and so small edges (about as good as you get in Poker these days) will never guarantee against losses. If you want to gamble in Poker, I'd say fine, but if you think you will just play well then win, that is just basically wrong as a premise. (Note. not just aimed at fi33er, but a general comment on these type of running bad problems).

hhyftrftdr

In Response to Re: Independent Variance Research:

In Response to Re: Independent Variance Research : Poker is essentially glorified Bingo when it comes down to it - some players win a lot, some lose a lot, but I don't believe people saying they win because they are 'great players' or skillful etc - you can bind opponents up in losing positions over and over and still be a losing player when the luck factor hits in. Yes, there is some strategy and self-control involved, but even playing perfectly with discipline you can be massively down in Poker. That's because Poker is essentially still a casino game where luck decides every single hand. If that's ever forgotten then a player has become deluded. Whether sites are rigged is one debateable question (I personally prefer juiced rather than rigged as a theory), but regardless the game is luck based and so small edges (about as good as you get in Poker these days) will never guarantee against losses. If you want to gamble in Poker, I'd say fine, but if you think you will just play well then win, that is just basically wrong as a premise. (Note. not just aimed at fi33er, but a general comment on these type of running bad problems).
Posted by swanstu

Welcome back.

AyrGraeme

In Response to Re: Independent Variance Research:

Can you crunch some numbers and give me some odds pls. What are the odds of hitting a set  and quads whilst holding two different numbered or picture cards in the pocket.ie any two cards really apart from a pair.
Posted by chilling

I think you are about 1000/1 for the quads and about 20/1 for the set (trips as it would probably be referred, I think set is a term generally used for poket pair hitting the 3rd card)

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

25. 15% - L

26. 95% - W

27. 23% - W

28. 74% - W

29. 69% - L

30. 95% - W

31. 95% - W

32. 82% - W

33. 71% - W

34. 5% - L

35. 65% - L

36. 64% - L

37. 91% - L

38. 40% - L

39. 90% - W

40. 86% - W

41. 39% - L

42. 61% - L

43. 70% - W

44. 85% - W

45. 51% - W

46. 81% - W

47. 80% - W

48. 81% - W

49. 39% - W

50. 98% - W

Hands all in as favourite: 37/50

Hands won: 31/50

Average chance of winning: 67%

Hands won: 62%

AyrGraeme

51. 75% - L

52. 93% - W

53. 82% - W

54. 30% - W

55. 66% - L

56. 70% - W

57. 72% - L

58. 27% - W

59. 95% - W

60. 54% - W

61. 18% - L

62. 19% - L

63. 89% - W

64. 66% - L

65. 19% - L

66. 54% - L

67. 30% - L

68. 91% - W

69. 95% - W

70. 90% - W

71. 57% - W

72. 91% - W

73. 70% - W

74. 82% - W

75. 71% - W

76. 71% - W

77. 73% - L

78. 68% - L

79. 18% - L

80. 77% - W

81. 69% - W

82. 11% - L

83. 66% - W

84. 71% - W

85. 64% - W

86. 17% - L

87. 28% - L

88. 71% - L

89. 5% - L

90. 16% - L

91. 19% - L

92. 5% - L

93. 27% - L

94. 91% - L

95. 83% - W

96. 82% - L

97. 18% - L

98. 19% - L

99. 80% - W

100. 79% - W

Hands all in as favourite: 71/100

Hands won: 56/100

Average chance of winning: 61%

Hands won: 56%

AyrGraeme

1st 100 hands done.

AyrGraeme

% Range - Total hands - Average % - Expected wins - Hands won

1-10% - 4 - 4% - 0.16 - 0

11-20% - 13 - 17% - 2.2 - 0

21-30% - 7 - 27% - 1.9 - 3

31-40% - 3 - 39% - 1.2 - 1 

41-50% - 2 - 43% - 0.9 - 1 

51-60% - 5 - 55% - 2.8 - 4 

61-70% - 14 - 66% - 9.2 - 5 

71-80% - 16 - 74% - 11.8 - 11 

81-90% - 18 - 84% - 15.1 - 15

91-99% - 18 - 93% - 16.7 - 16

Here is a brief summary of the 1st 100 hands broken down by % favourite in incriments of 10.  Basically if tue randomness and varient is holding the red number (expected hands won at that particular range) and the blue number (actual hands won) should be fairly similar.

AyrGraeme

Basically in most cases the numbers seem to be expected. The main exception is the 61-70% range where I won just 5/14 when the general expectation would be around 9 but in terms of randomness you would expect 1 or 2 of the ranges to throw unexpected results.  I was also slightly unlucky to lose all 13 of the instances where I was an 11-20% underdog but again there is about a 10/1 chance that would happen if you run those hands so not a massive shock.

I did run slightly better than I should have by winning 3/7 in the 21-30% range and winning 4/5 in the 51-60% range.

Overall I know it's a small sample size but with most figures holding true to expectation with 1 or 2 anomolies, the figures do seem to be prdictably random!

GELDY

you clearly don't run like GELDY

my stats would make you sick

AyrGraeme

1. 82% - L

2. 10% - W

3. 72% - L

4. 73% - W (73-23)

5. 47% - W (47-50)

6. 77% - W

7. 45% - W

8. 25% - L

9. 60% - W

10. 95% - W

11. 58% - L   *3 way 58-27-12-(3)

12. 71% - W

13. 52% - L *3 way 52-31-13-(4)

14. 70% - W

15. 80% - W

16. 47% - L

17. 66% - W

18. 91% - W

19. 90% - L

20. 62% - W *3 way all in 62-12-26

21. 72% - W (72-24)

22. 45% - L

23. 59% - L

24. 81% - W (81-19)

25. 95% - L

26. 96% - W

27. 81% - W

28. 93% - W (93-0)

29. 79% - L *3 way all in 79-21-0

30. 54% - L

31. 13% - L (13-82)

32. 86% - W

33. 43% - L (43-56)

34. 9% - L

35. 46% - W

36. 95% - W

Bracketed hands are where there is a chance of a tie.

AyrGraeme

In Response to Re: Independent Variance Research:

you clearly don't run like GELDY my stats would make you sick
Posted by GELDY

I did run slightly worse than I should have in the 1st 100 hands and that trend is continuing for this batch.

There is a 50/50 chance you will win more or less hands than expected so if it did happen for 2, 3, 4 or even 5 batches of 100 hands then it wouldn't be that unusual.

DOHHHHHHH

Everyone missing the most noteable finding of the research.

How tf do you get it in good so often? 

Preach .......