GGPoker – “MoneyTaker69” superuser & new statistical anomalies
I’m the person who first exposed the superuser account “MoneyTaker69” on GG Poker, a case that has since been publicly d
Define "shitting on someone" for me.. you can do it on your other account as well 😉
And please quote me where i "shat on someone" thats for no reason totally unlike:
😃
What exactly are you implying? That I'm using a 2nd 2p2 account? I'm not
Irt you shitting on OP, did u even read what you wrote in ur first comment on this thread? Quoting the vitriol of some geek on the Internet so they can understand their own words better isn't on my to do list... even replying to u makes my soul sad
I did, this was my first post in this thread:
Again, how is this shitting on someone? How did this cross any line to you?
This is wrong.For 6 handed games "Regulars" tend to play a tighter and more condensed/overlapping range with each other than with a looser fish's which has a noticeable impact on the true expected equity of hands while database software can only provide equity analysis utilizing information from cards which were exposed at showdown. Databases will provide EV as if the hand was
Fair example, in this case the reg definitely under-realize on his ev and the fish over-realizes.
But there are also examples, which I encounter more than that one, where its the other way around.
What a reg regs gets way more vs fish than other regs is "weird all-ins". I just had one today. I was BvB versus a fish with 50bb stack. Everyone folds and the action is on fish on the SB, he opens, I 3bet my AKo, he shoves and I call. He turns over 65s. You wouldnt see a reg do this but fish do from time to time. Given that the 4 players before us folded they have more low cards than aces or kings, since they are more likely to would have opened with Ax Kx than 5x, 6x, 74o etc. So now I am in an all-in situation with a fish where, because of the folded card being generally lower, they cut down his frequency of making low pairs and straights, whereas my frequency of hitting an ace or king improve with regards to the EV shown. So now the reg with AK over-realizes on EV (should be running more above ev) than the fish (who should run below ev in this case because of folded cards). I know overlapping ranges have bigger impact but this scenario is more likely in my games, but maybe I table select well😉
When put in equilab the fish has 41% equity without any dead cards. Now when choosing dead cards like 5d, Jh, 5h, 8s, 3s, Kc, 7c, 2c (so one of my kings, 2 of his 5s but also some straight cards for him that are now dead) he goes from 41% to 36% equity which is quite significant as it means the reg will over-realize the given EV with 5%.
Maybe I didnt phrase my statement well. I was addressing posts above where the consensus of the conversation was that fish get a more favorable run from the site/rng than regs. And a lot of people argue that it is in the site's best interest to favor the fish and thats why they do that. My point is that no site is actively influencing boards to give fish any advantage over regs and when people claim it is happening (because fish giving out bad beats) its often related to comfirmation bias.
Agreed
Btw, in your example SeaKing. I thought it was quite an interesting spot and since my games are quite GTO heavy I decided to put it in solver. In my games CO reg calling my UTG open he might not have as many blockers to my hand as you'd think since gto calling range does have some suited broadways but they mostly 3bet (only AJs and ATs are more calls than 3bet) whereras TT-66 are more common cold callers than 3betters and 55-22 are sometime call but mostly folds. Also CO's calling range unblocks A9s-A3s and AKo-ATo quite heavily. So when CO calls my UTG he actually doesnt have as many J+ opposed to 2-10 so his calling range doesnt overlap with my outs as much as you'd think.
Btw, in your example SeaKing. I thought it was quite an interesting spot and since my games are quite GTO heavy I decided to put it in solver. In my games CO reg calling my UTG open he might not have as many blockers to my hand as you'd think since gto calling range does have some suited broadways but they mostly 3bet (only AJs and ATs are more calls than 3bet) whereras TT-66 a
How do you even get to 10k posts on a poker internet forum lmao. And I agree with previous poster, you seem to thrive on being devils advocate and mainly in support of GG, also known as narcissism
Its 8k and I've been around for a while, here and on the sports forum.
You should learn to stick to facts instead of making up bullshit. Also, you should learn when you quote someone you should at least respond with something relevant or coherent.
You already said I supported GG, then I quoted myself on 5 times where I was very critical of GG. You somehow ignored that post. How do yo combine the two?
Also
you seem to thrive on being devils advocate and mainly in support of GG, also known as narcissism
Do you really think thats what narcissism is??? 😃😃😃
I would rather say you are the narcissist. Because you are more inclined to believe that pokersites are targetting you with a negative RNG than to admit you might lose at poker because you are simply not that good. Talk about a fragile ego.
"Statistically, it's impossible to win 70 buy-ins in 8400 hands”
LMAO. I’ve seen people win $7000 in 400 hands of 1-3 multiple times.
you cannot compare live games to online games because live plays much deeper and more people are drunk and/or high out of their gourd.
One thing about common fish is that their standard deviations should be way higher than what is considered normal for a regular, as they play more hands and put more money into the pot on average when they vpip. But, assuming an overall -40 bb/100 expectation and a 150 bb/100 std dev, the probability of them winning at 83.333... bb/100 over 8.4k hands is 0.
Personally, I wouldn’t be shocked if GG could be manipulating the RNG in subtle ways to protect weaker players, not only recreationals but also weaker regs, in order to preserve the ecosystem. From a pure business perspective it would make sense. If these players lose less, they stay in the games longer, have more money circulating, and ultimately pay more rake over time, which is obviously very profitable for the site.
In a way, GG already openly does something similar with daily Flipout promotions, where the cash prizes disproportionately end up going to the biggest losers. That’s a clear example of redistribution designed to keep players solvent and engaged.
That said, extraordinary claims need solid evidence. RNG manipulation at this level would be extremely difficult to prove conclusively, and variance plus selection effects can easily fool even large datasets if the methodology isn’t airtight. So while this idea makes sense on the surface, I think most people will understandably want to see the full data, methodology, and robustness checks before drawing strong conclusions.
Looking forward to seeing the full analysis when you’re ready to release it.
i think you mean ''maneys''
If the original poster is telling the truth, one possible explanation is collusion bots that keep a low BB winrate to maintain a low profile while sharing hole cards. Over the long run, this statistically affects EV and normal variance. Something similar happened in Microgaming years ago, if I rememeber correctly.
The truth about what?
He said he already ran large-sample statistical analyses on a massive GG database of hands but he never showed an ounce of it
Still waiting for that "appropriate time"
I always have felt the same way on gg, played big sample sizes over multiple different sites but whats happening on gg i never really could explain hence why i completely moved away from that site
I always have felt the same way on gg, played big sample sizes over multiple different sites but whats happening on gg i never really could explain hence why i completely moved away from that site
do you have large-sample statistical analyses that shows variance cant explain whats happening there
And you do want to make that analysis public or also waiting for an "appropriate time"?
I’m the person who first exposed the superuser account “MoneyTaker69” on GG Poker, a case that has since been publicly discussed and acknowledged by GG.My original exposé post:https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...Since then I’ve run large-sample statistical analyses on a massive GG database of hands from winning regs (winners post-rake). Look
Interesting read. Without seeing the complete analysis and assumptions, it’s hard to draw conclusions.
As far as I know, beyond rake and PVI, only RNG or runout manipulation could meaningfully compress long-term edge, so I’d be interested in how your work addresses that.
do you have large-sample statistical analyses that shows variance cant explain whats happening there
And you do want to make that analysis public or also waiting for an "appropriate time"?
I’ve been reading this forum for some time now, and somehow every riGGed poker thread has you in it, typing the same thing over and over 😃 technically bullying people for not being able to analyze their hands (maybe not everyone is a software dev who can run their data with the click of a finger).
So I made an account for cases like this. If there’s anyone who wants to run their hands, I have a tool (free). It’s a coaching tool first and foremost, but I’ve also implemented some extras for riGGing detection, like chi-square tests, coolers, bad beats, etc.
If you want to run your hands, feel free to message me on this forum, or preferably on Discord: lukaz_city or Telegram: @Draveen0192
If people know too little about hand/data analysis maybe they shouldnt draw extreme conclusions like saying poker is rigged???
Also they say they do have actual evidence (so they know their way around data analysis) but somehow they never show any
Thats why I have to repeat myself asking for evidence, but somehow still 0% shown it... weird huh 🙂
But now there arent excuses anymore because you have a tool for rigging detection.
Cant wait to see the results
No reason to not have any evidence shown anymore 😉
It might happen easily to confuse Slugant with a GG-shill, but he's actually not. He's a very rational person as I am. People like us want to see bullet-proof arguments before we take the pitch-forks out of the barn. OP could have a point, but he also could just be another rigtard. As he's not delivering.....I'd rather lean towards rigtard. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see proof of GG rigging the games as I highly dislike their approach, but there has to be some black on white proof!
It seems like a data set like this would have to be accompanied by a dataset from a 'clean' poker site that didn't show a similar pattern
It seems like a data set like this would have to be accompanied by a dataset from a 'clean' poker site that didn't show a similar pattern
Not really. An obv sign of rigging - at least for me - would be, that winning players hit less their straights, flushes and sets compared to the pool funding the party. With each draw (draw to straight or flush, pocket-pair to set+) goes a mathematical probability, if MDA shows, that a site is off for certain player-types, I'd conclude rigging.
Winrates on GGpoker seems to be in line with high rake (before rakeback) + roughly 1.8 bb/100 that gets sucked up into the BBJ pool and redistributed at random (and remember that when you hit the jackpot it does not not show up in your winrate). I don't see any sign of a conspiracy.
