![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Deep breath...
Chris queries: (JG's responses in bold)
First, what's a bot?
Bot is short for robot, but is actually just a program. The term bot probably comes from some anthropomorphization of its tasks.
Second, to play online anywhere you have to open an account via credit card and give them an address and social security number, and of course to get a credit card you have to have a social security number. In addition to the programming, to avoid ready detection wouldn't you also need to create an entirely fictional person, complete with credit history and different address? How easy is it to do this?
All true, but the phony identity thing is a solved problem. Ask the pro and semipro BJ players. You could park accounts in friends' credit cards, use wife's maiden name, etc etc. Remember the SEC doesn't even investigate insider trading at the nickel and dime level; no one is going around monitoring this.
And even then, multiple identities doesn't have to necessarily mean multiple instantiations of my personality. It could mean a collaboration between say Bret in LA, Jim in Phoenix, Michael in Las Vegas and Tom in Davis. All of us could run the same program from our accounts but (at most) only one of us need be monitoring. With everybody running a server on their own computer when its their turn to babysit, the client programs telnet to the others' various ISPs and play from there.
Third, let's say one could obtain such multiple identities. If one were a crook, it seems to me that there's a fair amount of money to be made doing business with banks and other lenders, such as by having one of your alter egos borrow a lot of money and jump off a cliff. In other words, would colluding in a 5-10 online game be an efficient use of this ability?
If one were a crook, yes. But there are specific laws against doing so and there is an instrument of the law that may actually enforce these laws. Compare this with online poker colluding. The only laws on online gambling say it isn't legal. Even if there were some parallel with real-life enforcement, what is the real-life enforcement policy for colluding in a legal cardroom? There is none. So, the fact that credit card fraud is illegal isn't very germane to this situation as 1) I don't need to use fraudulent credit cards, 2) There is no law regarding play on electronic casinos, 3) There is no enforcement mechanism anyway. So in summary, I wouldn't compare colluding in an internet 5-10 game with credit card fraud which is definitely illegal and definitely enforced.
Fourth, if I had a record of every hand played in every game, the results of each game, the running totals of every player and, or course, a record of which players have ever played against each other, how hard would it be to spot collusion? In fact, wouldn't it be pretty easy not only to prove collusion once suspected, but to randomly sample winning players to see if they're colluding? Couldn't I then be able to say, empirically, whether colluding is a problem and if so how big a problem? (If this ability is real, of course that's not the end of the inquiry, but it puts to rest the idea that intolerable levels of collusion are inevitable).
I think the record of every hand wouldn't be as useful as you perceive. For even a break-even or moderately winning player to benefit would only take a few strategy alterations a week. I state that it would be impossible to cull this information from mountains of data, even if you knew a priori exactly who was colluding, which you wouldn't. And as for patterns of game makeup, I don't think you'd be able to draw reasonable conclusions. In real life, I'd say every time I sit down to play, say, 20-40 HoldEm at the local casino, that at least six out of my nine opponents are people with whom I've previously played, and usually on the order of hundreds to thousands, yes thousands, of hours. Often it's nine out of nine. We bet the hell out of each other, all the while talking about family, sports, golf and the market, but there is no collusion. Any findings of collusion on the basis of proximity would be meaningless.
Fifth, regardless of whether the online casino is honest or dishonest, wouldn't they have a strong incentive to prevent collusion? Under either type of ownership, wouldn't the colluders, in effect, be stealing from the house either directly or by driving away business?
This assumes that the house could detect subtle collusion, which I don't grant. I'll address the other part in 6.
Sixth, how would a dishonest online casino maintain a competitive advantage over honest providers? Let's say, for example, that a crooked provider cheats the players to the extent equal to doubling the rake. How long would it take for comparative shoppers to notice? Wouldn't the critical mass of players then gravitate to the better casino, leaving the crooked one to whither? (Perhaps more likely, the players at the crooked casino would bust out faster and harder, while the more honest one would be able to retain a healthy stable of regulars). To help facilitate this process, wouldn't it make sense for the honest providers to send their own players into the games of other casinos, computerize the results to determine if they're getting cheated, and then trumpet the results if they are?
First and foremost, most gamblers are stupid.
How many people can beat a 20% vig at the track? Not many. Yet they line up to get in. Granted, I've been in a small home poker game where one guy won all the money and killed the game(I saw it coming, but was moving soon anyway so screw em). This just isn't so for casinos in large markets. And the whole world is a pretty big market. And the marginal difference four very successful colluders can make isn't so great so that any individual team will break the bank. Certainly, an infinite number of teams SHOULD, which is exactly why I won't play internet poker unless I'm a member of one of those teams.
Second, this assumes that losing gamblers will be able to determine with precision that their losses are significant and attributable to differences to actual collusion in the casino. But given the distribution of gamblers on the planet who for some reason or another now avoid, say, the Mirage after greater than average losses there What percentage are doing so because they were "unlucky" there, or are doing so because of minute variations in deck penetration? What I'm getting that, is that even if the colluders make a significant dent on the games, and even if the losing gamblers actually try to make rational choices based on their losses, the number that do so attributing specifically to collusion may or may not have any bearing with the number that were actually colluded against. It's asking a bit much to define the disenfranchised gambler as rational enough to make these decisions based on razor-thin judgment calls regarding colluding, but shopping his losing action to another casino in a rational manner. If he were truly rational, he wouldn't be gambling with the worst of it, or he wouldn't be playing.
Third, this position assumes that one particular casino is at a disadvantage due to colluders. As I see it, modulo any unique enforcement strategies which I've yet to seen presented, all casinos will be affected equally.
All this is not to say that the game cannot be beaten. Many people probably do so honestly. I'm just saying that the drawbacks dissuade me from partaking.
And what's the difference between this and "regular" gambling?
It's just much more difficult for flesh and blood people with faces to collude in real life cardrooms where two new guys on the block stand out much more than say "PocketAces" and "gutshot" pseudonymic idenities online. Eventually somebody stumbles onto something they recognize from a different room.
JG
In the 10/20 Hold'em game at Hollywood Park I can identify five people who consistently make $25plus an hour over years and years of play. All five of these people are losers at the Paradise Poker Internet site after weeks and weeks of steady play. Isn't this enough for people to sit up and take notice? Something is wrong........wrong in an underhanded way. If you are a winning player in live action and have encountered bizarre results, I believe 'bad luck' may not be the reason. BEWARE!
Tell it to Springfied & Alger !!!!!! They have ALL the answers!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't have any answers.I argued with Prock and alger before.That's all.
Catherine:
I have no doubt that the facts you're reporting are absolutely true, but what are those of us that have played online even longer and have seen nothing wrong supposed to say? This is my attempt at a reply to your intelligently-expressed concerns.
For the record, I should first say that I have never seen anything that suggests cheating at Planet Poker or Paradise, where I've spent most of my time. No collusion, no hands or patterns of hands for which random distribution couldn't account, no players playing as if they knew which cards would come. Not a single instance. Which is more than I can say for my casino experience (I've seen guys betting the pot light, players pretending that they've bet when they haven't, and so forth, the usual petty cheating and shot-taking). And I love live action poker. (I should also say that I've seen some deliberate all-ins online, at least I used to, and I'm pleased to say that my hope that the technology would correct that problem seems to have come to pass.)
Given all the money to be made providing online poker, isn't there a substantial economic incentive for at least someone to deal a clean game? Or do you think that the very concept of online poker is tinged with corruption?
Also, if the games were so rigged that competent players couldn't beat them for any amount, which is what you suggested above, wouldn't that be possible to detect over time through some form of surveillance. I don't know, it just seems to me that watching a thousand or so hours of an even occasionally crooked game would result in patterns being detected. Of course, I know that none of us can do that, but isn't it theoretically possible to do?
If so, how could Paradise or Planet or the others prevent themselves from being blackmailed?
My personal opinion is that online poker can be a great and wonderful thing for millions of players to whom decent cardrooms are either unavlailable of inconvenient. Bronchial and disabled people, for example, and those like me without the luxury of living in CA. So if it's not there already, I think the question is: what should be done to get it there? That's why I think that accusations of cheating that (unlike yours) have no factual basis at all are so irresponsible. (I also find a lot of them to be insultingly and insufferably stupid, but I guess that's my problem). And the accusations of cheating that have some factual basis, like yours, deserve to be scrutinized endlessly. But I don't mean flaming or personal attacks, just scrutiny, exploration, consideration, skepticism and, if warranted, criticism or disagreement. Do you agree?
BTW, how did you get so far down here?
(Also, how many players on average see the flop in a typical loose $10-20 game at Hollywood Park? (I'm including all the hands where nobody takes the flop)).
Having recently heard of 2+2 I wondered if you or Mr. Springfield have ever said what names you play under at planet & paradise? Your business, but I would like to know them if you have. Thx!!
I play under the name of "Marco," mostly 5-10 but some 3-6 and 10-20, about 10-15 hrs/week, mostly on weekends, and a bit less recently. As for Ray, you'll have to ask him. I'm sure he'd also be interested to learn that someone thinks we're of one mind.:-)
I played under rayfish. Chris and I had heated arguments here. I grew to respect his opinions. I quit online poker because of some of the same experiences that you complain about. I've overposted here. Maybe that is why you think I defend online poker. If you check the archives you will find that I was the biggest critic for some time. At this point, I believe that Paradise Poker is straighter than PlanetPoker. I may play there again in the future(Paradise that is), I will never play at Planet Poker again.
I am wrong!! Checking back I see you were of different opinions a lot. I was raised around gambling and I have seen almost everything, cold decks, marked cards,loaded dice, magnets, mechanics, peep holes,cameras, ear gizmos & some I can't think of. I quit 5K winner at Planet so I can see how I sound nuts! The bad beats don't bother me but the good beats were perfect time after time after time. Always 5 or 6 bets. My gut tells me PP got me & it has about a 995 batting average!! I have a 10th grade education with a PHD in instinct, common sense & street sense.
Yep there is something wrong.
The players at Hollywood Park cheating! That's the only possible solution, since they can't seem to make money in the more even playing field of online poker.
;)
- Andrew
There are several possible explanations for this:
1) The players in question are very good at reading tells in a live games, perhaps even subconsiously, and cannot use this skill in online play.
2) The players in question are very good at game selection in live games, but have not learned how to do this in online play yet. In live games they may be able to pick good tables by just the appearance of the players at the table. Online you have to watch the play carefully to decide if the table is good.
3) The online games may be different (tighter or loser) than the live games they are use to and they have not made the adjustment yet.
4) The different playing conditions for online poker may be affecting their play. If they are sitting at home watching TV, for example, while they play, they may just not be paying enough attention to the game to gather the information they need about other players. In the card club, with fewer distractions, they pay more attention to what is going on at the table.
Well, I am a winning player in live action and I am a losing player on PP. I am down about $2000 having played somehere between 100-150 hours. I attribute my results to various factors:
1. Poor play on my part.
2. My unfamiliarity with Omaha High which is where I have lost most of my loot.
3. Better qulaity of play in 10-20 HE than you will find in most 10-20 live games. If guys like Alger, Prock, 3 Bet Brett etc are playing PP regularly, you would imagine the games to be pretty tough and they generally are from what I have seen.
4. Possible collusion by some of the players. I have not seen any overt collusion such as colluder No.1 raising with nothing to fatten Colluder no. 2's stacks because he knows that colluder No. 2 has got the goods. However, it would be naive to think that there is not at least some subtler forms of cheating going on. For example, if I were playing Omaha and knew what 4 cards my friend across town had already folded, you can imagine the advantage I could have during the play of the hand. That said, I would think that this would account for just a small percentage of my loss.
Biggest reason:
5. E-tilt.
I find that it is 10 times easier to tilt on-line than it is to tilt in live play. I honestly can't remember when I last tilted in live play. On PP, I have lost about $1500 purely on tilt. I attribute my E-tilt to the fact that I have noy yet tasted success on PP. In live play, if I lose...well, no biggie...my past experience tells me that I will get it back and then some. Not so on PP. I have no past experience to rely upon.
As for cheating orchestrated by PP...get real guys...running an honest game will reap them millions. Running a crooked game make make them a little more but will also expose themselves to being discovered. You really believe that they would take that risk? Why in the world would they do anything that might kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?
E-TILT. I love it. Yes, E-tilt is real. I too can't remember the last time I tilted in a live game. Someone hits a runner runner perfect, at the casino and I lick my lips. Yesterday, after the upteenth suck-out, I couldn't believe how easy it was to get hyper-aggressive... 'raise me?!, take that luck-sack'. It's sooo easy to just click the mouse, re-raise, re-raise, aaauuuugh.
Today, I finally went over +$3000, fifteen days after I'd anticipated it would happen, no thanks to E-tilt, a very dangerous trap to which I am too suceptible. spitball
In my humble opinion, I don't agree that the people running the rooms have that much to lose by "fixing" some of the games. In this age of technology, it would seem very easy for the room to put in players at different times and make sure they get the cards to win. They can change the player names and profiles as much as they want. It would seem to me that it would be pretty hard to prove this was happening, but the times I played the same 3 people always seemed to suck out and win.
I agree with the previous posts as to why the winning live players might be losing online, but I too couldn't believe my continual run of bad luck of being drawn out on after hitting my cards on the flop.
Finally someone who has admitted to losing a lot of money on Paradise. Most of what I hear from posts here are how well they are doing or how many checks they are cashing. I just can't seem to believe that everyone that posts here is winning on Paradise or Planet. Be honest people.
Personally, I have lost around $2,000 on Paradise since I signed up 6 weeks ago. I keep saying to myself "ok this is the last deposit, if I lose this, I'm quitting". Famous last words. It's so easy to enter the credit card and say "I'll pay it later". Until I get the credit card bill and it shows four $400 deposits to Paradise, and I have $17 left in my Paradise account, with around $50 in the pending cc fee refund.
E-tilt is a serious problem, as well as not paying attention. Surfing the web and waiting for the little *beep* that tells you it's your turn to act keeps you from having any idea who is doing what at the table. I am very guilty of this.
I can win in live games up to $10-$20 at the Taj, but can't seem to do a damn thing online. The suckouts are killing me. In my experiences, the $10-$20 on Paradise is about the equivalent of a $3-$6 no foldem live game. It's like a completely different game.
C
In my post "I'll say it again" I got flamed (as expected) But CB hit the nail on the head. These online games are different than any live game I've ever played. Until I got "internet smart" I was down about 2K. Thank goodness I figured out how to play online. I don't beleive there is any cheating by Paradise. I have run into one sistuation where I suspected collusion. Two guys from the same city playing in an odd way. One made quite a bit while the other stayed even most of the night. They both left the table within minutes of each other.
Again I say....Let the flames fly. I am happy cashing checks. FINALLY !!!
you didn't get flamed, and you didn't answer any questions about what you learned. If you call this mild mannered thread flaming, then you've got a thin skin my friend. Perhaps you don't share your winning ways for some ulterior motive?
You are correct, I am not sharing my winning methods. You are also correct that this thread had no/little flames. Prior post burned my butt good. But thats OK, I understand and felt the same while on the losing side of the game.
I have a big test coming up. My first live casino poker since adjusting my style to win at Paradise Poker. I am very interested to give internet methods a try in a real casino. I fear the game will seem painfully slow and may be unprepared to fight the boredom. Speed is adictive, be it a car, or computer processor. Fewer hands an hour may have a big effect on the overall outcome. We will see...
To any one who feels inclined.....Flame On.
I guess the point of your post was to point out then that winning is possible. I believe that. I've posted many winning sessions and have cashed a few checks. In my $1200 losing streak, about $500 was probablt tilt. I took a lot of successive bad beats. On Planet Poker, I had top two appear to win the pot. I had top two. The "winner" had a busted flush. My screen reported that 2 pair won and awarded the pot to the other gentlemen. He then snidely remarked "did I give you a bad beat". I'll say it was a bad beat. The pot was awarded to someone with nothing! Personally, I prefer live play.
Now now, Ray, we don't know if he was being snide or not. In fact, he could have just been being honest about the whole thing-- it was, after all, a horrible, horrible bad beat. BTW, the worst bad beat of all time was described by FossilMan about 10-11 months ago on the old exchange forum. If you ever have the time you may want to look it up. Although I would say that your beat ranks a very, very close second.
Well, Joe, that's just fine. That you're winning, I mean. However, it isn't entirely clear just why any of us should care whether your winning or not. I don't know what all this talk is of 'different methods', but until you step forward and, uh, illustrate these methods everyone here is going to righfully accuse you of spreading bunk all over this forum. It's a little like Nixon telling the country he has a solution to winning the Vietnam war, but not revealing his 'method' (which, as it turned out, was esclalation) unless the public voted him in. In other words, if you don't share then nobody's really interested.
Have you read my goofy post on the very subject of online cheating? You owe it to yourself... I love the part about e-tilt. Now, I'll be the first to admit that I can bitch a little and get pissy (and, yes, sulk a bit) when I'm losing in live action, but it doesn't affect my play. At all. In fact, I think I'm about as tilt-proof as they get in live action games. But online is a different beast. I have some theories on this (surprise surprise) but I think the biggest reason for e-tilt is that you see your cards one at a time. Your on the button, the first card is a beautiful Ah, then the dreaded 3c sweeps in a ruins your hand. Once or twice is O.K., but when it happens 26 times in a row you suddenly find the mouse inching towards the 'call' bar when you've got KTo UTG.. and you know where that ends up, flopping top pair and getting your ass handed to you. A few of these and you're stuck so bad you can't get out. As far as the overall game goes... I have my suspicions as to the honesty of the games, but if you put a gun to my head and told me to decide whether or not I thought they were crooked, I'd probably say they weren't. Like you say, I think the major reason for my grotesque lack of success online is that I simply don't play well when I can't see my opponents. I'm beginning to wonder if my game isn't more intuitive than I originally suspected. An example-- I'm in a live action 10-20 game, I call UTG in a straddle pot, four callers. Flop Q75 rainbow. BB leads out, mucked to me, I raise, field behind me mucks, and when the dust settles I win after being shown an unimproved K5s by the BB. Now I'm bringing this up to show how great I am, and in fact I don't make this kind of play all that often. But, somehow I just 'knew' that I was ahead, so I raised. And it seems like I 'know' stuff at the table quite often when I have no empiricle evidence to support my position. More often than not I'm right, which is why I'm a winning player. But, this doesn't get it done online. And there is probably a breed of players (Chris Alger seems to be one) who's game has more of a logical and analytical foundation. Perhaps these kinds of players have a game which is better suited for online play.
My personal experience online (about 450 hours) is hardly spectacular and I'm currently way down from a decent high point. My hourly at 5-10 is right around 9.50 after 300 hours, but I might not have played enough for that to be reliable. And I evidently suck at $10-20. I'm also a net loser at O-8, Omaha and hilo stud.
E-tilt. If you have a big stack of chips in live action and one hand puts a dent in it, it can have a cautionary effect. Online it's just a number on a screen, so you can play three hands aggressively and lose before you realize that you're "stack" is nearly gone. Shit happens faster online.
I think online poker functions best as a learning tool. The hand histories are an incredible boon.
And there is probably a breed of players (Chris Alger seems to be one) who's game has more of a logical and analytical foundation.
There's probably something to that. I've played more hands online than I've played in live play. I spent over a year playing on IRC before I ever tried the for cash sites.
I am totally comfortable with not seeing my opponents, and I am generally in control of my emotions, and have something to do which doesn't distract me from the game.
But I have had problems with e-tilt too, especially in head-to-head games -- I think I mentioned that I'm down over $1000 in h2h action :(
- Andrew
GD,
I too believe that I must rely on tells, intuition etc. a lot more than I think. In live games, as you say, there are several occasions when you get that unmistakable "feeling" that so and so has a weak hand, so and so has a monster etc. On-line, I seem to be "lost" out there. Some guys (Dan Hanson is one) adjust very well to on-line play. He is able to analyze a hand objectively much like doing an analysis of a hand on the Forum.
However you slice it, the fact remains that I have not had much success on Paradise (thankfully, I have been doin' quite well in the live games). That said, I will be back on-line soon...and intend to play better... I will report back in a couple of months.
BTW, it is time that you joined the sissy ranks and started using paragraphs:)
Re: The Paragraphs-- I couldn't agree more. To be honest I don't know why I got away from them; I made reference to a Joycean 'stream of consciousness' style in an earlier thread, and for reasons unbeknownst to me I've tried to apply this to my posts. But why? I'm not writing Ulysses here, so I might as well get off it. BTW, Rick complained about the same thing on the HE forum, so you do have company. It's a funny thing, applying intuition to the poker table. I never thought I really did it, but after playing online for a while I'm sure that I do. I get these guy raising me online, and usually I can hack my way through the brush, but at Paradise Poker I get scared, lonely and lost. It's almost as if I've never played the game before. I can't put my finger on it, but I must pick up some kind of subliminal vibes from players in live action-- which in itself is odd, since I'm not a horribly observant player. However, I know that I can attribute much of my losses to flat out bad luck. Take this one (I hate to whine, but I can't help it). I've got AQ on the button, it's raised, there's a cold call, I call(??), a blind or two comes in, and we are treated to a flop of AJT (rainbow). Raiser bets, cold caller pre-flop calls, I raise, all muck except the caller. Turn-J. Caller checks, I bet, he check raises me all in. River- 3. He flips over pocket 3's and drags it. Now I've taken some horrible, horrible beats in my day, but I'm fairly sure this is the first time I've had someone PUT ME ALL IN (so they must know I'm going to call) with an underpair on a board like that. You take a about 8 or 9 of these beats, and it does make you wonder.
There's a book out there called SUPERLEARNING 2000. Some interesting stuff, especially if you have children. There are sections that deal with how we pick up information with senses we don't normally think of as being used for the job, like your ears and nose working like a kind of radar (it's been awhile). To some extent it all makes sense, especially in the context of a live poker game. You can smell your oponants fear, literally, though you may not be consiously aware of smelling anything other then smoke and b.o. Somewhere in your head a voice is urging you to 'raise!He's got squat.'
All our years of fine-tuning our table-radar are useless on-line. It's a tough adjustment. spitball
So these dudes have been playing for years at HP and must have 1000's of hours for their results to work themselves out.
But only been playing on PP for a few months and expect consistent results?
I'm sure there are 5 total fish out there who loose 25 hour at live play that are up on PP in the short term...
I had a strange experience with Paradise Poker. All of a sudden one day I could no longer use player chat to communicate with other players.
I wrote support at PP, and they replied that "This is a very rare glitch that happens if there has been complete inactivity in your transaction history for a long time. In order to fix this, I have credited your account $1... this will should (sic) re-enact the chat feature. Please test to see if it now works, if not log off and then back on."
In fact, I once again DO have the ability to chat.
For the life of me, I cannot IMAGINE what one would have to do with the other! It makes me wonder what ELSE might be keyed off the lack of activity in my transaction history.
I have had the same experience that others have reported at PP: a very successful start, followed by nothing but rotten, rotten cards for months!
Any thoughts? Anyone else had the same experience?
Hard to believe buy I jumped off $12'000 Winner on PP from Oct 1 Till Dec 1. Since then It is hard to imagin the losing streak! At one point I had AA & KK beat 17 times in a row. I cashed out 5K winner & Quit! All of this was at 10 & 20.I'm not whining or making any accusations but it does seem strange! I had 10 buddies join PP & 9 out of 10 had the same thing happen,although not to the same degree.
You guys are probably right !!! I deserve the name calling. My theroy is pure B S !!! There are never any patterns in online play. The cards are delt in a totally random manner. YOU, YOU, and YOU should play that way NO MATTER WHAT!!!
Now with that off my back.... Thanks for the donations today. See you in Paradise.
After setting Wilson Turbo Holdem to the passive player profile and playing a low limit match, it was very interesting to see the increase in players on the flop, the lack of folding in late rounds, and the sucking out with poor odds. If I had two pair - cracked, trips - cracked, top pair - cracked. Seems just like online poker. More to the point, what specifically do you do to adjust your play in these low limit suck out situations?
I have recently had some minor lung problems and can't spend my time in smoky casinos like I have been; so here I am joining Paradise Poker. I have been playing with play money so far, just to get used to the mechanisms - hold'em and O8. I'll be playing with real money pretty soon, probably in the lower limit hold'em and O8 games.
My dumb question is - is there cheating? (Ha Ha, only kidding, GD. I've been reading the threads.)
My real dumb question is - do posters here know each others' PP handles? I am starting off with an ID that any of you would recognize, and I think it will be nice if I recognize fellow 2+2 posters in the games, & be able to say hi. (It would probably also help me recognize games to avoid ! )
Dick
Reminder! Everyone should send in their picture to my gallery of 2+2 posters, which is at Dick's Poker Page. E-mail to me or send a regular photo to my snail mail address found at my contacts page. ...Dick
dannys
Danny S
I tend to agree, although in order of toughness I think it's still 10-20, 5-10 and 3-6, like you'd expect. There are just some tough (or maybe I just mean tight) 5-10 games that you need to avoid. I suspect it's because there are a lot of fairly capable 4-8, 5-10, and 6-12 players and also a lot of fish that prefer to play the bigger game.
I wouldn't stick with 3-6, though. An OK player can probably win more in 5-10, in part because the rake is less burdensome. I usually play 5-10 but if the game is tedious I leave.
A lot of people here keep mentining "the Rake". I think that only applies to a game with a finite amount of players.It is inconsequential in these games.Do not let the rake keep you out of those sweet low limit games.
Where can it be purchased online? How long before the bot version is available for HE?
Do you really think this will help you win. Playing poker is about "PLAYING POKER" you should be watching every hand and keeping track of the odds,hands to know who is making bad decisions at the table. Go play the slots if you really think this program will help you. Also what will happen when you are going to play live no bells there to help you out. This program is no more than a crutch for bad players.
MJ
I still haven't played online for over a month now, and I do not plan to play. From a psychological perspective, however, this program could condition players classically(pavlov) to play with only premium hands. In a live wild game(which in Colorado most low-limit poker is) it would be good training. Lack of discipline is the downfall of most poker plays, skilled or unskilled.
"Lack of discipline is the downfall of most poker plays, skilled or unskilled."
"Those that have the discipline take money from those that don't"
I agree 100% but discipline comes from within not from a "program" telling you that these starting cards are ok to play in this position. What about the discipline to fold the turn or the river if you miss your hand the program will not be there to save you then. I just think that if you can't remember a few good starting hand requirments then this program is going to create more of a problem that it will help.
But one aspect that is important is the discipline to watch the game even when you are not in the hand and pick up on how the others play. I find that when I am paying close attention to the game I am often able to pick up a couple of extra big bets calling down somebody who is obviously on tilt. That's what it is all about, a couple of extra big bets here and there.
Apparently a bot capable of making internet poker significantly much tougher will be available before a definitive analysis has been completed as to whether internet poker is even fair or not!
You think the online operators might be doing everything possible to take what they can while the taking is good?
So much for internet poker zillion customer potentional ensuring fairness.
(If you thought the games tended to be too tight and too aggressive as it is, just wait for rock-bot and his sure to evolve brother Einstein-bot.)
Not sure its as bad as it sounds.Last night there were 700+ players playing at Paradise.How many of these would use the Rock bot if they were even aware that it exists? If a small percentage use it,they would play tight anyway.Presumably,they would'nt be paying attention to the play at the table till the computer tells them that they're premium hand popped up.Once you read this play you fold.
I doubt the play money players -- half or more of the total -- would use rock-bot for solid starter card strategy. And such a program, at least for now, would only apply to HE. I estimate about a third of the total players play real money ring HE at Paradise Poker. So, of the 250 players playing real money ring HE on a busy night, how many would use rock-bot? I don't think it has to be a high percentage in order for it to be detrimental to players in search of good games. I've found that the dynamics of a game work such that a single loose player or a single tight player can make a huge difference in the quality of a game. If the momentum flows in the direction of increased tight play, I think you'll see fewer and fewer of the players playing who wouldn't use rock-bot in the first place. These type of players crave action and the action won't be available. Also much of your profit will come from players who are on tilt. A tool like rock-bot can only work to keep players off tilt. I think these small differences could have a big impact on the quality of the games.
all you need is 4 coumpters,4 ID"s ',4 differet e mail address 4 phone lines (my office)and sign on the same game, the only game you would not have edge would be the Heads Up
q
You have absolutely no idea how tough it is to design a 'bot that can play winning poker for real money against live opponents. There is a research group at the University of Alberta that has been trying to do this for years. This group has been highly successful in Artificial Intelligence in the past (they built Chinook, the best checkers playing program in the world), but poker is orders of magnitude more difficult. If anyone manages it, my money is on them. But even they are a long, long way off.
not real money, but Pokibot (their poker-playing robot) is ahead well over 100K playing 10-20 and 20-40 on IRC.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~games/poker/index.html
First, the 10-20 and 20-40 on IRC are way looser than normal, and second I don't believe that anyone on IRC is making a systematic attempt to uncover and exploit whatever weaknesses Pokibot has.
I'll send some E-mail to Darse at the U of A and see what he has to say about all this.
First, the 10-20 and 20-40 on IRC are way looser than normal, and second I don't believe that anyone on IRC is making a systematic attempt to uncover and exploit whatever weaknesses Pokibot has.
Have you read the papers? Have you played at Paradise Poker? It is way looser than normal as well. I think that if you were going to write a successful bot it would look a lot like Pokibot.
As far as how to exploit Pokibot, the best way is to play a strategy which causes Pokibot to think you play in a particular manner which is predictable and then when you've biased his model of you, pick particular occasions to use your these assumptions against him. Kind of like how you'd exploit a very observant opponent, which is exactly what Pokibot it.
- Andrew
I've played quite a lot at Paradise, but not for a few weeks now. Unless things have changed drastically, there's no way I could describe those games as "way looser than normal". In my experience, the low limit games are much, much tighter than your average low-limit casino game, and the 10-20 game is perhaps just slightly looser than average.
I just had a look at the current percentages on Paradise poker. Every single full game is hovering right around 30% callers. That's the blinds and one person. I wouldn't call that 'loose'.
Interestingly, the loosest game online at the moment is the 10-20, at 38% average callers.
Yes 30% is not a lot of callers. But 38% is. You have to remember that this number is not the average. Also, the low percentage is usually caused by one or two rocks. Once you identify them correctly, the other players play pretty loose.
I've seen players who consistently play 60% of their hands. That's loose.
- Andrew
As I understand it, the number is the percentage of players in each hand, averaged over the last 10 hands. So if there are 9 active players in the table and 3 see the flop, that'd be 33%.
If that's the case, then even 38% isn't particularly loose. I consider loose holdem games to be ones where at least half of the players are seeing each flop (including the blinds). The games on Paradise are NEVER that loose.
Anyway, there are always a number of games that are under 30%, even at 2-4 and 3-6. This is way, way tighter than all but the rarest of casino games at that limit.
I've never seen a game where there are 5 players seeing the flop every time. Have you played on IRC? Even there you only get that kind of behaviour in 10/20.
In 20/40 the average number of callers is comparable to what you find on Paradise Poker. I've *never* heard anyone call IRC tight. But then sometimes it can get a bit tighter than a CA 3/6 game. But there's a difference between loose, and super loose.
- Andrew
To maintain an average much above 50% or much below it is difficult. Since there are bound to be hands where there are 6 or 7 callers because everyone got a decent hand, to maintain 30% means you need to have a significant number of hands where it's just the blinds or no callers at all.
Dan,
I have serious suspicions as to where you get your information from. How did you come up with the level of 50% as your midwater mark? Are you just making it up? Or do you have actual evidence that this level is the "rule" at most poker tables?
I for one have never seen a 50% game in real life. Even in California 3/6. But then I've only played 6 hourse of California 3/6.
- Andrew
Colorado 3-5 usually has 5-6 callers each hand. At the Central Station, the action is normally capped before the flop.The action at Bullwhackers and the lodge is a little more subdued, but not by much.
Ray,
There's a big difference between "usually 5-6" and averaging 50%. One is a soft term which has no precision and conveys different meaning to different people. The other is a hard term with a specific meaning. Unless you've actually calculated the average over a significant period of time, it's hard to know what you mean by "usually 5-6".
Next time you're there take a notebook and note how many people see the flop every hand. It shouldn't be too difficult.
- Andrew
WELL...I understand that.........I've played in Central City and Blackhawk enough to let you know that my statement represents more than just a single sample. The games there are loose aggressive. In Omaha, at 2-5, it is pretty regular at Bullwhackers to pay $27.00 before the flop.....These situations are well known by all Colorado casino players....the games are wild.
If there are 2 loose players in the game, then that's plenty loose for me.I tend to play very tight on the puter.I really don't want it too loose. Surprisingly 2 loosies is enough.They can burn a bit too much money.I guess I am passive.
When I lived in San Diego, I am sure that for all of my numerous hours at 3-6, the table averaged at least 50% of the players seeing the flop. And I really mean for all my hours put together, not just the select hours when it was the most crazy.
When it comes to Omaha8, woo. I rarely played a hand of this game where less than 40% of the players saw the flop. I would guess that 95% of all hands of this game at this limit that I played in SoCal we had at least 50% of the players seeing the flop. The long run average was probably 65-70%. When I lived in Chicago, and played in the charity 3-6 Omaha8 games, the average was about 80% seeing the flop (and that includes me, the guy who folded 85% of my non-blind hands preflop; if I was watching the game while waiting to get in, the rate would go up to about 90%). These numbers are not hard, because I never tracked them on paper. However, they are my real best guesses as to what I observed.
Unfortunately, the numbers here in CT are much worse. Probably runs about 30-35% in the regular 5-10 Omaha8 game (which I almost never play), and not much better, maybe 35-40%, in the HE games (5-10 up to 20-40, not the 3-6, which I've almost never played here). It's a good thing that a lot of these guys are tight but not all that good postflop.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Based on my last 200 hours of playing in a local 10-20 HE game, I would think that it is uncommon for 3 or fewer player to see a flop.
However, I have never actually bothered to write down how many players see the flop, and how many were dealt a hand to get an average. But I would suspect that is is above 35% almost all of the time.
I also would not be suprised that the % seeing the flop is lower than my gut feel tells me. The reason is that hands with no flop go by quickly. So I would subjectively give those less weight, when I intuitively estimate the average.
Perhaps there are better statistics to measure looseness/tightness of a game besides average % of players seeing the flop. How about the average % excluding hands where there is no flop? How about the modal number of players seeing the flop?
What you really want to know is how much action you can generally expect when you have a playable hand.
Do any of you internet poker analysts and data collectors have these statistics?
Steve
Yes but to read the cards you would need to compare bitmaps, yes?
I'm not a PC s/w developer but I suspect programming a bot would not be an easy task.
Not easy,
But not too hard. Definitely something that several people in the poker community could do.
- Andrew
I once raised UTG with 93o because I was trying to raise my pocket kings on the other board and forgot to move the windows off one another - I won a rather large pot with 9's full of 3's. Of course, the kings were beat by 2 pair, but I lost a much smaller pot than I won.
That is seriously hysterical.
First, I hope that I can escape the wrath of Wrong Forum Man by explaining that this question is based on theoretically winning any money on Paradise Poker.
My question is directed at UK and other European Paradise players. Paradise pays out in dollars - how do you avoid/minimize currency transaction costs? Its hard enough to beat a casino rake and I would rather not add on a bankers rake as well.
HI Dave ! If my account lasts at least half a year the bankers rake is nearly exactly offset by the climbing of the Dollar against the Euro. If that trend stays that way you will actually making money by not playing a single game. But if you completely disregard these fluctuations, your bankroll will be hit by another 4 percent.
Thanks Walter - however my initial experience of playing at PP has made my query even more theoretical.
To those of you who submitted hands for review, thank you for your time and effort. Unfortunately, we still have received far fewer hands than what we really needed to do a realistic studies. In addition, we had a couple of submissions that seriously smelled of tampering.
As a result, I'm closing down the effort. The debate will continue to rage...
I'm afraid it was doomed from the start. Your methodology was wrong. Asking people to submit results is going to skew the data tremendously in favor of 'strange' data.
Imagine if there were an online game where 1000 people were flipping a coin for money. Some people were concerned about cheating. So you offer to do an analysis, and tell everyone to send you their results. The people who think they have been cheated are much more likely to not only send you results, but send you those results which are the most skewed.
The people who don't think there is cheating aren't going to be interested in your study, and won't send anything in.
There was no way you could have done a fair 'study' of this sort, short of somehow being able to randomly extract hand data independently without input from the users.
On the other hand...
I'm still collecting hands, and at some point when there are more hands (~10K) and I have more time (~1week) I'll do some banal analysis on the data and report back here.
- Andrew
That was the other point I was going to make... For such a study to be statistically significant, you need a LOT of hands. I'm not sure 10K is enough, especially for the longer-shot hands. If you're trying to determine if quads vs quads comes up more online, you'll need a lot more hands than that.
10K should be enough to get a good estimation of things like percentages of paired boards, 4-flushes on board, etc.
Dan,
I haven't decided what I'm going to do with the data. Obviously I'm not going to get significant numbers for rare occurances. The main purpose is actually to determine how predictable the shuffle is. I also agree that 10K hands might not be enough. But it will be interesting to find out.
- Andrew
Has any body been makining any money on internet poker?
Coyote
According to my data.
Yes.
- Andrew
Does anyone know what's the latest on moves by congress to ban internet gambling and if so how it will affect sites like Paradise Poker.
I do know Nevada is trying to get congress to make it legal in Nev. The way it is now has to be illegal!! Something will be done about it!!!! I hope not!
I'm not positive, but the current law requires ISPs to block access to gambling sites, so you would not be able to go directly to PP. I would expect, however, specialized proxy-type services to spring up to get around this issue. Maybe not - but technically it would be very easy to do.
The law, as of today, does not carry any penalities for the bettor, however.
Again, could be wrong, but that is the way I understand it.
An old law which could apply, but probaby won't work for federal prosecuters is the 1961 Interstate Wireline Act (18 U.S.C. section 1084).
I have been skimming articles at this web site to learn more: http://www.gambleonthenet.com/links/legal.html
The Boston Cosulting Group paper, has some good information, but may not be up to date. It looks like the best chance the feds have on cracking down on Paradise Poker is to go after players in the U.S.
The reason is that even if they were to pass a law that explicitly made what the online poker companies are doing illegal, they would have to extradite them. Since gambling is legal in Costa Rica (I think it is), then Costa Rica is unlikely to hand over the online poker room operators.
I should have been more clear that the old law which allows the feds to bust tele-bookies only applies to persons in the business of gambling. Which usually means it applies to the "house" not the "players".
The Kyl Bill, was introduced a few years ago proposed to empower the feds to go after players. The purpose was to give them a way to crack down on internet gambling when the casino is out of the feds jurisdiction, and cannot be extradited.
This question is for those who play Hold 'Em, Stud and Omaha/High on Paradise:
What game provides you with the best profit/per hour rate?
I find that overall:
7-Stud is much more profitable, followed by Omaha (Omaha/High games are practically dead now due to the split games), and Hold 'Em.
There are way too many "rats" in the hold 'em games, and one of them always seems to get their miracle card on the river.
I've been following the discussions about the holdem games...I've been playing mostly stud on Paradise Poker.
Here's a hand with a new player I had never seen before, I made aces up and he caught the case 6 to make three sixes after making his pair of sixes on SIXTH street.
He had no draw of any kind.
Does this beat make me unhappy...certainly not. Players like this are just giving away their money and you just have to play solid against them and they will go broke eventually.
Dealt to RickG2 [ Ac ]
Dealt to RickG2 [ Kh ]
Dealt to RickG2 [ Ah ]
Dealt to Jiang-TH [ 2s ]
Dealt to MASA99 [ 2c ]
Dealt to pichon [ 9c ]
Dealt to lunkedyr [ Ks ]
Dealt to loosing [ Qh ]
Dealt to SunshineLV [ 8s ]
Dealt to Mr Nice Guy [ 7c ]
MASA99 : Bring-in ($4)
pichon : Call ($4)
lunkedyr: Fold
loosing : Fold
SunshineLV: Fold
Mr Nice Guy: Fold
RickG2 : Raise ($8)
Jiang-TH: Fold
MASA99 : Fold
pichon : Call ($4)
Dealt to RickG2 [ 6c ]
Dealt to pichon [ As ]
pichon : Check
RickG2 : Bet ($8)
pichon : Call ($8) I gave him Aces when he calls here
Dealt to RickG2 [ Kc ]
Dealt to pichon [ 4h ]
RickG2 : Bet ($16)
pichon : Call ($16)
Dealt to RickG2 [ 2d ]
Dealt to pichon [ 6s ]
RickG2 : Bet ($16)
pichon : Call ($16)
Dealt to RickG2 [ 2h ]
RickG2 : Bet ($16)
pichon : Raise ($32)
RickG2 : Call ($16)
*** SUMMARY *** Pot: $169 | Rake: $3
RickG2 lost $81 [ Ac Kh Ah 6c Kc 2d 2h ] (two pairs, aces and kings)
Jiang-TH lost $1 (folded) [ 2s ]
MASA99 lost $5 (folded) [ 2c ]
pichon bet $81, collected $169, net +$88 (showed hand) [ 6d 7d 9c As 4h 6s 6h ] (three of a kind, sixes)
lunkedyr lost $1 (folded) [ Ks ]
loosing lost $1 (folded) [ Qh ]
SunshineLV lost $1 (folded) [ 8s ]
Mr Nice Guy lost $1 (folded) [ 7c ]
-------
Paradise Poker has released a 112MB data file which contains the common cards dealt for the first 5.9 million hands played. When zipped, it is 35.6MB.
Here is the readme.txt that is included with the data:
Common cards dealt at ParadisePoker.com
---------------------------------------
This document describes the format of the flops.txt file, which includes all the common cards dealt in the Holdem and Omaha games since Paradise Poker opened its doors. It does not include the 7 Card Stud games and it does not include each players private cards (whether they showed them or not).
The reason for releasing this information is to help the internet community in its assessment of the truly random dealing of cards and to help compare how much more randomly the cards are distributed at Paradise Poker compared to a typical card room where it is much more difficult for most dealers to truly shuffle a deck of cards randomly.
We take great pride in having the best shuffling available in the world.
The data is currently available at: http://www.paradisepoker.com/flops.zip
Further reading about the shuffling and random number generation used at Paradise Poker can be found at: http://www.paradisepoker.com/shuffling.html and http://www.paradisepoker.com/rng.html
Verification
------------
Many clients have requested hand histories going back to the opening days at Paradise Poker. Any one of those hand histories you have on file will match perfectly with the data in the flops.txt file. Furthermore, recent hand histories can still be retrieved automatically from the client program. We trust you will find that these are the exact cards dealt at that time.
Data format
-----------
The flops.txt file is a large tab delimitated text file containing one line of information per hand:
Field 1: game number
Field 2: number of players that had cards dealt to them
Field 3: game type
0 = Holdem
1 = Omaha Hi
2 = 7 Card Stud
3 = One on One Holdem
4 = Omaha Hi/Lo
5 = 7 Card Stud Hi/Lo
Fields 4+: the common (board) cards that were dealt (if any)
Some game numbers are missing because they were not played (this happens if too many players sit out rather than posting blinds) or because they were Stud games.
The Stud games were not included due to the lack of common cards.
Distribution Expectations
-------------------------
The distribution of the cards is perfectly random, however it must be remembered that you dont always see all the cards. This is dependant on the human nature of the players involved. Here are some examples:
1) Two player game: both players get good cards (high pairs for example). The flop is quite likely to be seen, yet its slightly less likely to have high cards in it because some of the high cards have already been dealt to the players.
2) Two player game: both players get lousy low cards. If the flop were dealt, it would be more likely to have high cards (because some of the low cards are already in the players hands), but youre not very likely to see the flop in this case, therefore the flop wont show up in this data file.
Given these two examples, you can see that if you were to analyze the flops on all two player games, youd likely have a slight bias in the flop towards the lower cards. The same reasoning applies to tables with more players, but youre more likely to see the flop in those cases (although never 100%), and therefore the bias will go down accordingly.
The thing to remember when analyzing this data is to consider the pre-flop actions of the players involved and use that to determine how it might affect whether you will actually see the flop in a particular game.
One analysis which is mostly immune to this sort of bias, is to look at the suits of the flop (ignore 4th and river) in games with 7 or more people. You can analyze how many flops have 2 cards with the same suit, 3 cards with the same suit, or no cards with the same suit (3 different suites).
Customer Support
----------------
The customer support personnel at Paradise Poker have no idea how to help you out with this data. It was our intent to release the raw data and leave the analysis entirely up to the internet community so they may feel better about just how truly well shuffled our cards are.
Summary
-------
We expect there will be lots of discussion sparked from the analysis of this data. It is the first time ever that so many hands played by real people have been able to be analyzed and we expect some exciting things will be learned about how people play poker.
We are proud to offer the best shuffling in the world.
Sincerely,
Paradise Poker Management
This is a qualified positive development.
And what do you think precipitated it? - the people who publicly said, "personally, I think the games are straight" or "I have of the three to four thousand hands that I have played at Paradise Poker, show no suspicious trends at all!!!" or "why would they cheat when they're already making so much money"? Hmmm?
I think it is important NOT to get all giddy and engage in impulsive and public statistical masturbatory ejaculations. As soon as I get the time I (like everyone else) will download the data and take a look at it, BUT I think this is at least step THREE in the sequence of asking:
(1) What can the data tell us and NOT tell us given that IT IS INCOMPLETE. Paradise Poker, "It [the downloadable file] does not include each player's private cards (whether they showed them or not)", it is only COMMUNITY cards. This point on the iportance of "ALL" cards was a key issue raised by one poster in an earlier thread. (2) How can we, "the internet community", best statistically and financially analyze the data. How can we (if we can at all) measure "the action quotient", etc. (given incomplete data)? (3) What are the results and meaning of this (2) analysis?
Can we get some level headed discussion going on steps 1 & 2 and any other steps important BEFORE we discuss analysis of the data itself? Probably not. But anyway, it would be good if we're all on the same page (acknowledging that some people prefer their own cozy little dogmatic page) before we start making heated assertions about meaning.
Hey Dark,
You sure have a lot of questions. Do you have any answers?
- Andrew
I can see it now: "All they had to do was correctly post the results of the hands that have already been ordered and then make up a bunch of dummy numbers for the remaining hands that would fit into a random distribution model and thus cover up the plot to constantly snap me off. Notice also that they won't reveal the hands held by the robot confederates that make their real money."
Actually, I don't know what one can do with all this data other than prove that the hands are dealt at random, which I guess is a good thing. In any event, it's evidence of good faith.
It would be more interesting if someone could be given access to the boards plus the hands of the players to generate the kinds of reports you can with Turbo, so that certain empirical questions could be answered, such as how often pairs or suited connectors win under different playing conditions. At least mildly interesting.
Better yet would be a report describing how much money can be made and lost per hour in different games, complete with standard deviation and variance data.
But what I'd really like to see is a report that identifies every player by name and describes their playing patterns and win/loss history in detail, which perhaps they could sell for $100 a pop under the title "The Real Supersystem." Then everyone could order new handles and we could all drive ourselves nuts trying to figure out who used to be whom.
In all seriousness, the online operators have a ton of data recording how people actually play poker that have never been gathered before. It would be interesting if someone could analyze it to answer some of the fundamental questions about how much can be won and how hands should be priced. On the other hand, I suppose the title of the book would be "It Depends ...."
It's an unsolicited good thing. Paradise Poker seems dedicated to convincing the 2+2 forum. Why they chose the 2+2 forum I don't know. The company is international, and certainly this isn't the only forum. Anyway, I still find them much more honest than Planet Poker.
How do you and your ego fit in the same room?
I carry a little crowbar around.
This is a very good act of good will. I look forward to seeing results after a few number crunchers get into it.
I'm also afraid to see some results. It's not because I don't think PP is not using a good random number generator to deal cards, but because there are a lot of folks who will make some bad assumptions, or calculation errors in their analysis.
For example, among hold'em boards with a turn and 2 suited flops, what proportion of turn cards should be a third of the suit? I'm sure someone will look at this. Most likely they would think that it is reasonable to expect 11/48's of the turns to make 3-suited boards. But I strongly suspect that the data will show a slightly lower portion. Why? Because you are excluding hands where there was no turn. If there were cases with 2 suited flops, and no turn, then it was surely the case that no on had four-flushes on the flop. So cases where there is a turn will disproportionately have hands where hole cards of matching suits.
It's great that we have this data. But I hope careful thought will be made about underlying assumptions before conclusions are made about the nature of the random number generator.
Steve
First things first: Ray and Steve, maybe part of the reason Paradise Poker chose the 2+2 Internet Forum for "this very good act of good will" is that that they've been reading the prior threads and expect a "soft", noncritical reception here, as opposed to say that nasty newsgroup?
Notes towards a method of analysis:
I've been poring over and analyzing the downloaded Paradise Poker data without enthusiasm, it is of very limited value. I don't see how any "exciting things will be learned" or that it will prove anything at all about the dealing algorithm. Without knowledge of the hole cards the dealing algorithm cannot be discussed. Period.
Chris Alger bought up a good rhetorical point when writing that it would be good if we could generate the kinds of analytical reports Turbo Texas Hold em does. That would require knowledge of 25 cards (assuming a ten handed game that went to the river). All we have is knowledge of FIVE cards and NO KNOWLEDGE of betting behavior. Can anyone cite any reputable statistical source which would show how this data can be used as a reliable representative sample, personal opinions aside? The worst case is One on One (heads up games) where the hand ends before the flop, here we have no data. "Best" case is One on One that goes to the river, here we know 5 of the 9 cards and nothing at all about the betting. Not much to go on as far as analyzing a poker game is it?
Well, of what use can the data be? I believe two general areas. Of the less than 4.6 million (NOT 5.9 million) hands downloaded 4 million are hold em and that is what I'd like to consider now. Acknowledging that we don't know the hole cards or the action (betting), we can discuss some very general things about the progression of the GAME (as opposed to the cards), e.g., of the 2.4 million multi player hold em hands, 2.2 million saw the flop, 2 million saw the turn, and 1.7 million went all the way to the river. Or the average multiplayer game had 7.6 players, etc., etc, etc.
About the cards themselves, at this time, I can see only one way to analyze this (given that we don't know the hole cards). Treat the board as a static whole not a progression. For instance, take the flop: We all know that there are 22100 3 card combinations possible and that trips will flop .24% of the time, a pair will flop 16.9% of the time, three suited will flop 5.2% of the time, two suited will flop 55% of the time, so on and so forth. We then calculate what actually flopped in the Paradise poker data and determine whether the difference between the expected and actual statistically significantly. This next point might be difficult to grasp, it is certainly counterintuitive to the way hold em is played but I believe it is the correct line of statistical analysis given the very limited data we've been provided with (again, we don't know the hole cards). With hands that go to the turn we treat the four cards as a "flop". We must calculate the expected probability of trips, a pair, two pair, quads, three flush, four flush, two flush, three to a straight, etc. etc. for four randomly dealt cards then compare these to the actual. We repeat this step for hands that go to the river i.e., we treat is as a five card flop. This is all very, very tedious and not very exciting work. I doubt anything "exciting things will be learned" from this though it will distract some people for a while. But how else can it be approached?
A board of: Ah 6h 5d Tc Kh Has a VERY DIFFERENT PROBABILITY OF APPEARING if the hole cards are: Ad Kd, 6c 6s, 2c 3c , Ac Jh than if the hole cards were Kd 4s, As 2s, 7h 2c, Jh Qh. And not insignificantly, it gets very different action (betting).
(I am still thinking through this part, insight (not comments) would be appreciated: The pitfall with treating the board as a progression (flop, turn card, river card), although this can certainly be done, is a false sense of security when the board is not itself "improbable". Suppose a board of Ah 8s 8d Jc 8h - making someone quad 8s, some people may consider the 8h "improbable". But suppose the board came Ah 5s 2d 7c 8h - and someone has pocket 8s and someone else threw away 8 4 preflop, is that 8h any less improbable? Without including the hole cards in our analysis the answer would be "yes" because it's improbability (like the hole cards) cannot be seen.)
Without the inclusion of hole cards and betting I can't see what else or how else things can be analyzed. We have been put in the position of trying to infer a tree from half a match stick. How are the rest of you approaching this analysis?
"This next point might be difficult to grasp, it is certainly counterintuitive to the way hold em is played but I believe it is the correct line of statistical analysis given the very limited data we've been provided with (again, we don't know the hole cards). With hands that go to the turn we treat the four cards as a "flop". We must calculate the expected probability of trips, a pair, two pair, quads, three flush, four flush, two flush, three to a straight, etc. etc. for four randomly dealt cards then compare these to the actual"
I disagree with you here. This is exactly the type of error that I am afraid will be made. I would expect a greater proportion of three flushes in the flop+turn cards than you would get if you just took four cards at random from the deck.
We do not know how much more, we would need assumptions about how people play in order to estimate this. However, one could test to see if too few flops+turn card combinations have 3-flushes.
Of course we would be able to learn much more about the games if we saw the hole cards, but I can see how this would be a big problem with their players if they published this.
I do not understand why PP is not putting out all the data so feel free to enlighten me. Why "this would be a big problem with their players if they published" it?? If no individual hands are published (eg game # 44550049, seat #2 or anything like that) but only totals of various combos, surely that wouldn't hurt anyone. Quite the contrary, as far as research and verification are concerned.
Unless (and that's really taking it too far) some pros object to having the innocent tourists realize the kind of hole cards other players most often hold, or something. The answer to that is Wake up! among those mining the data, there won't be a single tourist.
If no one can trace the individual hands to particular players, there wouldn't be a problem, but if one could, the problem is obvious: your opponents could find out how you and others play.
I don't see how this data could be published in a format that wouldn't allow players to reveal undisclosed hands.
Dark Pragmatist wrote:
First things first: Ray and Steve, maybe part of the reason Paradise Poker chose the 2+2 Internet Forum for "this very good act of good will" is that that they've been reading the prior threads and expect a "soft", noncritical reception here, as opposed to say that nasty newsgroup?
The information was posted here because this seemed to be the home base of the effort to collect data. We expect there is quite a lot of readership overlap between here and r.g.p and therefore we've probably covered 90% of the people who might be interested in the data.
If someone feels like cross posting our original message to r.g.p, then by all means go ahead and do so.
Good faith and good will by Paradise Poker? Please
Anyhow, it's in Paradise Poker's best interest to be believed to be fair and where this is impossible to at least be proven to be fair.
In order to verify, we need all the data -- boards, hole cards, and betting action. Online player names and other identifying information should of course be kept anonymous.
So if Paradise Poker is truly interested in being proven fair, they will soon give us the data necessary to prove them so. Right, Paradise? If there's nothing fishy at Paradise Poker, they have nothing to fear and much to gain. I will be the first to applaud when this information is available.
(Making note to self: when starting online poker company, given the nature of the internet, don't just tell people the games are fair, but do everything possible by way of objective data to prove the games are fair.)
In order to verify, we need all the data
What would you do with all the data to verify whatever is that you think needs verifying, and why couldn't you do it with the data they provided?
- Andrew
With board card data alone you can't determine starting card distributions. You can't determine starting card actual versus expected preflop to finish. And you don't have to infer the reasons for "why more flushes see the river" as an example.
With all due respect, I think you forgot to answer my question.
What would you do with the data to "verify" it?
- Andrew
Yes, my fault, I didn't say what I was looking to verify. I would verify whether or not there was a bias for board cards that favored hands in play, especially underdog hands. I would like to see if Paradise Poker uses a dealing algorthim which matches board cards to hole cards to increase the rake and make the game more sustainable for bad players. I don't believe this information can be gained from board cards alone.
As Chief Technical Officer of PokerSpot.com, it is my responsibility to not only develop the best poker software on the internet, but also to ensure that the games are fair. As such, Paradise Poker's posting of their board data obviously perked my interest.
We all know WHY Paradise Poker chose to post this data, but it seems many of us are confused as to 1) what to do with it, and 2) why we only got the data that we got.
I cannot offer much help as far as #1 goes. I do not profess to be a mathematician, and I'm not even all that interested in proving the distribution model of their flop cards. This is because when the day is over, you either believe a cardroom is honest, or you believe it is crooked. The reasons for being honest greatly outweigh the reasons for being crooked for ANY online cardroom, including Paradise Poker.
As far as #2 is concerned, I can offer a bit of commentary, from the standpoint of an online cardroom manager. While PokerSpot is currently just now finishing up our beta tests, we've been thinking about these issues for quite some time. While I do applaud Paradise Poker for posting the data that they did, I do question how useful it will be to the statistician. This being said, I do assert that Paradise Poker would have been foolish to release information related to the hole cards dealt to every player.
Why? The simple fact is that any information related as to how a particular player plays, is very sensitive information. If Paradise Poker were to publish the hole card information, a player's playing style could easily be "profiled". This is the case, because it is necessary to assume that players log data about every hand that they play. This data at the bare minimum would only have to include game number, and the players at the table, and player profiling could easily be conducted if Paradise were to release the hole card information.
Once a player profile was realized, it is debatable how easily this information would be put to use. But one thing is certain, the level of player nervousness would be INCREASED, rather than decreased (which was the entire reason for the flop card post in the first place).
This being said, I hope it is easy to realize why Paradise Poker did not choose to post the hole card information. Their actions were well thought out, and I hope the players can respect them for this.
Arguably, one way in which Paradise Poker could appease the crowd, is to post information regarding flop cards with their corresponding hole cards, in a random order, with no association to the game number. This information would be statistically useful to the analyst, while not jeopardizing player confidentiality. I would suggest to Paradise Poker to consider releasing this information, and would ask anyone that agrees that this information would be useful to suggest this to them as well.
At PokerSpot, we definitely view this post as a call for action. We will be releasing similar information, including an association between flop cards and hole cards, once our total hands reaches a critical point in which we consider our player's confidentiality to no longer be at risk. Please check the PokerSpot news page, after we open, for this announcement.
We will make all attempts to publish our information in the same format as the Paradise Poker file so that your analysis scripts will not have to be hacked too badly in order to analyze our data. We will also consider other formats to release this data. I will also make sure that this data is "compounded" at regular intervals.
I hope that this post will allow you to view this data under a new frame of mind.
-- Robert Boyd (rboyd@pokerspot.com)
What a pile of crap.
These guys insert players into the game who can see all the cards.
DUH. Of course they want to pin their reputation on a random shuffle. Random shuffle or not, if you can see all the cards -- you win. Your teams of players can raise and re-raise, make all the comments about idiots the other guys are for raising/reraising, etc.
They have more incentive to cheat than they do to play fair. Are you kidding?
Can't you see how dangerous it is to get caught up in this PR ? You debate the insignificant "random shuffle" when you are easily shucked by "omniscient" players.
They can make millions more in rakes but of course the bigger incentive is to cheat the players and kill off games with omniscient cheaters because human nature, being what it is, always goes for the bottom line ... Doh! I screwed it up again!
Keep it up. As long as the accusations of cheating remain idiotic, we have good reason to believe the games are legit.
I don't know why I'm sharing this, since I have no proof of it and probably never will, but it's my suspicion that these online clip joints have programmed their games to insure that in the long run every seat will more or less break even, thereby giving the bad players more money with which to feed the rake. I have no idea how this would work, since everybody can muck/call/raise at their discretion, but I think it would involve giving each seat a predetermined number of 'big hands' and 'big draws', then making sure that these hands are either snapped or never come in. Again, I realize this is completely out in left field. But I can't help but feel there's something to it. I don't know much about computers, but I do know that I've suffered the two worst losing streaks of my life (from a BB's per hour perspective), but that I've also flopped a ton of big hands as well--mostly Broadways, as if that means anything, but also plenty of nut flushes etc. Anyway, since there's only a limited number of people who will play online, I think it would make sense of Paradise/Planet Poker to do what they can to insure that the bad players hold on to their money for as long as possible.
there is no rake
scott
Goddamn, thanks for pointing that out.
I once suggested the same thing as a joke but it wouldn't work becasue it couldn't be sustained. The only effect of punishing what would otherwise be regular winners would be to drive them from the games. With that done, what would be left are bad players trading their money back and forth. The online operator would therefore have no incentive to rig the games. So the games would become legit again, the weak players would trade their money back and forth, the number of players would remain constant or expand at a natural rate, the better players would slowly return and the cycle would have to repeat itself. You wouldn't see a steady expansion of the games, but cycles of expansion and stagnation or contraction. If the operator makes a misjudgment, a contracting cycle could wipe him out.
Look at it this way. Casino poker can be played in a nearly infinite variety of forms, with or without wild cards, with or without a sripped down deck. But nearly everyone plays Hold 'em, stud or Omaha with a 52-card deck. Tradition and familiarity can't explain these preferences because hardly anyone played Hold 'em or Omaha 25 years ago. Also notice how high draw, lowball and 5-card stud have disappeared.
The reason is that certain games have just the right blend of luck and skill -- in other words, just the right win rates -- to make the as popular as casino poker is ever going to be (where the law allows it). For an operator to screw around with the natural distribution of wins and losses would be tantamount to playing with fire.
Mr.Alger has played live apparently with GD before and described him as a very solid player. G.D, I can only tell you that the feeling is very mutual. I've been tempted several times to re-enter these games as I continue to win in live action at the same rate that I had before I discovered online poker. Nevertheless, I've stayed away. In observing the Omaha/8 games, the players are very week ex. PLayers consistantly chase lows when 2 high cards flop,The hold'em tables tend to have more logical outcomes. The games should still be quite good if the shown hands are any indication of hand selection. Perhaps good players lay down too much to the garbage.
I think in the long run we are saying the same thing!! If you were running the game and could take away from the consistent winners would that not be good for paradise!! They should do it a little slower as not to raise a flag! LOL
Someone suggested (I think it was Mason M.) that cardrooms are helped by professionals because they start and keep alive games that otherwise wouldn't exist. Maybe that's less true on the internet, where short-handed poker is cheaper for the house, but the winning players must come in a little handy by always being there. (And in order to always be there, you'd have to win).
I also question how much money the winning players really take out of the game and how many players they discourage. I'm speculating here, but it seems to me that the amount of poker money sucked out by the house every year dwarfs the amount that goes to the pros and other experts. A lot of it is probably still in the hands of players, the many "break-even" or almost break-even players who are having a good year, or others who haven't had enough time to lose it or are otherwise just lucky so far.
Look, I'm not even an expert at poker, much less internet poker. I don't think I've pretended to be one. I just like poker and would like to see it thrive and be more available. If casinos on or offline cheat, they should be exposed. If players make spurious allegations of cheating, they should be exposed. (I wouldn't put you in this category by the way. Your story is a lot more interesting). Good luck.
The main problem with your theory as I see it is that the cost of "company" players wouldn't be worth the take. Unfair practices would have to be much more subtle to be worthwhile.
I agree with this poster. It seems obvious that they use omniscient players (plants) to manipulate the games.
In fact, I believe they use the plants to pump up the winnings of new players...by raising when they know the new player will have the winning hand. And reraising when the new player has the nuts.
They use plants to extract cash...as stated by this poster.
I think they move dozens of alias names in and out of games for these purposes.
I point out that you could easily pull a few million out and make for the hills with this method. No need to stick around and earn the money honestly. After all, with a 3 rake, they can't make more than 60-70 per hour per table with an honest game.
I would guess that a certain number of know-it-all's like Chris whatever will feel that they have to flame me and call me an idiot..but f them. I am sure that they are cheating.
"After all, with a 3 rake, they can't make more than 60-70 per hour per table with an honest game."
Have you seen how many tables they have going? Do the math. They would be absolutely crazy to f this up.
How long and how much are they going to let me win?
The audacity of you scammers is astounding. Or at the very least your card dealing is not an accurate simulation of a real life game. And it`s either intentional or it`s a limitation of the software. And if it`s a limitation of the software , I suppose I would owe you an apology. However, I do not believe that would ever be neccessary.
lol,
Another loser heard from.
- Andrew
I heard of planet poker Oct 1 99 so I bought a computer 'sent in 3K and started playing 10 20 hold em. To start I could not lose (10K) in 6 weeks. I thought I was in poker heaven!! Then, as expected and as always in poker I hit a losing streak. No problem!After 4K it became comical. During one stretch AA KK beat 17 straight. It got to the point I could name the card on the river. I quit 5K winner. I missed it so I sent paradise 3K in Feb. Games were tougher & did'nt catch the deck but slowly got 4400 winner. Played a lot of hours. Then BAM here it comes again, one after another. Last night had a poker game at my house. I played at paradise while we played. In a 2 hr period I called the card & suit that would kill me 4 times playing Omaha8. I'm quitting paradise 1150 winner. It must sound crazy $6150 winner but something is very very strange!! I have played poker all my life ( winning ) but I have not seen anythinglike this . You had to be there!! I know some will say that's poker but as I said you had to see it!!! .
So are you putting a cap on your losses or your winnings?
I was posting just like this a while back. The key to what your saying is that it has to be experienced. I have heard the same from several on-line players.
I too play all the time at a card room. Tried on-line for quite a while.
It is unbelievable.
I quit a while ago and don't miss it at all now. But, I will never give up my opinion that the deals are quite different than in a card room, for some reason that I do not know.
I set no cap either way!! I just think they can do whatever - whenever. Foreign Country? No one to answer to. Do not know how long before IRS.gets involved. What can they lose by manipulation. When it gets to where you can name the card over & over Something is wrong!!
"In a 2 hr period I called the card & suit that would kill me 4 times playing Omaha8."
I guess since the suit mattered it they were flushes, and since the rank mattered I guess you got counterfeited four times in two hours. Not exactly bizarre for O/8.
The interesting thing is that you won and you find internet poker unsettling. I guess this explains the extreme reactions of many losers.
When you play on the internet you play against opponents that aren't that bad (as a whole) to begin with that take constant notes on you, sometimes cross-referencing them to a word processing screen they keep above the "table." What did you expect, more drop-ins from the slot club? Of course they adjust to you faster. Of course it's harder. Internet games deal more hands per hour. Of course it's streakier.
How can anyone argue with that logic. Take the money and run.
If you play Paradise and want to see a gem, get a hand history for #6119485. I've only been playing for about 2 years but this may take the cake. James
Can't believe you checked it on the river...you were trying for a check raise I hope.
But you did say it was the worst play in history!
Haha. I wasn't the one holding the 32 off. You bring up an excellent point, though. The guy sticks around for a two outer (and based on the betting on the flop he should have suspected that he was drawing dead) and doesn't even bet when he hits. Incidentally, the same player called four bets on the flop with 77 and a K T 2 board the day before and made running quads. If ever there was a potential computer shill....lol James
I've been playing pretty steady for about three months now, mainly 8/16 stud. I've been dabbling in hi lo and I also sit in the 10/20 holdem when I'm waiting for a seat to open up.
I've got a large computer file filled with hands like the one in your example.
I think people are a little more inclined to get crazy online since there is no one in their immediate vicinity to laugh at them or embarass them verbally at the instant they make the bad play.
m
.
I had a fun weekend on Paradise. Here are my two favorites (sorry -- no hand numbers). I will leave out the details, including other players and betting.
(1) I have AK. My nemesis (we'll call him Satan) has QJ. I raise preflop and Satan calls. Flop is A-3-8. I bet, Satan calls. Turn is a 10. I bet, Satan calls. River is a K. I bet, Satan raises.
(2) I have AQ. I raise, Satan calls from the BB with 2-5. Flop is A-10-2. Satan check calls. Turn is a 9. Satan check calls. River is a 2. Satan check raises.
Fun fun fun.....
This is basically a continuation of my dumb post from an earlier thread. If it doesn't interest you I don't blame you. Anyway, Chris, you make some great points, although I'm not sure I understood some of what you said (not you're fault, let me say. Rather, my lack of comprehension is due largely to the fact that some of your terminology was over my head). But, from what little I know of computers (and I really can't stress the 'little' here enough; in fact, I don't even know how to erase stuff from my hard drive) I don't think it would be that hard to do. For instance, there can be some kind of 'built in' thing that basically says "If seat two plays, he will flop two pair", or "If seat 9 plays, he will have top pair with a four flush on the turn" etc. etc. This in and of itself should be enough to keep most of the chumps fairly flush, at least until their credit cards are maxed out. My reason for suggesting this is that I know from experience how hard it is to keep bad players in action of you're running a game, since they constantly go broke. However, since most players are bad players, it would be a gamerunner's dream if he could somehow manipulate the deck in a way that kept the lives ones at the felt. The lives ones would stay in action, the good players would stay because they know they've got the best of it, and so on and so on... If you could do this when running your own game you could make six, maybe seven times more in rake, by virtue of the fact that the games would rarely break. Of course, it's entirely possible (and likely) that this isn't happening at the various online poker houses. But it is a thought. And it definitely could occur in a game that had limited access to new players, or had trouble recruiting new blood, which may or may not be the case with Paradise Poker et. all. BTW, Chris, I was so persuaded by your arguments championing online poker tha two weeks ago I bought in for 700$ at Paradise Poker, and managed to plow through it in about thirty hours of play. In this span I was a) dealt pocket K's three times when someone else had pocket A's, b) lost with four boats, and c) was 'quad undered' with 7's over 8's. Expect my bill for 700$ any time now, with a possible civil suit to follow :)
What limit were you playing? Obviously, if it was 10-20, $700 in 30 hours isn't that bad. And $700 isn't much of a bankroll for any game.
Brett
I was playing 5-10, and usually playing two hands at once. And no, it isn't by any means an epic loss.
If you are playing two tables at once and you're losing regularly, I've got no sympathy for you. If poker were such a simple game as to allow someone to win without paying attention to their opponents, there would be no need for this forum. I'm not a fantastic player, although I more than hold my own at my local 10/20 and 20/40 games. And I wouldn't consider playing two tables at once. James
it is very possible to play profitably at 2 tables simultaneously. while the expectation for each table is lower, i think the combined expectation is higher. i typically play one game in the background of the other. my secondary game is usually a lower limit and a different game than my main game. like 2-4 stud behind 5-10 holdem. it is usually not that hard to follow two games at once.
scott
I've heard you can do that with a huge monitor. When I first started playing Paradise I tried two 3-6 tables and the constant jumping back and forth drove me crazy.
I play two tables all the time myself. Some of the best players I've seen play two tables. If you see someone who is doing this, it's probably best to watch out for that character.
- Andrew
Oh, for God's sake. Listen; this thread is simply an addendum to an admittedly fantastic post I made in an earlier thread. For lack of anything better to do, I decided to re-post my thoughts (such as they are) on online poker, and let one and all have at it. At the end of the post I added a short, lighthearted aside to Chris Alger, whom I know personally and respect as a player. If at any point in my post you assumed I was shopping for sympathy, then you need to improve your reading skills. Further, I suspect (like scott) that a player can increase his profit by playing two hands at once, although you will lose some EV per hand played. If you need to scratch your head and meditate over your play everytime you muck a J7o (and you will be dealt this hand, or one of a similar quality, about 82% of the time) then I suspect there are holes in your game which are NOT shared by other posters here on this forum. If there are any significant drawbacks to playing in two games at once, it's the fact that one can accidentally muck a hand when the screen changes back to one's other table.
I be reading at the 6th grade level. My parents learned me reading skills at early age. My point was that there is more to HE than starting hand selection. Why do you think the Sklansky/Malmuth text is longer than 11 pages? I did not intend to insult you. I'm merely tired of reading these posts where people are accusing Paradise of cheating simply because they are getting crushed while playing multiple tables. And Andrew brought up an excellent point. Playing two tables can be profitable if you are considerably better than your opponents. James
The fact that there's 'more to hold 'em then starting hands' is a truism. Of course there is. However, that doesn't mean that in the course of a play you won't have a ton of down time inbetween hands, which would indirectly indicate that playing two hands a once can be a profitable venture.
What does bankroll have to do with bad beats incurred outside the norm?
I see fish play badly on Paradise Poker every day. I see them go broke regularly.
So what the hell are you talking about? I don't see them getting any help.
Angelina
On what the hell (just thought I'd throw that in there) do you back up your acute powers of observation?
Please reread my post.
I play online. I see things.
I see my bankroll grow. I see fish giving me money. I don't see them getting any help from the bad people at Paradise. I see them get lucky sometimes. I see them chase me to the river. I see them whine. I see them swear. I see them go all-in and reload. I see new players come and go every day. I see them play 95s UTG. I see them go broke. I see them struggle with their own brain. I see them post conspiracy theories on 2+2.
That's how I back up my acute powers of observation. How do you back up yours?
Angelina
I like your theory: a) keep live ones in action by giving them an edge, b) increase the rake by giving hands in play a board to match, and c) hope for vigorous defense by patrons who easily convince themselves the games must be fair.
(The current proof of fairness goes: "they'd be crazy to cheat given the zillions of potential customers if they act fairly. Never mind that internet gaming laws will soon make internet poker difficult and illegal to access and that pokerbots, a question of when and not if, effectively have internet poker DOA.")
However, the M.O. to accomplish 'a' and 'b' doesn't have to be one where hands are programmatically preset. An easier way to do it is to change the probability of an underdog hand winning. You could even change the probability of a hand winning based on the how the owner of the hand has monetarily done in the past. In my system you do not have all players breaking even, but you do give back some of the inherent edge lost by bad players. It may even be beatable, just not for much.
I don't know if I'm right anymore than someone who "knows" the games are fair can be certain, but I would love for Paradise Poker to release all data on all hands and prove me wrong.
Paranoia will destroy ya'. I know I've said this before. If you personally can't trust the game GET OFF.
If you are a losing player so far, AND are paranoid, that's even more of a reaon to get off. It'll save you real money.
- Andrew
Unfortunately, I don't have time to respond to your post much more than I already have. (Although if it makes you feel any better, I was looking at some stuff and I must be 3 for 30 with AK in the last month. ;-))
In essence, I don't see how it would be necessary, what with the internet already making poker available and convenient to tens of millions more people virtually overnight. I also don't see how subsidizing the worst players is possible over time because there are so many of them. You can only punish the best players, and those people are so results-oriented that they'll leave the game regardless of whether they think they're supposed to win.
The best response, however, is that I think it would tamper with the natural ecology of the game, which would be risky for the operator, but this is something that's too complicated for an ignoramus like me to expound upon.
I suppose it would also result in incredibly juicy games that good players could only watch from afar. This might indicate that the games aren't rigged: the $5-10 games on Paradise are anything but juicy. Some of them are downright tough. I see many 9- and 10-handed games in which less than 3 players on average take the flop.
Not to change the subject, but in thinking about this I realized that there were three ways that internet poker tends to inherently favor weaker players.
First, there aren't any tells. I agree with those that believe that tells are overrated, but I think there's consensus that the weakest players give off the most tells. On the interenet, they can't. (Actually, they can, but only a few).
Second, it's also harder to remember whom you've played with before. Even in the largerst cardroom people get to know each other's playing patterns by matching faces to players. You can't do that on the internet. Of course, there are names, but without careful records it can be pretty easy to confuse "Marcia" with "Marsha" (as I have), to say nothing of pokerbrat, pokerboy, pokeher and pokemon.
Third, and this is a big reason, the convenience of online poker can reduce the number of marathon or even just long sessions that losing players can get themselves into. The game will still be going on if they just go to bed, the bed being right next to the "table." Somebody that's driven 20 or 100 miles, to say nothing of those that have flown to LV, doesn't have that luxury. Just playing shorter sessions keeps one from being "read" as well by better players. People don't play 45 min. sessions in casinos.
As a result, internet poker differs from live poker not in that there are fewer lives ones, but fewer live ones that remain in the game and fewer live ones playing their worst game. This takes a lot of money out of the game and makes it a lot harder to beat.
Doesn't anyone ever lose or take bad beats on Planet Poker?
Brett
Nope,
Only good players play at Planet Poker (now that Ray has left ;)
- Andrew
Andrew has the knowledge to write hacking programs that Paradise Poker has stated on their website are clearly feasible, and that their competitors programs are not random and susceptible to hacking. Andrew then claims that no one knows what they are talking about(including Paradise Poker),and that they are an unreliable source, and not credible. People like Andrew are either shills for the online business community, hackers themselves, or flat out vanilla fools. He also claims to have no bankroll while declaring himself a consistant winner. All of this can be documented through the archives here. I've decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. I believe he is just another self inflated fool.
People like Andrew are either shills for the online business community,
Nope.
hackers themselves,
Well, I am a capable programmer.
or flat out vanilla fools.
Probably true.
He also claims to have no bankroll while declaring himself a consistant winner.
Oh, I have a bankroll, but I was busted on Paradise Poker because for some silly reason, I refuse to keep it all on their site. It's either because I'm paranoi, or I like to earn interest on my money. I'll let you figure it out.
I've decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. I believe he is just another self inflated fool.
Finally !
We are in full accord.
;)
- Andrew
I hope you can be read as easily at the card tables as you are in real life!:)
Andrew-If you are truly a winning player, there is a way around letting Paradise hold your money. Make a large deposit the day after your billing cycle ends. Then have them refund this amount back to your credit card about a week before the cycle ends. This is what I've been doing and will continue to do until I am at least 1,200 or 1,300 in the black. James
this is odd...you can simply cash out once a week..if your winning...they send you a check for the over....and credit your credit card balance back to your credit card. Its always worked this way. I suppose if you don't have a credit card then one can send money in. I don't know too many successful people at anything that don't have credit cards however. Intereactions with Andrew get stranger and stranger all the time.
Intereactions with Andrew get stranger and stranger all the time.
Ray,
I'm just trying to make it more difficult to read me. If you're still on Paradise, send me your email and we can set up some heads up, if you're so inclined. I'm not very good at it though -- I've lost over $1000 playing heads up online :( -- so it would have to be something like a 3/6 freezeout.
- Andrew
Doh!
I forgot to include my email.
See above.
- Andrew
well Andrew..I told the truth..I quit online poker over a month ago. I still watch people play daily at Paradise, and generally I see bad players winning. I won't play there again until until my bankroll recovers from the last fews fiascos there. Its almost recovered as I've been winning in my usual games of late. We will see.
I learned to play poker online and after a few months of bouncing up and down became a moderate winner at 3-6 hold em at Planet Poker, moderate meaning $7 something an hour over about 500 or so hours. I didn't play for a few months and came back playing at Paradise. I am not winning, so far. I think the games here are tougher for the following reasons: 1. The software is so much faster it is easier for players to be patient. 2.Maybe all the total newbies that I was used to cleaning out at Planet are playing 2-4, have gone broke or are playing online bingo. 3.The variety of games might make a diference also as maybe the weaker players are in another game.
Of course my problem could be my own ego run amuck: fancy plays, getting out of line before the flop, not paying attention to the other players, watching TV ect. Of course it could be a grand conspiracy of collusion and random number generators
I dont see a Planet Poker link on this website either so I guess that means something also. Anyone have any thoughts?
I was watching a 10-20 game on paradise lastnight and found, to my surprise, that a player who does not respond within an alloted time is not mucked, but is treated as all in. He stays in the hand, but is not allowed to bet/call/raise any further!!! Was i seeing this right? This seems like it would present a grossly unfair advantage for anyone who wishes to take advantage of this quirk. You could essentially call every hand before the flop and then proceed to act as if you were all in. You would win every time your starting cards make the best hand vs. the entire field as well as all the times that your hand beats everyone else remaining (best hand folds). This can't be right. can someone explain this, please. If it is true, I'm sending my check in right now.
The all-in rule is there to protect a player from being folded when that player gets disconnected for whatever reason. Paradise limits you to one all-in per 24 hours. You can request that your all-in be reset but I assume they check to see if you really were disconnected when you used your all-in (however I don't know this for sure). Also, if you continually abuse the all-in polocy, other players will complain and Paradise will warn you and threaten to ban you. I don't know if anyone has actually been banned.
I recently had to explain why I didn't respond in time and was forced all-in while I was still connected. When I requested my all-ins be reset, I was emailed and asked to explain why I failed to respond in time. It seems they are able to determine if someone is still connected, and then deal with the situation from there. Paradise Poker handled the situation quite well and I'm reassured that abusers will be dealt with effectively. Needless to say, I'll be turning off the ringer to my business phone while playing from now on.
Since it is possible to get disconnected during a hand players are allowed one all-in during a 24 hour period. They then must request that their all-in be reset. Intentional abusers are banned. They are easy to spot because you always get to see the cards with which they timed-out. Report them. It is my understanding that the Paradise software also looks for such behavior.
I still can't believe this opponent didn't know what cards were coming. Four players limp in, me included in the big blind with K7s. Flop comes K 9 7 of three different suits. I bet and only one opponent calls. Turn comes 8, fourth suit. Same action, bet, call. River brings a 5 and I check call to see J6o. I'm stunned. How can anyone call on that flop with that hand with two players yet to act after him? This player must know what's coming, eh?
I'll post the punch line tomorrow.
this was in a live game?
scott
Exactly so. 9-18 at the Commerce. If this happened to a skeptic on line then it would obviously look dishonest. This particular pidgeon quickly moved over to the 15-30 game to press his luck.
I've fallen victim to this type of hand at least twice recently that I can remember. I call it the phantom gut-shot, where the players hand and the board cards run from 6 to king presenting the easy mis-read of a gut-shot str8 draw, 6 7 9 J K in this example. The previous time I was put out of a tournament by almost exactly the same hand and an equally (un)skilled player.
I'm sure there are dozens of similar examples of this hand that have been casually tossed into the muck after fattening my bankroll.
Let's assume someone has knowledge of the cards that are coming. Do you think that they would choose to pick this hand to use that information? They wouldn't need to cheat on hands that would raise suspicion, would they? He just played poorly and got lucky. Be glad he's at your table.
I guess not only knew what cards were coming but was one of those kindly cheats who took pity on you by not raising on the flop or turn.
People call with those hands sometimes. If you think otherwise you're new to the game. Perhaps he'd seen you check-fold on the turn after better the flop and thought he'd buy this one, opting instead to call when he turned an open-ender (after which you can hardly be surprised).
I once had this very thing happen to me 6 time in one session up at Bullwhackers (running straight with one card playing, no overcards or backdoor flush draws on the flop) and I'm fairly sure the games up there are honest. As you've said, a string of exotic bad beats does not mean the game is crooked. In fact, if you NEVER took any horrific beats then there probably would be something rigged about the game.
I'm guessing that the same player might have pulled the same trick twice; you must have enjoyed that ;-). Imagine how much other experience it would take to get a player like that to sober up, if any amount, and how much money he'd spend in the interim. For players trying to figure out what to do through experience, wins like this must be particularly cruel.
(Bad beats should be thought of as random redistributive and stimulative tax assessments for the benefit of the poker community.)
I agree, I wouldn't call this unusual at low limit hold'em. I had 2 high pair busted on the river by an unsuited, mid card, gut shot in a live game on Saturday.
You know what, I can't remember if the same guy did it twice or not. Probably, but you never know. Before the Bullwhackers games really tightened up (largely a function of the structure, which I think should be abandoned in favor of a 2.50-5.00 game (w/ 2.50 chips) or a 2-4) game you used to see that kind of crazy s*&t all the time. I do remember, however, that I only ended up losing 22$ that session, thanks to a 250$ dollar pot that I dragged with--get this-- unimproved pocket 5's. It was one of those games. BTW-- and you may be aware of this-- if you're still playing up there I strongly recommend abandoning the HE on most nights and instead playing the 2-5 O8. God, that game is good. I was up there in November and remember thinking to myself "This may be the softest O8 game in the lower 48". And it may be, too. I mean, it's really that juicy. The O8 games in Nevada, New Mexico, Chicago and Michigan have NOTHING on that game.
You do have an answer for everything!!!!!!!!
He's the biggest, know it all on the face of the planet. CHRIS...SHUT UPPPP!
These things happen. They happen more on the Internet per hour but you play a billion (at least!) more hands per hour at cyber speed.
Last time I said this I got flamed to no end. Playing online is different. It took me a while and I had to find some experienced help, but it was worth the trouble. When I play smart ("internet smart") I win, when I play stupid I lose. That simple!!!
Let the flames fly...
My cat's name is Whiskers.
His breath smells like cat food.
what is your description of smart...give some examples....anyone can say that the sky is blue most days..
I agree with Ray, if you're just here to boast, it's not doing anyone any good.
- Andrew
Please describe what you mean by "internet smart" How should one play differently online vs casino card room.
Personally I see online as being much harder. For example the $2-$4 game on Paradise is pretty tight and tough sometimes. There is always at lease one fish, but there are also usually 2-3 good players. The last 2 or3 times I played $2-$4 at the Taj, there were anywhere from 4-6 fish at the table at any given time. I cleaned up.
Can't seem to duplicate that in the lowest limit on paradise.
You're right. You can't win online waiting for the fish to pay off your big cards and big pairs like you can in a lot of ring games. So reread the chapters in HPFAP on semi-bluffing and bluffing, you can use that stuff now whereas before you might have been limited to games where people just didn't fold. I know it's hard to believe that a $3-6 game could qualify as "intense," but I don't know how else to put it. It's perhaps not as profitable as the softer games but I think they're more fun, and fun is what poker for the rest of us is all about. (There are still a lot of very soft games online, it's just that they're a bit tougher than what you seen in most big casinos).
What are you talking about? I've played for 7 hours in the 2-4 games on Paradise and I'm +$650. They're the best games I've ever played in.
When I win a lot of big pots on the internet ("internet pots") it makes me happy. James
I have been playing online for about 30 hours and am down about $400. Mostly $2-4 and $3-6. I'm not an all-star player however I do have a pretty good win rate at the casino over time so this figure is discouraging.
I don't think the games are crooked or that I've been cheated (at least not at the lower levels, I don't trust it enough to play at the higher limits though), so this isn't that sort of post. I attribute my losses to several factors:
1: E-Tilt that everyone talks about, it is real. For some reason the bad beats on runner runner get under my skin online whereas they just make me see dollar signs in live play.
2: At the tables I can read players pretty well, something I can't quite figure out on line. You can spot certian types but I still have a lot of troube with this.
3: Playing when I'm tired which is much easier to do online since it is so accessible.
However, these factors don't explain everything in terms of my losses. I've read the archives and the other posts, but I still haven't seen anyone really succinctly sum-up the differences between live and online play. I'd be interested in hearing from some folks who have really logged a lot of hours online. And I'd also like to hear about some strategies that people have employed to shift their live game skills to online games.
Thanks in advance.
a) Keep Records. As well as the obvious notes e.g., how I'm doing/hr in each level of game, I make copious notes on all players. Often, I'll watch a game for half an hour before I sit down. Because betting patterns are all you really have to go on, on-line to some extent protects weak players. You rarely get to see the trash they are taking to the river so making notes on their tendencies and cross referencing becomes crucial.
b) E-tilt has cut deeply into my profits. I'm working on it but is a far more serious concern - for me - than worries about collusion et al. I'm still earning 14-15/hr playing two tables but this rate is less than I earned in live play. I prefer on-line however for a few reasons. I'm allergic to smoke, I like getting in 75 hands/hr, no mis-deals, lots of table options, and I've always fancied getting paid to sit at home in my shorts eating popcorn.
c) I encounter far more aggressive players at low limits than at similar levels in live games. Sure you can always find a soft 2-4 game but the play in many 5-10 games at PP remind me of some tough 10-20 games I've played in. I don't know why so many seemingly savy players hang out at 5-10.
d) All of which lead me to play much tighter up front and far more aggressive on-line than I do in live play. I'm far more likely to attack the blinds in a 3-6 or 5-10 on-line than in a 4-8 casino game. Also, I bluff far more often with position on-line. My bluffs aren't nearly as successful on-line but they do constitute a bigger share of my profits than in low-limit live games (where bluffing is often pointless). I've gone on-line and watched a 3/6 game where they go twice around the table without ever giving the BB a free ride.
e) Keep track of your table. Split your screen and always have a view of the lobby. The longer you play on-line the importance of this becomes obvious.
f) I don't know whether on-line play has improved my game. I suspect that it has. I don't know when I'll bother to find out as I don't think I could suffer the tedium of 20-25 hands/hr, smoke filling my face, and feeling awkward about tipping a strong dealer 2-5 dollars and stiffing the truely weak ones. Which leads me to a final and rather painful admission. As a former dealer, its weak dealers whom I miss the least.
Hope some of this is of some use, spitball
spitballs advice is right on.
The biggest problem that people face online, I feel, is not knowing who the players are, and how well they are doing. Keeping records is VITAL for good table selection. I always check out all the tables at the limit which I'm interested in playing. In particular, I look for know fish, *then* I look for known sharks. It's really more important to know *who* is at your table than to table hop from one "loose" table to another. I see a lot of players wasting energy hopping from one table to another when all they really need to do is avoid the rocks and sharks at their own table.
I look for tables with few players that I'm familiar with. As a general rule a player that I haven't seen pretty much sucks.
As for style of play, you pretty much have to give no one credit for anything until they prove otherwise. The play can be hyper aggressive (especially if I'm at the table and on mini-tilt).
Read a lot of what Caro has to write about adjusting to the style of your opponents and you should be one step ahead of the game.
- Andrew
Your note about table hopping is so true. I'll look at a table's % of hands played and see 50%+, note that the average pot size is small compared to the limit and deduce that the table just got started. Then you look at the waiting list and see that it is filled with rocks waiting to take advantage of the loose fish. Well, by the time they get on the table the action has been killed.
I find that if I stay where I am, and the table doesn't die, I get the best action from four or five players who 'gear-up' with crap holdings because they think that's optimal for short-handed. This increase in % hands played at the table attracts new blood, quickly, and if you are fortunate, the table fills with more loose aggressive types hoping to run over a short table. Presto, you're at the best table just by showing some patience. The whole process might take ten minutes. spitball
Would you care to list the names of the shar and known fish? I'd sure appreciate it...
Joe
For every $50 you send me, I'll send you one name. Is it a deal?
- Andrew
That confirms it. I've read your posts over a long period of time and wondered what kind of arrogant, egotistical sob could right them. But now I am sure of it. You are the world's biggest butt hole.
As Ray says, I *am* pretty easy to read.
:)
- Andrew
write
I was recently watching a friend play on Planet Poker and saw that they have games up to $20-$40. I was surprised because I play on Paradise and it only goes up to $10-$20.
I was wondering if anyone here has had any experiences playing the $20-$40 on Planet? How are the games? Tight, loose, aggressive?
I'm wary of playing a $20-$40 game because if someone is going to cheat at online poker, that's the game to do it in. Collusion could be a real problem.
Please post any experiences in the $20-$40 Planet game. Thanks
CB
If you're concerned with whether the games are tight, loose, or aggressive, then you should probably not be playing 20-40.
Planet Poker is a very popular site, so I would hope you need not concern yourself with collusion.
Unfortunately, I haven't played 20-40 at Planet Poker, so I can not offer much in terms of experience.
Good Luck, Bob J.
I've been playing at Paradise Poker for a couple of months. I'm charged a fee when I buy chips, but Paradise refunds the fee once I've played enough hands.
I did not find anything similar at Planet Poker. If I buy chips at their site, am I out 6% ? If so, why does anyone play there when they could play at Paradise?
Planet Poker doesn't refund the 6% credit card charge, but I'm fairly certain there's no fee if you mail them a check. As to why play on Planet, Planet offers 15-30 and 20-40 Hold'em, and I think 15-30 stud, whereas Paradise doesn't.
-Sean
As I've mentioned many times, I think keeping notes on players is especially important on-line. I have pages and pages. Who else does it? If you keep notes I'd like to hear from you. E-mail me at above. spitball
A friend of mine is doing that and IŽll tell him about your "brainstorming"-idea. The only thing of it I know, is that he was completely unable to detect any correlations. hope he is right. Walter.
whenever you join a new table you get vastly more than you're share of bringins. well, a stud table. the reason they do this is to promote playing longer sessions.
i am certain of it.
scott
Yep that qualifies as a crazy idea.
- Andrew
I agree with Andrew!
I'd side with ya, except that hasn't been my experience with online stud. I've played a bit of high and hi/low 8 on the Internet, and from what I've seen the game is excruciatingly boring-- in fact, I haven't caught NEARLY enough quality hands on 3rd in either of these games. Which leads me to my next conspiracy theory...:)
i am not saying anything about good or bad cards. i am just saying that i will often have the lowest door card for over half my first 10 hands or so. but i had an exception session yesterday, so now i dont know what to think.
scott
Care to post any numbers?
- Andrew
well, i haven't really been keeping reconrds, per se. it just seems that way.
scott
scott - I'm a math guy too, Michigan '69 (yeah, i'm old too). Without a very large sample space, I'm sure you must know that you can't draw many conclusions. I do tend to believe that the operators (PP et al.) are really trying to deal random cards. I have been playing mostly low-limit Omaha-8 just to learn the game, and I have seen nothing different other than what I would expect from random poor play.
Don't forget that short-term results can be anything.
Dick
It seems that every time I play cards I get a random number of cards. Sometimes I get 2 cards, sometimes I get 3, and sometimes I get 4. But the number of cards I get are completely random. I try to alert the dealers to this, but they just give me weird looks. When this happens, I get up and switch tables. Amazingly, the number of cards I get when I sit down switches too! My theory is that the number of cards I get is dependent upon the table I sit at, but I think my sample size might be too low to make an accurate determination. Has anyone else discovered this to be true?
While considering the concept of e-tilting and how to avoid it, I came upon the following thought burried deep in the recesses of what's left of my mind.
What if EVERYONE that's playing online is in the act of "e-tilting" (with the exception of a few who have a mysterious natural immunity to the effects of a suckout bad beat). Now, before you scoff and dismiss this idea, seriously think about it!
You arrive at a table which consistantly has 50-60% seeing the flop and the pots are rather juicy. You play SUPER tight and wait for Aces before you see a flop. You pick them up on the button (what luck!!) 2 early raises and you're licking your chops as you happily cap the betting. Both blinds cold call and you see the flop with 5 others. You flop top set and lose to 2-4 offsuit runner runner wheel! ARGH! You did *EVERYTHING* right! How could that MORON call all those raises cold with only a prayer and his mommy's credit card?!
That's it! You're tilting already and stuck but good! You burn through another $200 quickly without winning a hand, then *finally* you pick up a win with *cough* 2-4 offsuit runner runner wheel! Feeling good about your "victory" and saying a silent prayer to the poker gods that justice arrive more swiftly next time, you fail to realize that you, yes YOU have just sent the poor guy who held top two pair a'e-tilting!
For those of you that have trouble seeing my point though all this, I'll sum it up here:
E-tilting is really just a vicious cycle; similar to those nasty and not-so-funny "Forwards" that cram your inbox and waste disk space. Someone puts you on tilt by sucking out...you put someone else on tilt by sucking out because you are on tilt...they put the original tilter on tilt but you missed that 30 hands ago because you had to relieve your bladder.....now there are 3 people tilting at the same time and it's not necessarily the same three. It's like having three straddle pucks in a game that only the puck owners know they have.
E-tilting is an EXTREMELY contagious disease!
Do your part to end this senseless and rampant virus: "Please don't E-tilt!" And if you really just MUST e-tilt, don't let your kids see!!
I tilt all the time.
Angelina
I know -- I've played with you. I loved you in "Girl Interrupted", BTW. Bad hair though.
The currently available online poker websites are undoubtedly rigged.
Anonymous defamation is for losers.
I agree with Chris Alger!
I agree with Ray!
- Andrew
I agree with Chris, Ray, AND Andrew.
if he does not go out of his mind while awaiting for players to act.
3/6 the players are so slow, have nothing and agonize over what to do; have the nuts and agonize over what to do.
You are playing super tight because of the crazies at the table, and you sit, and sit and go nuts waiting.
What to do? Do not tell me to be patientent, I am.
What I do when I play online is surf the web when I am not in a hand. In fact I will read, and occassionally post a message here like I am doing right now. I will also read the newspaper or a book, hit golf balls down the hall, and watch television in the other room. I just have to make sure the sound is turned up loud enough so I can hear the prompt beep. Every so often I will check the hand histories to see how others have been playing. I know this might not be the optimal way of playing, but it definitely works for me. I am showing a profit over 300+ hours of play. I also know that the longest I can play on the computer is about 4 hours at a time. I usually try to get some exercise in to rejuvenate me. Hope this helped.
Play two hands at once (lower limit of necessary). Take good notes and try to put the players on hands. Listen to music. Don't let it irritate you. Don't do what I do and post sarcastic messages to the slow players.
It's "patience", by the way.
Do what I do: Type "HURRY UP YOU MORON" then keeping typing z Seriously, it's a good idea to find a computer game you can play part time while you are not in a hand, like minesweeper, or surf the web, or get out of your chair and do situps, etc... Keep track of how many hands an hour are played on Paradise vs. your local 3-6 game in a casino. You'll find that RL games get about 25-35/hr, PP gets 50-60. It's really not as slow as you think.
Yesterday was my last day. That's it. I'm done. At this point I'm reasonably convinced that Paradise poker is completely honest and entirely beatable. After four months of play I've cashed their checks totaling $3k.
Why quit you may well ask? I believe it's sucking up too much of my life. it's too easy to play and I lack the ability to resist. Too much mental energy is spent chasing too few dollars. Also I'm the addictive personality type, nothing exceedes like excess.
The games also don't present the same profit potential as a live game for me. They are much tighter than any game of similar limit and lack the truly horrible players that are so frequent in real life.
Lastly, I think I might be playing worse in live games because of all the play online. My bread and butter is middle limit hold'em and my earn has fallen off since I took up online poker.
Best luck to those that remain.
Sounds like the real problem is that they don't have a high enough limit to make it worth all that time you put in.
If you could make the same # of big bets/hr in 20-40 would you mind that it sucked up all of your free time?
I was uncomfortable with the idea of trusting a bankroll of 20-40 proportions to some unknown in Costa Rica. I also was uncomfortable with increased risk of collusion at higher limits.
Ron - I too have noticed that this thing is addictive. One thing that I do is time-share a poker game with browsing the net. Keeping up with this forum is one thing that I often do while playing. Paradise pops your table screen to the top and gives you a "ding" whenever you have your next decision to make.
Before anyone criticizes me for not tracking my opponents: Game selection is important here. You can't do this playing heads-up hold'em !! The only game I play while doing this is low-limit Omaha8. In that game, your actions are usually clear-cut no matter who your opponent is. And furthermore, you fold most of your starting hands, leaving more time for Browsing. (When I play hold'em, I do stay and pay attention, and keep notes on opponents.)
Dick
Heck Dick,
I play 2 games at once, and I surf the net all the time. The only game I don't do this level of multitasking on is heads up, and short handed. Those are the games I spend all my time picking appart my opponents plays. All other games, I have brain to spare.
- Andrew
B S
Check out this link for a very interesting article about the paradise poker shuffling algorithm... I imagine it's been fixed, but still.
http://www.rstcorp.com/news/gambling.html
Seeding the random number generator with the number of milliseconds since midnight would create predictable shuffles, as explained and claimed demonstrated at the site.
However, this is not what ParadisePoker does. They use a 2016 bit seed that depends, among other things, keyboard and mouse movements made by the individual players. I would say that makes the shuffles unpredictable.
I found this out at http://www.paradisepoker.com/integrity.html.
the article is about Planet Poker...not Paradise..and it is hard core proof that my arguments earlier this year about Planet Poker were absolutely correct.
Noting the thread below... I want to state that I have confidence that Paradise Poker runs a clean game..and have returned to playing there.
I share your confidence. I wish the games were a little looser, but this is not a perfect world. Incidentally, last night there was a 10/20 game with 13% taking the flop. Unreal. James
PS-right now there is a 10/20 game with 15% seeing the flop. I believe that game selection may be a bigger factor online than in live play. Of course, I've never played in LA so I've never been fortunate enough to have 20 3/6 games to choose from. James
Welcome to the day crew.
- Andrew
Last night there was a 3/6 game with 16% seeing the flop!
about an hour ago I checked out of a 5-10 that also had fewer than 2/hand. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz spitball I share the confidence in PP
I started on Paradise a couple of months ago. I played with play money for about 20 hours just so I could get used to the interface, the procedures, and the rules. I recommend that everyone do this !! By the way, the play money games (I was in Omaha8) are sooo loose that you just can't help but rack up the (play) money. Don't let that make you overconfident. The low limit real money games all of a sudden add a rake (although much less than my local casino) and there are some tighter players, so it is a major difference in games when you move to real money.
I have been playing for real money, mostly 2-4 O8, for 70 hours of play now; I am slightly ahead. I have observed absolutely nothing at all that looked like either cheating or inter-player collusion.
Look for me in the 2-4 O8 games; I am Dick_Phoenix. You can type into the chat box and say hi even if you are just watching, as long as you are logged in.
Dick
They sent out a huge list of email address. I complained and this is their reply.....
>From: "www.pokerspot.com"
Generally, on the web, agreeing to something with a website's owners, is worse than agreeing with a bank: everything is written on stone, take-it-or-leave-it, just press AGREE or fuck off.
All these PRIVACY POLICY promises (quite a tongue twister this!), what's the legal ground for confronting a website for such a blatant violation of privacy? I mean, OK, clerical error and all that, but, sorry, just as I'm gonna ask compensation from the hospital on account of the nurse feeding the wrong tube, I'm gonna ask compensation from website XYZ on acct of the stupid techie who sent out a bunch of addresses because his coffee wasn't ready yet.
"Good luck with that", I hear you say, huh?
Yes, it does not do a great deal to instill confidence if they deal with things like that in such a sloppy manner. What if that was a list of credit card numbers?
They say on their website "PokerSpot respects your privacy, and the information you provide here will be kept in strict confidentiality" and then without testing they fire that off.
That was a hell of a list to distribute, a great targeted market. I can't wait for all the online casino spam I'm going to get as a result of this.
I just hope the card dealing is truly random at Poker Spot and not a programmed simulation of poker for the benefit of their business goals. Because I think the internet users who play poker are ready for a real poker room.
I think it's more important to look at who is in the game as opposed to what the numbers are. A 20% game with predictable players is much better than a 30% game with mostly good aggressive players.
- Andrew
Tight games become loose, loose games tight. On-line this sems to happen every ten minutes or so:) I watch the wait list. If I'm at a tight game I may leave or I may sit out a round if there are players coming in who will liven up the action. Conversly, if the game is loose you can be sure rocks are on the wait list. I try and anticipate which tight games will become loose within the next half hour or so (the wait list again) and keep my name up for at least two other games while I'm playing. spitball
Sometimes when my ISP is congested, I will request a web page load or get email or something, just to keep the pipes open. I have nothing scientific to base this on, but more data through the pipes seems to keep them running smoother. I need DSL soon!!!!
Wayne
Packet collisions can happen at any time. It could be line noise, or simply a different routing path. It is nothing unusual. Packets most often take several hops before arriving at the destination. DSL is higly reccomended if you continue to play online.
Sounds like a simple dropped packet from your computer to theirs. It happens, but if you have a good connection there is usually plenty of time to resend it. Just because you can see what is going doesn't mean they can see what you are sending especially with a bad ISP or bad modem.
Since you had used up your allin I assume you had a bad connection so I'm just wondering, why would you be playing under those conditions? Playing with a bad connection without an allin is just asking for trouble.
That being said, before I got my DSL I did that once and of course got folded on the river with a winning hand. I wrote to them and they credited me for it.
What is a DSL?? Thanx
At the time I didn't even realise my all-in had been used already. With hindsight, I guess it was with a game when I pressed fold on 3rd, there was a delay before the game carried on - from my viewpoint anyway. I was then surprised to see myself sitting out the next hand. No message about my all-in being used though, which is what I thought happened, so I thought it was just one of those quirks.
Anyway, I did write to Paradise and thye credited my account, not with the pot but just with the money I had put into it, which was decent enough of them.
I've never had that happen but I haven't been able to chat for the past two days. Ever since Paradise did the upgrade as a matter of fact. I type it in, push enter, and nothing. Anyone else have this problem? I reckon I'll get in touch with support pretty soon. I can't stand not being able to say "nice catch, moron!"
My first visit to this forum, and really appreciate it. Question for Any/Everyone... I've not heard really any mention of online poker sites other than Paradise and Planet... and one Thread about Dragon. WHAT are your experiences/opinions about these others: Casino Coco, Delta, Poker.com, Poker Spot, Pure Poker, etc. Thank you very much. Stew in Chicago.
Posted by: Cyrus
Posted on: Friday, 28 April 2000, at 11:54 a.m.
Posted by: JB (juanco2@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 April 2000, at 3:21 p.m.
Posted by: anonymous
Posted on: Friday, 28 April 2000, at 9:23 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Friday, 28 April 2000, at 5:03 p.m.
Posted by: spitball (spitball@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 April 2000, at 5:08 p.m.
Posted by: Wayne (wzenoble@gte.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 April 2000, at 1:17 a.m.
Posted by: ray springfield
Posted on: Saturday, 29 April 2000, at 3:26 a.m.
Posted by: JB (juanco2@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 April 2000, at 2:37 p.m.
Posted by: sonny
Posted on: Saturday, 29 April 2000, at 4:05 p.m.
Posted by: Graham
Posted on: Saturday, 29 April 2000, at 5:04 p.m.
Posted by: Uston (James_U81@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 April 2000, at 5:03 p.m.
Posted by: Chicago Stew (strong8271@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 April 2000, at 10:24 a.m.
Internet Gambling
April 2000 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo