pokerstars - Bear with me here!!!

[mex]

greaty post matt! i have tried explaining that so many times to my home game buddies, oooo you hit a,I think if you can get your head round this concept then it Makes SH play so much easier.

[Triple X]

absolutely agree matt - will post my results.

Dont need to explain percentages with me - i repeat yet again that i am just observing what i see at my table.

Quick example - take 4 hands.  excuse my maths, i am sure there are better experts out there

Fave  - Underdog

60 - 40 (W)
70 - 30 (W)
90 (W) - 10
80 (W) - 20

in the above example, the favourite wins the 2 massive favourites but loses the two that are nearer to a coinflip.  He has won 2/4.  50%.  Calculating it on a straight line basis he should win 4/4 100% but looking on the stats he should win 75% 3/4.  (add up the fave percentages =300 and the underdog = 100).

Actually in this example he wins 66% (40+30+90+80 / 60+70+10+20 =1.5 =66%)

so instead of holding up 75% of the time, he actually is winning 66% of the time - which is a deviation from the norm.

What i was hoping someone could prove to me is that on 1000s of hands on stars, the answer is still 75% and not 66%.  Yes in ths short term it may deviate but it shouldnt in the long term.

I hope my maths was right!!!

I will do this for my last 10 torneys which should have somewhere between 100-150 all ins

[thetank]

I will do this for my last 10 torneys which should have somewhere between 100-150 all ins

Do it for between 10,000 and 15,000 all-ins. Your findings from 100-150 won't mean much.

The long run is longer than you might think.

[tikay]

like i said - please do not think this is a moan, as it isnt - i was just observing a higher number of bad beats lately across the whole table.  In my last game, i pushed with AJs on the bubble and got called by AQ and obviously flopped the J - so i am well aware that the beats go for and against you.

Now according to the stats that should only happen c. 30% of the time.  What i am saying is that it 'appears' to be happening at least half if not more but i dont have the stats to back up my argument. I was merely asking whether anyone else had noticed this trend or if anyone had the stats to counter my thoughts.

I hear what Tank says in that our brain notices the times it happens and accentuates these and forgets about the times it doesnt so it nly highlights the bad beats more.

I also absolutely believe the major sites not to be rigged etc - especially Stars.  Also i completely understand that strange occurrences and abnormal runs can happen - like i said nothing is full-proof

I think i am going to look back at my last 10 tourneys just to see if i am talking cr*p.  Terribly small sample i know but at least its a start and it involves everyone's hands.  If i spot any anomaly then you can obviously tell me my sample was too small and if its all pretty standard and to the book then you can flame me for talking rubbish.

I just wonder at times whether the random hand generators etc are sooo random that it causes a deviation from the norm.

Anyway just my thoughts....

Will post results later...

I think you almost prove the case there Triple, when you cite the AQ v AJ hand as an example of what you mean.

If you spend, say, 6 hours online evey day, you will see AQ v AJ a dozen or more times. AQ dominates, & is expected to win 7 times out of 10. (Yes, that's all it is - most peeps think it's more - it' not). It invariably does. You barely even notice, it's an ABC hand. But when the AJ wins - as it SHOULD, almost 3 times in 10, you Raise an eyebrow - "wow - you see that - AJ beat AQ"......

And thats how the mind plays tricks on you.

[tikay]

Like you I play Stars all the time. There are not any unusual patterns like this - and my PokerTracker confirms my decent starting hands still stand up the majority of the time (at least as much as the books tell you they should).

Like others said, it is simply a case that we always remember the times we are outdrawn, but rarely remember the times we outdraw others.

And there would be no point in any software provider being behind anything suspicious - everyone has paid the site money to enter SnG's, so why should they bother?

If anything, Stars is the best providor (but I would say that, wouldn;t I?) beating only blonde's Tribeca softwarte of course!

Hi Big Man, how are you?

Beating only ".......blonde's Tribeca softwarte...."

And there was me thinkng you were Simon, from The Sun. And all along you were working for the Grundiag.

Nice Post though.

Take care Simon!

[matt674]

I think you almost prove the case there Triple, when you cite the AQ v AJ hand as an example of what you mean.

If you spend, say, 6 hours online evey day, you will see AQ v AJ a dozen or more times. AQ dominates, & is expected to win 7 times out of 10. (Yes, that's all it is - most peeps think it's more - it' not). It invariably does. You barely even notice, it's an ABC hand. But when the AJ wins - as it SHOULD, almost 3 times in 10, you Raise an eyebrow - "wow - you see that - AJ beat AQ"......

And thats how the mind plays tricks on you.

Like i tried to explain in my earlier post, I'd even take this a step further again about the mind playing tricks on you. The AJ will beat the AQ three times out of ten but sometimes its the manner of how it beats it that sticks in the memory even more.

The number of times i've seen two players all in preflop with hands like AJ vs AQ are probably very numerous and like you say you know that the AJ will win 3 out of 10 times. When i'm not involved in the hand and the flop come 4-J-6, turn K, river 2 i probably dont bat an eyelid and get ready to continue with the next hand.

However when the flop come down A-Q-6, turn K, river 10 i sit there and i think "poor sod, how unlucky was that - flopped top two pairs and lost". This hand is more likely to stick in peoples memories than the first one - especially if you are not the player with the AQ.

As these hands happen more frequently online as (1) there are more hands being dealt than in a live tournament, (2) you are more likely to be playing more than one game at the same time and (3) players online will tend to call with worse hands, then of course you are going to see lots more examples of really bad beats - even when you arent involved in the hands.

My advice to people would be -  instead of watching for how often the bad beats happen would be learn to control your emotions better so that when they do happen you are still able to continue playing your a-game.

(this comment isnt aimed directly at TripleX who started the thread, just a general observation)

[Triple X]

Like i said matt - this is not me talking about my own bad beats!!!  i never once have mentioned a bad beat of my own - infact the only time i have mentioned my own hand is an outdraw that i did on someone.

I am just merely trying to convince myself that AQ beats AJ in the long run 70% of the time - not 50% and not 90%.

This is merely an observation thread, please understand that!! I agree with Matt, people need to control their emotions at the bad beats and i am just trying to prove to everone especially myslef that there is no deviation and that in the long run the percentages do hold up.

Yes 100-150 preflop all in hands is too low a sample - but its a start

[SuffolkPunch]

Like you I play Stars all the time. There are not any unusual patterns like this - and my PokerTracker confirms my decent starting hands still stand up the majority of the time (at least as much as the books tell you they should).

Like others said, it is simply a case that we always remember the times we are outdrawn, but rarely remember the times we outdraw others.

And there would be no point in any software provider being behind anything suspicious - everyone has paid the site money to enter SnG's, so why should they bother?

If anything, Stars is the best providor (but I would say that, wouldn;t I?) beating only blonde's Tribeca softwarte of course!

Hi Big Man, how are you?

Beating only ".......blonde's Tribeca softwarte...."

And there was me thinkng you were Simon, from The Sun. And all along you were working for the Grundiag.

Nice Post though.

Take care Simon!

Oops. Must be that I was thinking of you Tikay and had warts on my mind! And me working for the Grundiag would be like Steven Gerard signing for Barnet.

Hope all is well!

[matt674]

Like i said matt - this is not me talking about my own bad beats!!!  i never once have mentioned a bad beat of my own - infact the only time i have mentioned my own hand is an outdraw that i did on someone.

I am just merely trying to convince myself that AQ beats AJ in the long run 70% of the time - not 50% and not 90%.

This is merely an observation thread, please understand that!! I agree with Matt, people need to control their emotions at the bad beats and i am just trying to prove to everone especially myslef that there is no deviation and that in the long run the percentages do hold up.

Yes 100-150 preflop all in hands is too low a sample - but its a start

This is why i made the last comment in my post about it not being aimed directly at you TripleX as i am aware that you are not talking about your own bad beats. However as hand histories and tournament histories are so easily available from pokerstars dont you think that other people havent already had the same thoughts you have.

There have probably been thousands of people just like yourself who have tried to prove that there are more bad beats occuring online than there should be according to the laws of statistics, probablility and averages. However once they trawl though tens or even hundreds of thousands of hands the conclusions they arrive at is that - maybe they dont happen as much as people claim and they are as close to the "norm" as possible.

I'm not saying that it wouldnt be a worthwhile study to carry out but if there was a problem i'm guessing someone would have already discovered it by now - some ex-employee of pokerstars with a grudge may have tipped of someone etc etc. Instead of spending all this time studying your hand histories for bad beats, study them for ways in which you could have improved your game to greater minimize your losses in the hands when you were beat and maximize your winnings in hands you were in front.

[tikay]

Like you I play Stars all the time. There are not any unusual patterns like this - and my PokerTracker confirms my decent starting hands still stand up the majority of the time (at least as much as the books tell you they should).

Like others said, it is simply a case that we always remember the times we are outdrawn, but rarely remember the times we outdraw others.

And there would be no point in any software provider being behind anything suspicious - everyone has paid the site money to enter SnG's, so why should they bother?

If anything, Stars is the best providor (but I would say that, wouldn;t I?) beating only blonde's Tribeca softwarte of course!

Hi Big Man, how are you?

Beating only ".......blonde's Tribeca softwarte...."

And there was me thinkng you were Simon, from The Sun. And all along you were working for the Grundiag.

Nice Post though.

Take care Simon!

Oops. Must be that I was thinking of you Tikay and had warts on my mind! And me working for the Grundiag would be like Steven Gerard signing for Barnet.

Hope all is well!

GOTCHA!

[AdamM]

sometime I see people talk about the dodgy river card. THE LADBROKES RIVER  for example.
I was dealing a tournament in Nottingham a couple of weeks ago when I realised in the first round I didnt deal a single river card. infact the button went almost twice round, 18 hands before I dealt a river card. Could you imagine that happening in a $5 STT? ofcourse not. even at the low level I'm observing live Id guess around 30% of hands go to the river, let alone showdown. online (particualrly at lower stakes I wouldnt be suprised if someone told me it was 70%-80%, hence more river outdraws.

[I, Zimbra]

sometime I see people talk about the dodgy river card. THE LADBROKES RIVER  for example.

It's also worth mentioning that I've heard/seen this kind of thing written on every single online site I've ever played... e.g. "the VC river",  "River"Stars... "same old UB river, gets you every time..."

[Royal Flush]

still saying 'sigh'