|
| Author |
Message |
palgal
High Card
Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 4
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 11:47 am Post subject: Where is your eveidence? |
 |
|
| griffinlord wrote: |
| palgal wrote: |
| When you compare this online action to the poker rooms there is no question that the strings of bad beats you see on full tilt are far more than you will see in live action. I have to disagree with the naysayers that thee people don't know their odds. |
Standard reply 1: where's your evidence?
The common answer is that you are relying on your memory and experience. In prior threads it has been pointed out that human memory is horribly flawed.
I mentioned quants in my earlier message. These folks live and breath numbers and look constantly at what is going on from a numbers point of view. They don't rely on their fallible human memory...they have tons of data. They aren't complaining about rigging. |
| Quote: |
Where is your evidence of these facts? I would like to see these experts numbers on the percentage of times the post flop favorite get's beat compared to the actual odds of that happening. I would rest my case if those stats are available. Otherwise we can bith have opinions while neither of us have the facts. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
palgal
High Card
Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 11:47 am Post subject: Where is your eveidence? |
|
|
| griffinlord wrote: |
| palgal wrote: |
| When you compare this online action to the poker rooms there is no question that the strings of bad beats you see on full tilt are far more than you will see in live action. I have to disagree with the naysayers that thee people don't know their odds. |
Standard reply 1: where's your evidence?
The common answer is that you are relying on your memory and experience. In prior threads it has been pointed out that human memory is horribly flawed.
I mentioned quants in my earlier message. These folks live and breath numbers and look constantly at what is going on from a numbers point of view. They don't rely on their fallible human memory...they have tons of data. They aren't complaining about rigging. |
| Quote: |
Where is your evidence of these facts? I would like to see these experts numbers on the percentage of times the post flop favorite get's beat compared to the actual odds of that happening. I would rest my case if those stats are available. Otherwise we can bith have opinions while neither of us have the facts. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
icebox55414
High Card
Joined: 10 Oct 2007
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That is one hellofa sensationalist claim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canadian327
High Card
Joined: 24 Mar 2008
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:04 pm Post subject: Bad Beats |
|
|
| I am not going to complain about my play, heck I may be a bad player. However, the bad beats on this site are incredible. I understand that players go on runs, I have been on both sides of these runs. I started with the min buy in and have been playing with it for about 3 months up and down. I will not be re-buying when it is gone. I am tired of the bad beats, this and other sites are notorious for. Have fun all you good and bad players, but do not count me in for much longer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nolimitholdme
Full House
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 184
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| You guys just don't know full tilt's underlying stradegies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drattt
High Card
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
OK, so here's stats for you. I started playing on line 5 years ago with $20. I played very low limits and worked my way up. After 3 years I was ahead by about $6,000 and was playing $50 sng several times a day. I was not making money every day, or even every week or month, but over all I was playig well and making money.
Two years ago the bad beats started. I started keeping a spreadhseet of my all ins. My cards, the other guys cards, what the board was at the time we went all in, the percentage chance of winning the hand based on Carnegie Mellon's odds calculator. Over 650 all in hands I was the stronger hand 62% of the time. Statisticaly I should have won 53% of the time. In actual results I won only 39% of the time.
Yes, variance is very high in poker, but THAT large a variance over THAT many hands is completely out of whack with statistical analysis by several orders of magnitude. A two year losing streak when I am consistantly in with the stronger hand almost 2/3 of the time is totaly out of range of variance. I don't have any evidence to suggest that FT is doing this in purpose, but I have LOTS of evidence to suggest that there is something "not right" with the RNG, and that it started about 2 years ago.
Over the last week or so I was in 22 sng's and went out, on the bubble, on a bad beat, 20 times. Again, variance is high, but that is simply out of this world odds wise. I've sent an e-mail complaining to FT, but at the end of the day, I'm done. I'm taking my money out and I'm not playing this site again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drattt
High Card
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
furthermore...it occurs to me that when I have made the money, it has mostly BEEN on a bad beat. The few times I have won in heads up these last two years I have one by dishing out a bad beat as often as I won with stronger cards. That's not statistical, I haven't gone through the spreadsheet to see if my memory serves me correctly, but I believe that to be true. Which brings up an interesting point.
It is not in FT's interest to make good players lose. But it IS in FT's interest to give bad players the occassional exciting win to make them think their luck has turned and encourage them to keep playing. After all, bad players play by luck and if they think their luck has "changed" they will keep throwing money in. So biasing the RNG to hand out bad beats would keep the bad players playing for longer. And that IS in FT's interest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beanpot
Three of a Kind
Joined: 02 Feb 2008
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 12:57 pm Post subject: Online Poker Forum - Full Tilt Bad Beats |
|
|
To all you FTP lemmings! What are the chances that there are 34 left in a 2,700 person free roll (nothing to do with it) to lose twice in a row once to Quad aces when you are holding Kk and the very next hand you are holding 66 and lose to Quad 5's. Oh, if I forgot, let me put my usual caveat of kiss my fat arse.. I have a lot of fun so stop defending the indefensible you bungholes, er sorry lemmings, same thing.. any resemblance betwen real poker and FTP is purely coincidental.. You have no idea how much I want to tear a tissue.. My freaking dog is even 3 miles down the road after the second set of quads hit.. Anybody care to walk out into the parking lot with me? toodles.. Ragging on someone for their spelling really pisses me off more than a bad beat. You smug bastard as if you have never hit a typo before. OOOOOh I might be given a time out...
The Beanpot  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sixandfour
Royal Flush
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
Posts: 550
Location: Far from home
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 1:01 pm Post subject: Re: Where is your eveidence? |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Where is your evidence of these facts? I would like to see these experts numbers on the percentage of times the post flop favorite get's beat compared to the actual odds of that happening. I would rest my case if those stats are available. Otherwise we can bith have opinions while neither of us have the facts. |
| sixandfour wrote: |
| guinessrocks wrote: |
Hi sixandfour,
I decided to write my own short perl script (maybe 50 to 100 lines of code at most) to parse thru my hand history and count how many of each type of hand occurred while I was playing. I wasn't sure how to handle some of the cases in my script so I came online to see if anyone could offer some help. I found one of your old posts (quoted below) and I think you might be the right person to help me finish my program.
As I was reading thru the hand history, I noticed that the information it provides is incomplete. For example, if the last person folded before the river, it doesn't always say what cards anyone held in their hand. Furthermore, if there are several ppl at a table, usually only a couple of hands are shown at the end of the hand. So, by parsing thru the hand history, I am only getting an incorrect count of all of the different types of hands that are in play. I'm guessing that some of the higher hands are shown with more frequency in the hand history than the lower ones because the person who wins the hand usually will have something good and will more likely stay till the end.
My question is, how did you handle these cases? How did you count them and how did you statistically take into account the hands that were not shown? Can you provide the statistics that you calculated? I'm curious as to how you decided to parse thru the hand history to accumlate your stats.
Can you also provide the code you used or provide some of the logic that you used to calculate the statistics that you are citing in your post?
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! |
I'd love to say that I went through an elaborate sampling of all the shown hands, but that simply isn't practical. And as it is, I'm not simply running instances of the starting hands in relation to each other in regards to their odds preflop, but rather at the point when the money went in (i.e. the all in). If you want to track the relative success of particular hands in general, most poker trackers will do that for you, and some of the forumers here will be able to recommend one (mine sucks). What I did was simply ran a search in the hand histories for the words "and is all in", and in every instance (if there was a call or calls) I calculated the odds of the hands involved winning at the time the money went in. Then I put it into the appropriate group (i.e. 5% range, such as 55-60% or 70-75%), and ran a tally of wins and losses. When all the raw data was entered, I simply figured out the winning % in each group from the win/loss tallies and compared that to the range of the group. I can't tell you how to go about doing it an easier way... this was just plain old fashioned counting manually. It was needless to say very time consuming, but what I learned made the effort quite worthwhile. Had I not done this, I probably would not play online at all anymore, or be a contributor to this forum.
Here are the results I came up with:
sample size = 3957 hands
0-5%: 2/48 or 4.17%
5-10%: 9/124 or 7.26%
10-15%: 29/230 or 12.61%
15-20%: 51.5/270 or 19.07%
20-25%: 63/298 or 21.14%
25-30%: 74/301 or 24.58%
30-35%: 83/260 or 31.92%
35-40%: 101/265 or 38.11%
40-45%: 114.5/279 or 41.04%
45-50%: 137/276 or 49.64%
50-55%: 138/263 or 52.47%
55-60%: 144.5/251 or 57.57%
60-65%: 141/231 or 61.04%
65-70%: 153/222 or 68.92%
70-75%: 140/194 or 72.16%
75-80%: 128/164 or 78.05%
80-85%: 97.5/113 or 86.28%
85-90%: 77/88 or 87.5%
90-95%: 51/54 or 94.44%
95-100%: 26/26 or 100.00%
There are only 2 cases in which the actual percentages do not fall into the proper range (25-30% and 80-85%), but are both close and attributable to the variance of the sample size. I can't emphasize enough how shocked I was once I did this... even as I was in the final process of doing the percentage calculations I couldn't believe how everything was coming out just like it's supposed to. It shows your mind can really play tricks on you if you let it, and how a few bad memories can skew your perception of reality.
I hope that helps in some way. I'm sorry I can't help you with the technical aspects of writing the necessary code, but I did it the caveman way.
Hopefully one of the more computer savvy forumers can help you in some way in your endeavor. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sixandfour
Royal Flush
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
Posts: 550
Location: Far from home
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 1:23 pm Post subject: Re: Online Poker Forum - Full Tilt Bad Beats |
|
|
| beanpot wrote: |
To all you FTP lemmings! What are the chances that there are 34 left in a 2,700 person free roll (nothing to do with it) to lose twice in a row once to Quad aces when you are holding Kk and the very next hand you are holding 66 and lose to Quad 5's. Oh, if I forgot, let me put my usual caveat of kiss my fat arse.. I have a lot of fun so stop defending the indefensible you bungholes, er sorry lemmings, same thing.. any resemblance betwen real poker and FTP is purely coincidental.. You have no idea how much I want to tear a tissue.. My freaking dog is even 3 miles down the road after the second set of quads hit.. Anybody care to walk out into the parking lot with me? toodles.. Ragging on someone for their spelling really pisses me off more than a bad beat. You smug bastard as if you have never hit a typo before. OOOOOh I might be given a time out...
The Beanpot |
The odds of quads happening twice in a row is 214163.27:1. The odds on you being in both hands depends on you.
The odds of the same person getting AA twice in a row are 48841:1. Ive seen it happen to other people twice, and once it happened to me.
The odds of me getting Stevens Johnson Syndrome are 1.5 million to 1. Happened last month (nothing serious, so no sympathies needed. It's already gone.).
the odds of me getting any 3 random hands (suit sensitive) are 18,651,791,808:1. I do that every 3 hands I play.
So keep thinking things are wrong because they're improbable. When you do anything enough times, the improbable becomes an eventual certainty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Riddim
Moderator
Joined: 04 Dec 2005
Posts: 8057
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Since this old thing got bumped I might as well move it to stories where it belongs. Newsflash to all the people who are long term losers: It's not because the game is rigged, it's because you suck at playing it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keegs22
Royal Flush
Joined: 03 Apr 2008
Posts: 579
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Riddim wrote: |
| It's not because the game is rigged, it's because you suck |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MichaelPC1974
Two Pair
Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 58
Location: Sheffield, UK
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Riddim wrote: |
| Since this old thing got bumped I might as well move it to stories where it belongs. Newsflash to all the people who are long term losers: It's not because the game is rigged, it's because you suck at playing it. |
Why are people so fcking smug ? They always give it the big 'I am' ..... instead of listening to people or even, more simply, just not say anything, they feel the need to ridicule.
Love to see them ridicule to someone's face instead of on the t'internet !
God bless |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Riddim
Moderator
Joined: 04 Dec 2005
Posts: 8057
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MichaelPC1974 wrote: |
Why are people so fcking smug ? They always give it the big 'I am' ..... instead of listening to people or even, more simply, just not say anything, they feel the need to ridicule.
Love to see them ridicule to someone's face instead of on the t'internet !
God bless |
Yeah, I have no idea why people act like that. It's so annoying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Starvingwriter
Full House
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 174
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 2:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| keegs22 wrote: |
| Riddim wrote: |
| It's not because the game is rigged, it's because you suck |
|
+1 for stone cold honesty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
