Hands like this make you think it's rigged... |
|
Posted Sun Dec 19, 2004 11:13 pm GMT by Absolution
Hand #3694585-48 at Ashtabula (No Limit Hold'em Sit and Go)
Powered by UltimateBet
Started at 19/Dec/04 23:01:05
Cmcoe is at seat 0 with 4940.
Absolution is at seat 1 with 2000.
deadheadyet is at seat 4 with 2040.
pokerbob9 is at seat 5 with 1020.
The button is at seat 1.
deadheadyet posts the small blind of 30.
pokerbob9 posts the big blind of 60.
Cmcoe: -- --
Absolution: 8s 8h
deadheadyet: -- --
pokerbob9: -- --
Pre-flop:
Cmcoe folds. Absolution calls. deadheadyet calls.
pokerbob9 checks.
Flop (board: 7d 8d 6d):
deadheadyet checks. pokerbob9 bets 60. Absolution
raises to 120. deadheadyet calls. pokerbob9 folds.
Turn (board: 7d 8d 6d 7h):
deadheadyet checks. Absolution bets 480.
deadheadyet raises to 960. Absolution goes all-in for
1820. deadheadyet calls.
Tournament all-in showdown -- players show:
Absolution shows 8s 8h.
deadheadyet shows 9d Td.
River (board: 7d 8d 6d 7h 8c):
(no action in this round)
Showdown:
Absolution has 8s 8h 7d 8d 8c: four eights.
deadheadyet has 9d Td 7d 8d 6d: straight flush, ten high.
Hand #3694585-48 Summary:
No rake is taken for this hand.
deadheadyet wins 4120 with straight flush, ten high.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I think it speaks for itself other than I finished one outside the money because of this. 
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Mon Dec 20, 2004 10:28 pm GMT by campbeas
Wow....ouch
Posted Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:45 am GMT by metal1
i would say that is evidence of rigging for action BUT i've never seen that happen in one year of online poker on multiple sites. I have seen that happen in live games though. maybe the real casinos are rigged for action?
LOL
Posted Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:36 pm GMT by flafishy
Damn.
Too bad that didn't happen where they pay off a bad-beat jackpot.
Posted Mon Jan 10, 2005 10:42 am GMT by Jauron
Thats a bad one for sure....ouch.
Posted Tue Jan 11, 2005 12:09 am GMT by aces kill
Bad beat, sure! Rigged for action, ridiculous. Its simply statistics and randomness doing what they do. Every so many 100,000's of hands, someone gets screwed. Just so happens it was you. Just be happy it wasn't a higher limit ring game.
Posted Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:05 am GMT by Absolution
Ya I was kidding about the rigged thing.
Posted Sun Jan 30, 2005 4:14 pm GMT by ReRaIsE
Well, I have to say that I SOLIDLY believe there is rigging going on. Case in point I cashed out $500 only to lose the rest of the $500 I had in there left...that's not the bad part, this is:
I redeposited $500, and within 1 hour I lost it all in 3 hands against quads, where I flopped a full house and the dude had quads. Same scenario three times in a row. That's bullshit and I refuse to put another penny on that particular site.
Posted Sun Jan 30, 2005 4:23 pm GMT by suitedaces84
Are you still playing online poker?!
Posted Sun Jan 30, 2005 4:45 pm GMT by ReRaIsE
No.
I'd like to because I WANT to believe it's fair, but after a month of bullshit beats I just have to give it up.
I just don't see how it's possible to be up several thousands, to literally win 90% of my live sessions, yet I get beat on crazy hands time and again online.
Maybe I just play poorly online, but it's the strength of the hands I see winning that is suspect. I've played for years live and I've seen quads a dozen times maybe. I played online and saw it 6 times in a weekend. What would you think?
Posted Sun Jan 30, 2005 4:54 pm GMT by suitedaces84
| ReRaIsE wrote: | | Maybe I just play poorly online |
I think that makes a little more sense. 
Posted Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:23 pm GMT by ReRaIsE
It WOULD make sense, except that in a large portion of the cases where I get beat it's when I have a lead at the flop and bet out big, get foolishly called and lose to a runner runner or a 2 outer.
I have no delusions of being a great player, but I know I'm not THAT bad.
Posted Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:24 pm GMT by ReRaIsE
...But thanks for the boost of confidence anyway suitedaces. Yer a champ.
Posted Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:57 pm GMT by suitedaces84
I wasn't trying to be an arrogant jerk about it, sorry if I came off that way. I just strongly believe that online poker is not rigged. On person being on the wrong end of several bad beats is just a very weak argument when you consider thousands of hands being played every minute.
Posted Sun Jan 30, 2005 6:00 pm GMT by ReRaIsE
Like I said, I want to agree with you. I guess you would have had to see the hands I saw. Without actually witnessing it, it's just another cry baby story.
Posted Sun Jan 30, 2005 6:44 pm GMT by suitedaces84
I guess the best arguments I have for online poker is not rigged are:
1) Money, it's hard to believe that online poker is rigged after cashing out for over a thousand (which is nothing when compared with many members of this site)
2) Computer stuff, which I don't know a lot about but the cards are random to the point that not even the computer programmer would be able to predict them. (someone else can probably explain this better)
3) Government regulations, believe or not there are laws outside of the U.S.
Posted Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:07 am GMT by gol4pro
The whole thing about flopping 3 full houses in a row and getting beat by quads every time....1 word--bullshit.
I really don't know how to calculate the probability for this.... it's way over my head even using combinations, but I will tell you one thing, it's statistically impossible. In statistics there comes a point where the likelihood of something happening is so small.... that it's just marked impossible and moved on with.
This is way past that point.
On the original post however... that does suck.
Posted Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:22 am GMT by ReRaIsE
That's what I thought too gol4pro.
I'd be very pleased if I was wrong, that way I could just work on my online game and I'd have another source of revenue. But I just don't think I am wrong.
Posted Mon Jan 31, 2005 9:28 am GMT by Dias
One thing you have to realize also, you see alot more hands online per hour than you see in a live game...alot more.
And the thinking its rigged because you've been taking bad beats...I dont think its rigged myself.
But Ive seen enough bad beats for large pots (20k+) to know that they happen....just like in a .50/$1....just the scale is larger
I saw a four handed game with every at table having about 7k+, think blinds were 200/400
guy in first position goes all-in pre-flop, he has whole table covered...all 3 players call him
He had the lowest of 4 pocket pairs....hit the set on the flop...beat em all...immediately logged out as the rantings started..heh...
Posted Mon Jan 31, 2005 9:31 am GMT by ReRaIsE
It's not one bad beat, it's a continuous string of very unlikely bad beats that is curious.
Posted Tue Feb 01, 2005 6:42 pm GMT by proudcapitalist
Online, the play is much much faster. Hands can be 3x as short as they are in live games (especially home games). That means you see three times the crap as in real life. Also, I've noticed that in real life beats don't seem so bad, so they don't stick in your mind as much as when you are sitting alone at your computer.
Also, I don't believe that in three hands in a row you flopped full houses which then lost to quads. If you did, it sure asn't rigging because no website is that stupid to rig something with those odds.
Posted Fri Feb 11, 2005 1:08 pm GMT by 1988 TR
Absolution - That is one tough beat!
Reraise - I think you got beat by some tough hand, but I do not believe you got beat by quads 3 time in a row with a boat. Sorry. You even say you flopped the full house. Sorry, another non-believer here.
Posted Tue Feb 22, 2005 10:48 pm GMT by boden12
I've played my fair share of poker in my day and in live ring games I think I've seen quads maybe....10-12 times of which 30% or so were with 3 of the card on the board. In all the games I can remember (live and online) I've seen a straight flush on the board ONCE, and only once have I seen someone flop quads while another flopped a full house. Still have yet to see a SF beat quads and haven't seen a Royal.
Strong full houses being beat with SF's (using both hole cards) is extremely unlikely. Especially the odds on someone flopping the nut straight flush...(never seen this). Besides the straight flush on the board, the only strange hand I saw was QQ vs KK vs AA where all 3 people were like right next to each other. Flop was crazy too like KQJ all diamonds.
Posted Thu Mar 03, 2005 7:19 pm GMT by sergoyaa
I've got to agree with alot of these posters. I used to play online and quit - not because I think its rigged (colusion is much more likely), but because I simply don't play well online and I loose. I play live and make a decent 2nd living at it, but online, I revert to year 1 poker. Not sure why that is, wish I could stop shanking balls into the rough, but...there it is.
Posted Thu Mar 03, 2005 7:20 pm GMT by sergoyaa
| boden12 wrote: | I've played my fair share of poker in my day and in live ring games I think I've seen quads maybe....10-12 times of which 30% or so were with 3 of the card on the board. In all the games I can remember (live and online) I've seen a straight flush on the board ONCE, and only once have I seen someone flop quads while another flopped a full house. Still have yet to see a SF beat quads and haven't seen a Royal.
Strong full houses being beat with SF's (using both hole cards) is extremely unlikely. Especially the odds on someone flopping the nut straight flush...(never seen this). Besides the straight flush on the board, the only strange hand I saw was QQ vs KK vs AA where all 3 people were like right next to each other. Flop was crazy too like KQJ all diamonds. |
How long have you played? I've been playing 2-3 days a week live for about 8 years and I've seen countless SFs and Quads.
Posted Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:41 pm GMT by CodeNull
I have gotten quads 4 times in the past 2 days, and I don't think it is rigged, I just think I play far, far too much poker =)
Posted Sat Mar 19, 2005 3:25 pm GMT by snoogins47
"I really don't know how to calculate the probability for this.... it's way over my head even using combinations, but I will tell you one thing, it's statistically impossible. In statistics there comes a point where the likelihood of something happening is so small.... that it's just marked impossible and moved on with. "
Gol, this is so flawed I don't even know where to begin. First off, improbable never means impossible for an individual event. It simply cannot. Perhaps if we discerned that the odds against gravity reversing tomorrow were 8,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,007 to 1, we'd probably say "Let's not worry about it," but that alone doesn't make it impossible.
Oh man:
I just saw a flop of 2c Ah 5d. Then the next hand, I saw a flop of 8s Jd 3s. The third was Qh 9d 4h.
76831999 to 1. That's the odds of what I just witnessed. From any given point, you are over a 76 million to 1 underdog to see what I just saw.
In poker, the unlikely is happening all the time, it's just usually not noteworthy.
I can draw a parallel to the recently popular "evidence" for a Creator, which is a bunch of mathematical mumbo-jumbo giving ridiculously low chances of the universe coming together in a form that would support human life based on certain constants in science. Very intriguing, and quite awe-inspiring to those that already believe that something created the universe: but in order for that statistic to form a compelling argument for the existence of a Creator, humans have to be working from an ego-centric view of the universe: that our existence has some special significance in the grand scheme of things. It then becomes circular: we're special because God made us, and we know God made us because we're special. Great food for the faithful: not of a lot of value to the rational who also identifies himself as a skeptic.
Here, the same principle is at work. Showing these unlikely events is strong evidence toward rigging in online poker, IF and only IF you are operating under the premise that it's rigged, or likely rigged, or that the stie "would probably" rig it or something. If you go into it objectively, a series of unfortunate events does not necessarily lead to any conclusion.
Not to mention the whole idea of the law of large numbers: hundreds of people with thousands upon thousands of hands of experience tend to say it's not rigged. The "evidence" given for rigging is the outcome of 3 or 4 specific hands, or at best, a couple thousand hands, which doesn't hold a whole lot of water.
Proudcapitalist makes another good point: if online sites were rigging their sites for action, why would they design a software that had people getting strings of stupid beats? My only "business education" was a single high school course and even I can see that is far from making good business sense.
Posted Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:39 pm GMT by suitedaces84
| snoogins47 wrote: | | I can draw a parallel to the recently popular "evidence" for a Creator, which is a bunch of mathematical mumbo-jumbo giving ridiculously low chances of the universe coming together in a form that would support human life based on certain constants in science... |
One thing to keep in mind about this: the universe had an infinite amount of time to form. Not unlike the nearly infinite amount of hands that have been played online.
Posted Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:34 am GMT by sergoyaa
| snoogins47 wrote: | "I really don't know how to calculate the probability for this.... it's way over my head even using combinations, but I will tell you one thing, it's statistically impossible. In statistics there comes a point where the likelihood of something happening is so small.... that it's just marked impossible and moved on with. "
Gol, this is so flawed I don't even know where to begin. First off, improbable never means impossible for an individual event. It simply cannot. Perhaps if we discerned that the odds against gravity reversing tomorrow were 8,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,007 to 1, we'd probably say "Let's not worry about it," but that alone doesn't make it impossible.
Oh man:
I just saw a flop of 2c Ah 5d. Then the next hand, I saw a flop of 8s Jd 3s. The third was Qh 9d 4h.
76831999 to 1. That's the odds of what I just witnessed. From any given point, you are over a 76 million to 1 underdog to see what I just saw.
In poker, the unlikely is happening all the time, it's just usually not noteworthy.
I can draw a parallel to the recently popular "evidence" for a Creator, which is a bunch of mathematical mumbo-jumbo giving ridiculously low chances of the universe coming together in a form that would support human life based on certain constants in science. Very intriguing, and quite awe-inspiring to those that already believe that something created the universe: but in order for that statistic to form a compelling argument for the existence of a Creator, humans have to be working from an ego-centric view of the universe: that our existence has some special significance in the grand scheme of things. It then becomes circular: we're special because God made us, and we know God made us because we're special. Great food for the faithful: not of a lot of value to the rational who also identifies himself as a skeptic.
Here, the same principle is at work. Showing these unlikely events is strong evidence toward rigging in online poker, IF and only IF you are operating under the premise that it's rigged, or likely rigged, or that the stie "would probably" rig it or something. If you go into it objectively, a series of unfortunate events does not necessarily lead to any conclusion.
Not to mention the whole idea of the law of large numbers: hundreds of people with thousands upon thousands of hands of experience tend to say it's not rigged. The "evidence" given for rigging is the outcome of 3 or 4 specific hands, or at best, a couple thousand hands, which doesn't hold a whole lot of water.
Proudcapitalist makes another good point: if online sites were rigging their sites for action, why would they design a software that had people getting strings of stupid beats? My only "business education" was a single high school course and even I can see that is far from making good business sense. |
wow...
Posted Tue Apr 05, 2005 10:58 pm GMT by Ben4040
| Quote: | | Gol, this is so flawed I don't even know where to begin. First off, improbable never means impossible for an individual event. It simply cannot. Perhaps if we discerned that the odds against gravity reversing tomorrow were 8,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,007 to 1, we'd probably say "Let's not worry about it," but that alone doesn't make it impossible. |
That's awesome. One of the greatest lines I have read on this forum. I was laughing so hard. :D
Posted Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:01 pm GMT by Lokey
I would like to think that the online games are rigged it would be an easy excuse each time you had a bad beat, but I don't think that they are. Just because you get some crappy luck doesn't mean that you are being cheated. If you run into bad luck at a home game do you start to accuse the other players of cheating. I have seen quads numerous time in one night, in fact I got them 3 times in one night playing in a home game.
Posted Thu Apr 07, 2005 8:59 am GMT by golddog
I saw these back-to-back hands recently that make me think it's rigged.
1) Fold around to SB, who pushes all-in to try to steal with 87o. BB with TT calls. SB flops two more sevens, turns the fourth. After counting down, BB is left with one chip.
2) next hand, BB is all-in as the new SB. He has KK. Two other all-ins with QQ & JJ. Flop comes QJx, both of the other two hit sets.
Oh wait, that was on ESPN the other night.
These things happen, both online and live. Can we put a rest to it?
|
|
