Folks, I thought it would be useful to post some guidelines on what should and shouldn't be posted in BBV. Here you go: Brags - when you win a super nice hand, hit a royal, make a soul read, etc. Do it with some explanation of the spot/situation and the hand will be so much more readable. Beats - this is not when your one pair gets called by a draw and he gets there. That's called poker. We are talking things like running set into set or getting most of your chips over the line a 93.6% favourite in an SPT semi vs Ace high with A-A and still losing (UL Giant). Variance - if you see some ridiculous run of hands, like getting dealt AA back to back three times etc. Seriously, this isn't just a section to vent and rant about one pair getting turned over. If you do feel the need to post that kind of hand (and I really, really don't think you should), at least keep them in one thread. Thanks, Dave Posted by Sky_Dave
In Response to Re: Posting too many hands, especially when they are beats. : +1 . Sick of seeing the same or very similar bad beats posted and if ppl are so convinced its fixed why would you carry on playing Posted by MP33
have too think to myself(and others have probably thought the same)after more than 3000 posts i am sure u have had your fair share of moans and groans!!??people post what they think is a bad hand on here for various reasons 1.just for the sake of venting..2.because they believe it really is a bad beat as they are still learning the game.3.posting it here will get advice from more experenced players and that way they gain experience , 4.it is a bad beat and that is what this section is for!!!!!!!!!!! 5..the more bad beats posted here will show players how random the game of poker can be.thus way showing it is not rigged but as much a game of chance as skill.thats just my opinion !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've been analysing sky for more than 10,000 hands (MMT) and over 7,000 hands (cash games) to establish whether the dealt hole cards and bad beats are correlated with the accepted statistics of both random draw (hole cards) and likely win odds for sklansky group 1 dealt hole cards versus actual wins with group 1 cards (bad beats) on the site.
By new year's day (2013) - i had established a very significant sample of data which show a higher bad beat scenario than would be statsitcially viable. The difference was significant enough that winning with the sklansky group 1 cards when dealt could be considered equal to losing with the same cards. This can be considered an outlier in correlation terms.
In dealt hole cards, sky dealt so significantly lower valued cards and combinations of cards that their RNG could be questioned (over those sample data).
However, the situation suddenly changed on new year's day when i made the mistake of commenting on the flaws in the RNG algorithm during a tournament in the chat box to another player. Within 3 hands, and for the next 250 hands my data showed a complete reversal with a very very high average dealt hole card value and 100% hit on the board (even with group 2 cards). That's a 100% hit in 250 hands where every hand hit a match on the board. Also - there were zero bad beats for any of my hands. In the last hand of the tournament in heads up, my opponent's A high hand was bad beat by my K high hand.
I also played cash tables and heads up cash tables and had exactly the same high value dealt hole cards and zero bad beats. Almost as if a switch had been flicked.
I'm testing the data because I believe the algorithm they are using has a manual intervention capability or a skew to certain types of play/player.
I write algorithms for a living and I like to query the integrity of other algorithms. If a poker site like sky which is geared to maximum profit (7.5% and 10% rake which is actually very high comparatively) wants to make sure the algorithm contributes significantly to the profit them:
>> It must be close to random but it must favour the reckless play because this gets more money in the rake. >> It must punish tight play and encourage loose play by restricting the hole card value to tight players thereby forcing them to be more aggressive with lower value cards. >> It must have a high bad beat ratio because this encourages more inexperienced players to go all in with lesser cards thereby generating more rake, and kills good tight players because they don't contribute enough t
Does the sky poker algorithm do any of that? Not sure yet... If you were the boss of that poker site, and your salary was directly correlated to the profitability of the business - would you skew it? Probably not. Would anyone?
Here's a review off poker scout from January 2013 see if you can spot the similarities:
"I've been analysing sky for more than 10,000 hands (MMT) and over 7,000 hands (cash games) to establish whether the dealt hole cards and bad beats are correlated with the accepted statistics of both random draw (hole cards) and likely win odds for sklansky group 1 dealt hole cards versus actual wins with group 1 cards (bad beats) on the site.
By new year's day (2013) - i had established a very significant sample of data which show a higher bad beat scenario than would be statsitcially viable. The difference was significant enough that winning with the sklansky group 1 cards when dealt could be considered equal to losing with the same cards. This can be considered an outlier in correlation terms.
In dealt hole cards, sky dealt so significantly lower valued cards and combinations of cards that their RNG could be questioned (over those sample data).
However, the situation suddenly changed on new year's day when i made the mistake of commenting on the flaws in the RNG algorithm during a tournament in the chat box to another player. Within 3 hands, and for the next 250 hands my data showed a complete reversal with a very very high average dealt hole card value and 100% hit on the board (even with group 2 cards). That's a 100% hit in 250 hands where every hand hit a match on the board. Also - there were zero bad beats for any of my hands. In the last hand of the tournament in heads up, my opponent's A high hand was bad beat by my K high hand.
It's almost like it's word for word the same......oh wait it is! Plagarise much do you?!
Folks, I thought it would be useful to post some guidelines on what should and shouldn't be posted in BBV. Here you go: Brags - when you win a super nice hand, hit a royal, make a soul read, etc. Do it with some explanation of the spot/situation and the hand will be so much more readable. Beats - this is not when your one pair gets called by a draw and he gets there. That's called poker. We are talking things like running set into set or getting most of your chips over the line a 93.6% favourite in an SPT semi vs Ace high with A-A and still losing (UL Giant). Variance - if you see some ridiculous run of hands, like getting dealt AA back to back three times etc. Seriously, this isn't just a section to vent and rant about one pair getting turned over. If you do feel the need to post that kind of hand (and I really, really don't think you should), at least keep them in one thread. Thanks, Dave Posted by Sky_Dave
if you see some ridiculous run of hands, like getting dealt AA back to back three times etc. Seriously, this isn't just a section to vent and rant about one pair getting turned over. If you do feel the need to post that kind of hand (and I really, really don't think you should well I think you should, far prefer reading someone being honest and writing what they think than some pc person full of self importance saying " well that's poker"
MAYBE YOU SHOULD LOOK INTO THIS THEN DAVE I've been analysing sky for more than 10,000 hands (MMT) and over 7,000 hands (cash games) to establish whether the dealt hole cards and bad beats are correlated with the accepted statistics of both random draw (hole cards) and likely win odds for sklansky group 1 dealt hole cards versus actual wins with group 1 cards (bad beats) on the site. By new year's day (2013) - i had established a very significant sample of data which show a higher bad beat scenario than would be statsitcially viable. The difference was significant enough that winning with the sklansky group 1 cards when dealt could be considered equal to losing with the same cards. This can be considered an outlier in correlation terms. In dealt hole cards, sky dealt so significantly lower valued cards and combinations of cards that their RNG could be questioned (over those sample data). However, the situation suddenly changed on new year's day when i made the mistake of commenting on the flaws in the RNG algorithm during a tournament in the chat box to another player. Within 3 hands, and for the next 250 hands my data showed a complete reversal with a very very high average dealt hole card value and 100% hit on the board (even with group 2 cards). That's a 100% hit in 250 hands where every hand hit a match on the board. Also - there were zero bad beats for any of my hands. In the last hand of the tournament in heads up, my opponent's A high hand was bad beat by my K high hand. I also played cash tables and heads up cash tables and had exactly the same high value dealt hole cards and zero bad beats. Almost as if a switch had been flicked. I'm testing the data because I believe the algorithm they are using has a manual intervention capability or a skew to certain types of play/player. I write algorithms for a living and I like to query the integrity of other algorithms. If a poker site like sky which is geared to maximum profit (7.5% and 10% rake which is actually very high comparatively) wants to make sure the algorithm contributes significantly to the profit them: />> It must be close to random but it must favour the reckless play because this gets more money in the rake. >> It must punish tight play and encourage loose play by restricting the hole card value to tight players thereby forcing them to be more aggressive with lower value cards. >> It must have a high bad beat ratio because this encourages more inexperienced players to go all in with lesser cards thereby generating more rake, and kills good tight players because they don't contribute enough t Does the sky poker algorithm do any of that? Not sure yet... If you were the boss of that poker site, and your salary was directly correlated to the profitability of the business - would you skew it? Probably not. Would anyone? Posted by Si_Pies
yawn !!! get a grip and write without the delusional self importance
well not a good morning played 2 tourneys 1st had kk 3 allins aa kk qq worst hand won qq 4 to a flush next tourney aa up against kj off beaten by 4 to a flush horrible luck
well not a good morning played 2 tourneys 1st had kk 3 allins aa kk qq worst hand won qq 4 to a flush next tourney aa up against kj off beaten by 4 to a flush horrible luck Posted by jalupen101
played 2 more tourneys kk busted by 10 10 aa busted by a flush think its time to call it a day look for a new site
In Response to Re: Posting too many hands, especially when they are beats. : played 2 more tourneys kk busted by 10 10 aa busted by a flush think its time to call it a day look for a new site Posted by jalupen101
Lol - do tell if you find one that has no variance
Perhaps people should stop moaning about people posting bad beats...?
Moaning is moaning, and at least a bad beat post is about Poker.
Personally wouldn't see much point though, as everyone just acts all superior whenever a BB gets posted anyway on here. Not exactly sure the reason there is a beats section, as this is true. However the posting beats police seem to like to moan about others posting still.
Been trashed on my biggest hand already today (exit), call ai with QQ v his JJ of course J appears flop. But looking at responses to these posts on this forum (including the word Beats) what's the point in joining in here!?
Perhaps people should stop moaning about people posting bad beats...? Moaning is moaning, and at least a bad beat post is about Poker. Personally wouldn't see much point though, as everyone just acts all superior whenever a BB gets posted anyway on here. Not exactly sure the reason there is a beats section, as this is true. However the posting beats police seem to like to moan about others posting still. Been trashed on my biggest hand already today (exit), call ai with QQ v his JJ of course J appears flop. But looking at responses to these posts on this forum (including the word Beats) what's the point in joining in here!? Posted by swanstu
swans there's beats and there's bad beats there's a difference, and then there's also people who come on all the time to say how the site is rigged,
I went out of a tournament yesterday on the bubble with KK v 88 aipf he hits his 8 no big deal it's poker and it happens, also happened to me live last week 3 of us all aipf AA KK AQ flop K 10 4 turn 7 river J it's poker and the odds are just that odds and sometimes we just gotta take it on the chin and move on.
let's turn it around you get it in with JJ and QQ calls you you're praying for that J and it hits it's varience pure and simple, do we then come on here and post it ......... prob not
and that is what gets peoples back up we post the moans but not the fact that we got in behind and hit
i've also copied this from the OP
Beats - this is not when your one pair gets called by a draw and he gets there. That's called poker. We are talking things like running set into set or getting most of your chips over the line a 93.6% favourite in an SPT semi vs Ace high with A-A and still losing (UL Giant).
Seriously, this isn't just a section to vent and rant about one pair getting turned over. If you do feel the need to post that kind of hand (and I really, really don't think you should), at least keep them in one thread.
Is it me or do the short stack shoves always hit a miracle hand against me when Im the big stack with AA or similar? I always seem to hit a full house myself when short stacked and shove all in with my A2 lol. This happens to me live aswell so it could mean we live in a matrix and the matrix is just feckin with us.
Comments
By new year's day (2013) - i had established a very significant sample of data which show a higher bad beat scenario than would be statsitcially viable. The difference was significant enough that winning with the sklansky group 1 cards when dealt could be considered equal to losing with the same cards. This can be considered an outlier in correlation terms.
In dealt hole cards, sky dealt so significantly lower valued cards and combinations of cards that their RNG could be questioned (over those sample data).
However, the situation suddenly changed on new year's day when i made the mistake of commenting on the flaws in the RNG algorithm during a tournament in the chat box to another player. Within 3 hands, and for the next 250 hands my data showed a complete reversal with a very very high average dealt hole card value and 100% hit on the board (even with group 2 cards). That's a 100% hit in 250 hands where every hand hit a match on the board. Also - there were zero bad beats for any of my hands. In the last hand of the tournament in heads up, my opponent's A high hand was bad beat by my K high hand.
I also played cash tables and heads up cash tables and had exactly the same high value dealt hole cards and zero bad beats. Almost as if a switch had been flicked.
I'm testing the data because I believe the algorithm they are using has a manual intervention capability or a skew to certain types of play/player.
I write algorithms for a living and I like to query the integrity of other algorithms. If a poker site like sky which is geared to maximum profit (7.5% and 10% rake which is actually very high comparatively) wants to make sure the algorithm contributes significantly to the profit them:
>> It must be close to random but it must favour the reckless play because this gets more money in the rake.
>> It must punish tight play and encourage loose play by restricting the hole card value to tight players thereby forcing them to be more aggressive with lower value cards.
>> It must have a high bad beat ratio because this encourages more inexperienced players to go all in with lesser cards thereby generating more rake, and kills good tight players because they don't contribute enough t
Does the sky poker algorithm do any of that? Not sure yet... If you were the boss of that poker site, and your salary was directly correlated to the profitability of the business - would you skew it? Probably not. Would anyone?
Here's a review off poker scout from January 2013 see if you can spot the similarities:
"I've been analysing sky for more than 10,000 hands (MMT) and over 7,000 hands (cash games) to establish whether the dealt hole cards and bad beats are correlated with the accepted statistics of both random draw (hole cards) and likely win odds for sklansky group 1 dealt hole cards versus actual wins with group 1 cards (bad beats) on the site.
By new year's day (2013) - i had established a very significant sample of data which show a higher bad beat scenario than would be statsitcially viable. The difference was significant enough that winning with the sklansky group 1 cards when dealt could be considered equal to losing with the same cards. This can be considered an outlier in correlation terms.
In dealt hole cards, sky dealt so significantly lower valued cards and combinations of cards that their RNG could be questioned (over those sample data).
However, the situation suddenly changed on new year's day when i made the mistake of commenting on the flaws in the RNG algorithm during a tournament in the chat box to another player. Within 3 hands, and for the next 250 hands my data showed a complete reversal with a very very high average dealt hole card value and 100% hit on the board (even with group 2 cards). That's a 100% hit in 250 hands where every hand hit a match on the board. Also - there were zero bad beats for any of my hands. In the last hand of the tournament in heads up, my opponent's A high hand was bad beat by my K high hand.
It's almost like it's word for word the same......oh wait it is! Plagarise much do you?!
http://www.pokerscout.com/AllReviews.aspx?id=608
well I think you should, far prefer reading someone being honest and writing what they think than some pc person full of self importance saying " well that's poker"
Good luck with that.