** Nap's Competition Result : 1st Barnsley Chop, 2nd Daisychain, 3rd Bathtime For Rupert, 4th Marmalade, KO Cup Tipsterix, Most Winners Calva Decoy**
**June Poker League Result : 1st Autogree £75, 2nd Rivrd £45, 3rd Ian309 £30**


New Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About polo321

  • Rank
    Newbie Punter
  • Birthday 02/01/1973
  1. i'm not going to make any comments regarding this.just let the facts speak for themselves
  2. Re: Classic pokerstars this is the best explanation i found about the reality of playing on pokerstars,that the variance argument doesn't stack up when the maths are compared to the true odds of event happening and the improbability of losing every hand you enter and i mean every hand that you have the best preflop best on the flop only to lose that runner runner flush that miracle one outer,that set he made on the turn, POKERSTARS IS BULL****E DO NOT PLAY THERE I've played a lot of poker. And I do mean a lot. I learned the game in my early teens and was making enough money in cash games by the time I hit College age to pay my own fees. Now, I became a responsible adult and was convinced by my now ex-wife to stop playing high stakes, so Poker became a friendly hobby for me - house games at $5/pot and such. Very occasionally, I'd still wander into the local Poker Room to have a twirl on the tables, and still generally made money. Then, the Poker Explosion happened, the various books came out, and the tables filled up with a variety of Bingo Donkeys, Big Hand Checkers and SuperSystem Addicts. The cash games (at the bankroll level I was willing to play - lower than before thanks to mortgage, kids, business, etc...) became exercises in maths, not as much fun and definitely not worth the effort. So, I cut back further. Eventually, after divorce, and finding myself with more free time of an evening but even less money than before, I decided to try my hand at Online Poker. Various sites were tried, and I settled on PokerStars, for a variety of reasons but the main one being the sheer number of people playing meant a Sit'N'Go was filled within minutes most of the time. I admit, I've done financially well out of the site over the last 8 years, relatively speaking. I play at the lowest few levels of SNGs, for the most part. I'm experienced enough to spot most players' range within a few hands, and I keep copious notes for future reference in any case. I generally play 2 or 3 hours at a time, up to 4 times a week, though I sometimes go through long periods of not having the time or the inclination. There has always been one major source of consternation for me - how the site allows any player to play an infinite number of tables simultaneously. As I say, I'm quite experienced, and can keep tabs on up to 8 tables at a time, although it does mean playing entirely to a system, not playing the other players but the maths. It's not particularly enjoyable to do this, however, so I usually restrict myself to 2 - 4 concurrent games. Yet, there are accounts which are regularly registered for 20+ tables. Indeed, when a new table opens, they will be the first to register - implying some form of macro or code running in the lobby. Their play reflects a "bot" mentality - limping for value, flat calling with rag Aces, shoving for next to no fold-value with anything like a Group 1 hand (or often just a pocket pair). These Multi-Table Shove Donkeys, as I refer to them in my own notes, clearly cannot be human-operated beyond setting parameters in a handling program. An enormous percentage of them (appr 85% in my estimation) come from Russia, or at least are registered as such. And their numbers have ballooned in the last year. They are not, however, as big a problem as the other group... These are what would in cash games be referred to as Dumb Gamblers. They flat call preflop with any 2 cards, and once they see a flop they wont fold anything like a hand - be it a two-outer undercarded straight, a runner-runner weak flush draw, bottom pair, any court, any two suited rags, a single overcard - to any bet. In other words, they play 10% chance hands 100% of the time.They never instigate a shove, but they always call them, regardless of their odds. AND THEY WIN appr 50% OF THE TIME IN A SHOWDOWN. Never mind the fact that they shouldn't have played their hand preflop, no sane person would call the bets they do on the flop. AND YET THE STILL WIN 50% of the time. For those of you who aren't good at maths, this is a contrary statistical result of 400%. In other words, a total fluke when it happens once, a sign that something is subverting the Laws of Probability when it happens with such regularity. This leads me to believe that these accounts are either: (a) Shills for PokerStars - or - (b) Using a code hack which allows them to see the Turn and River before they are revealed Personally, I'm inclined towards (a), despite the protestations of others that there is no reason for PokerStars to scam low-bankroll players. They run many thousands of Freerolls and Promotional Tourneys every month. The money has to come from somewhere. Although (b) is probably the more frightening scenario. Either way, their effect, combined with that of the MTSDs I discussed above, is to turn the game of Poker into a coin-toss every hand. If I wanted to gamble any amount of money on a coin-toss, I wouldn't bother paying somebody else for the privilege. I am closing my account as of today, when I played 11 single-table tourneys, never entered a hand without value, engaged in minimal bluffing, and yet took 47 beats by hands that were 13% or less against my cards at the point of the last bet, including pocket AA being beaten 3 times by rivered quads. Anybody who wants to see my Playing History for detail can contact me. GO BACK TO YOUR LOCAL POKER ROOM. At least there you can punch any cheats in the face.
  3. Re: Classic pokerstars go and play the 1/2 limit at pokerstars and see how you get on,there is variance and there is pokerstars variance--two different concepts,
  4. Re: Classic pokerstars hope this open a few eyes to the reality of online poker
  5. Re: Classic pokerstars classic pokerstars pokerstars consumer support typical downward swing on stars the same just quicker
  6. Re: Classic pokerstars ok this is the story i put 100 dollars into PS and manage over a couple weeks to grind it up to 750 my AA and my kk all held up same as my two pair and sets and the odd fullhouse.i played a conservative game nothing too wild just trying to get in with the best hand, pretty stantard stuff. Then i made a fatal mistake i withdraw all my funds for the upcoming Chelthenam festival to have nice bankroll to back the horses that i was tracking thru the my naivaity i thought i could grind it back up deposited 100 lost it in two nights ,ok it is only variance my AA ND KK SMASHED flushes beaten by higher on the river and so on, deposit another 100 dollars tightened my game up played only jj or better .still every hand i played i mean every hand had the best it on the flop and get out drawn on the river.lost fifteen hands on the river in one night . ok this a downswing just got to stick with it, stuck in another 100 dollars the thought never accord to me that there was something wrong with site.really tightened up bet only when i thought i had the best of it but the runner runner kept coming this kind of situation kept cropping up numerous time( scruffy897)sb dealt 10 7 ---- bb AK FLOP 10 10 7 TURN A RIVER A can you honestly blame me for suspecting that there something wrong with the site. within a month a half i went from a winning payer to a uber fish nothing held up. so i trawled the internet to see if anyone else had this kind of experience and there are thousands upon thousands who have worse stories than me. Went on to other forums and the same pattern appears anyone who dare to question the interity of PS is automatically catorgrised as fish with no clue of strategy that they have no valid reason to hold that point of easy to call someone a fish without knowing the full facts.i came across some very sad stories because of this site people losing marriages, houses, people grinding 12-14 hours a day chasing their loses. was watching a high stakes the other night sb raises bb calls flop A A 10 both players raise each other until all money is in the middle $43000 in the pot bb turns over AK sb turns 10 10 and just thought what a perfect set up.
  7. Re: Classic pokerstars wow you made a graph GOLD STAR to you still doesn't explain the deviation in 70/30 situations where the lesser hand wins 41% of the time more than 10% than it should still doesn't explain why Ax v Ax the ace appears 30% more than it should .The logical explaination is that it induces action yet your head is firmly planted in the sand you have losr all perspective no matter what evidence was put in front of you, you would still defend this site to the hilt. my instinct and my logic tells me when you afraid play AA OR KK BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU ARE GOING TO GET SCREWED that there something fundamental wrong with the site. .
  8. Re: Classic pokerstars please read this and make your own mind up. This was not meant to be a bad beat thread just a warning to people not invest large sums of money into this site over the long run PS will screw you out of it. 1,360,000 hands. That is how many hands we have tracked on We have been monitoring all-in situations at for the past year and we have come to the conclusion that the games at this site are unfair and biased toward poor play. Read on to see our methodology. How we tracked it: By using 15 different computers running PokerStars software and each monitoring five tournament tables at once, we were able to isolate nearly 1.4 million hands where two or more players were all in against each other preflop. These hands were then grouped into three categories: 80/20 (i.e. pair vs. pair), 70/30 (i.e. AK vs. AQ), and 60/40 (i.e. JT vs. 45). We broke these matchups down and analyzed each. After reviewing all hands, we would expect the higher of two pocket pairs to hold up 81% of the time and tie about 0.5%. We would expect a high card hand matching neither of the opponent's cards to hold up roughly 59% of the time, with about 1.1% ending in a tie. Finally, we would expect dominating hands to win 71% of the time with 1.1% ending in a tie. The margin of error for win percentages is +- 1.7%. The results: In coinflip situations PokerStars worked out as expected, with a tiny advantage to the pocket pair of roughly 1.5%. In 60/40 situations PokerStars worked out roughly as expected, favoring the weaker hand only .8% more often than expected, well within our margin of error. In 80/20 situations we saw a little bit of deviation. The smaller pocket pair actually won 26.3% of the time, and the higher pair winning only 72.7% of the time. This is a well outside of our margin of error by nearly triple! In 70/30 situations things get even worse. The lesser of the two hands wins a whopping 41% of the time, a full 10% more than it should! With more than 475,000 hands to analyze, this is more than a simple statistical anomaly. This is downright fradulent. Other Findings: We became curious about what was going on so we looked closer at many of the 70/30 hands (a three-outer). We found that hands such as Kx vs. Kx were within the standard deviation, as was Qx vs. Qx. We did not have enough hands of Jx and lower in 3-outer situations to analyze. Upon looking closer at Ax hands we found that the weaker Ax beat the better Ax (i.e. A4 beating AK) about 4% more than it should. We also found than Ax vs a pocket pair beat the pocket pair more than 12% more often than it should! So clearly aces flop too often, right? Wrong. Simply looking at flops shows an even distribution of aces. However, when players are all in and need an ace, it tends to appear. When no ace is needed it does not appear, balancing out the discrepancy. Furthermore, we found that when two players held an ace, one or both of the remaining aces would appear on the board over 30% of the time. This is a huge discrepancy, nearly double the total of about 19% expected. We can only guess that this is to induce action, as this statistical anomaly does not occur with other cards. Conclusion: PokerStars is NOT a fair site! We do not recommend that you play there until they address these statistical anomalies. If they contact us about these things, we will confront them with the hand histories we recorded. Regardless of their response, our study is statistically significant enough to warrant extreme caution when dealing with PokerStars. A very good comment: Pokerstars can change the outcome of any game. They can factor a winning and lossing % to each name that signs on. If you have complained in the past you will very rarely win. If you do win a hand by chance, you will probably wind up splitting the pot. I have sat at 38 different 10/20 NL tables the other night and each table I sat down I alway got a 3 or 4 drop on my closed card. The odds are highly impossible to drop 27 3's and 24 duces and all other under cards were under 6. for a total of 38 hands. So last night I tried again with 100k starting and my losing % after 50 games was 96% FIXED, Rigged or whatever you want to call it. Please do not play with real monies you will definetly lose in the end. Programs can be tamper with.
  9. Re: Classic pokerstars so you lads have no problems telling people that they should stick a couple hundred dollars into this site that what happened here is a anomly the truth and you boys know it that what happened here is pretty stantard for pokerstars i have taken so many bad beats on ps that i have completly given up on the site ,have any of you played the 1/2 2/4 3/6 limit tables they are disgrace more one outters ruunner runner flushs fullhouses over fullhouses unless you played these tables and you know the reality of playing against a stack deck then you having a clue you may think it a laugh but when you see your hard earned being given some****in fish who hits his runner runner it not that humerous last hand on ps kk v jj flop 8 9 10 turn 7 river q PEOPLE DO NOT PUT ANY BIG MONEY INTO THIS SITE
  10. Re: Was I right to call with KK or should I have shoved ? nothing you could have done the chips were going in no matter what played perfect
  11. Re: WinHoldEm - dead ? Best alternative bot WHY NEED A BOT ? NO CONFIDENCE IN YOUR OWN GAME
  12. Re: Classic pokerstars THIS SITE WILL BLEED YOU DRY
  13. Re: BBOTD Saturday 8th September NICE ONE THANKS
  14. if you are thinking about investing money in pokerstars this might give you moment to reflect, please only play the freerolls or 1/2 c do not invest any big money into this site *********** # 1 ************** PokerStars Hand #85855619708: Tournament #604140113, Freeroll Hold'em No Limit - Level I (10/20) - 2012/09/08 2:04:50 WET [2012/09/07 21:04:50 ET] Table '604140113 37' 9-max Seat #2 is the button Seat 1: ewing901 (1470 in chips) Seat 2: pelego113 (4090 in chips) Seat 3: sQuare1989 (1460 in chips) Seat 4: BadCard1982 (5280 in chips) Seat 5: scruffy897 (1230 in chips) Seat 8: sveta687 (1490 in chips) is sitting out Seat 9: chillipops (1490 in chips) sQuare1989: posts small blind 10 BadCard1982: posts big blind 20 *** HOLE CARDS *** Dealt to scruffy897 [Kc Js] BadCard1982 said, "gracias pelego" scruffy897: calls 20 sveta687: folds chillipops: folds BadCard1982 said, "obrigado" ewing901: folds pelego113: calls 20 55555BMM has returned sQuare1989: folds BadCard1982: checks *** FLOP *** [9c Td Qh] pelego113 said, "valeu major" BadCard1982: checks pelego113 said, "chupa essa manga agora" scruffy897: bets 200 pelego113: raises 3870 to 4070 and is all-in BadCard1982: folds scruffy897: calls 1010 and is all-in Uncalled bet (2860) returned to pelego113 *** TURN *** [9c Td Qh] [Tc] *** RIVER *** [9c Td Qh Tc] [9h] *** SHOW DOWN *** scruffy897: shows [Kc Js] (a straight, Nine to King) pelego113: shows [Ts 3d] (a full house, Tens full of Nines) BadCard1982 said, "jajajajaja" pelego113 collected 2490 from pot scruffy897 finished the tournament in 1175th place *** SUMMARY *** Total pot 2490 | Rake 0 Board [9c Td Qh Tc 9h] Seat 1: ewing901 folded before Flop (didn't bet) Seat 2: pelego113 (button) showed [Ts 3d] and won (2490) with a full house, Tens full of Nines Seat 3: sQuare1989 (small blind) folded before Flop Seat 4: BadCard1982 (big blind) folded on the Flop Seat 5: scruffy897 showed [Kc Js] and lost with a straight, Nine to King Seat 8: sveta687 folded before Flop (didn't bet) Seat 9: chillipops folded before Flop (didn't bet) If you have any questions, please contact us at "PokerStars Support" -----WHERE DO I start> [TABLE=width: 1] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]