Classic pokerstars

[polo321]

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 @pokerstars.com> [TABLE=width: 1] [TR] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]

[polo321]

Re: Classic pokerstars THIS SITE WILL BLEED YOU DRY

[GaF]

Re: Classic pokerstars A 25-1 shot came home - not exactly remote! I bet you played more than 25 hands, so its normal to see it!

[Samba_SamPa]

Re: Classic pokerstars

A 25-1 shot came home - not exactly remote! I bet you played more than 25 hands' date=' so its normal to see it![/quote'] Not exactly true. 'Normal' would be if he had had 24 x 96%ers get home, not 24 hands played, previously

[GaF]

Re: Classic pokerstars Agreed ;) But I stand by the point, if not the slight exaggeration :p Given you can play a few hundred hands an hour - playing a few hours and/or multitabling, you're bound to see 4%ers get there quite frequently. I thought I'd prove the point and look through my hands this month, but it proves nothing (that I want to prove) :lol :lol So looking at August. I lost a 96.6% shot on 27th August. I lost a 92.3% shot on 4th August. I lost 3x 90.9% shots (2nd, 16th and 27th August - wow 27th August was a bad day!) On the flip side - I won a 4.5% shot, a 6.8% shot and an 8.2% shot! I'm quite surprised how few upsets I have seen (on Pokerstars)

[Samba_SamPa]

Re: Classic pokerstars But how many >90% chances held up? Maybe they were only 80, then there being only 8

[Nade]

Re: Classic pokerstars If it had been a $1 tournament then i could feel your pain as they are rigged differently from freerolls. Freerolls make you lose all your money but very slowly just as your hand shows.

[GaF]

Re: Classic pokerstars

But how many >90% chances held up? Maybe they were only 80' date=' then there being only 8 90% shot 47% times - I won 42 times and lost 5 times I was

If it had been a $1 tournament then i could feel your pain as they are rigged differently from freerolls. Freerolls make you lose all your money but very slowly just as your hand shows.

:lol :lol :lol

[polo321]

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

[DrJbug]

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

That's almost exactly how I got busted out of my last MTT. Except it was live. Clearly rigged Happens fella, get over it.

[Rivrd]

Re: Classic pokerstars Another badbeat thread :cry:cryPolo if you cant take these beats you really shouldn't be playing the game. I play hundreds of games and see it happens across all sites not just one, you are getting dealt hundreds of hands as opposed to a live game so its no surprise to see these beats happen and people always seem to remember the beats rather than the 2 outer that you just sucked out on an opponent.

[Samba_SamPa]

Re: Classic pokerstars I just can't decide what I think. Have just re-read all the posts and I still don't have a firm decision as to what I find most amazing:

• the fact that somebody who alleges to play 3/6 doesn't understand variance

• that somebody can write over 100 words without even thinking about using a full stop

• that GAF got it in with less than 10% equity THIRTY FOUR times in a month

Unbelievable, Jeff :loon

[polo321]

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 PokerStars.com. We have been monitoring all-in situations at PokerStars.com 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.

[andyfmfb]

Just stop playing kj off, utg. Or at least stop limping with it.

[deadlydaveLDN]

Re: Classic pokerstars Thanks polo, I'm convinced, won't be playing there anymore...

[thebestthere]

Re: Classic pokerstars Still my fav site

[SteveO]

Stay away from omaha then Pal. You'll end up in a mental asylum!

[muttley]

Re: Classic pokerstars

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.

I'm afraid that this proves nothing. Without making the full calculations available we have to question the integrety of the experiment. It may look impressive to a layperson, but it is meaningless without figures to back it up. For instance

70/30 (i.e. AK vs. AQ), and 60/40 (i.e. JT vs. 45).

AK vs AQ is actually 74.4%, not 70%. JT vs 45 is 63.9%, not 60%.

The margin of error for win percentages is +- 1.7%.

Says who? How did they arrive at that figure? Why is the margin of error for results smaller than the margin of error for input data?

[DrJbug]

Re: Classic pokerstars The UB scandal was uncovered by normal poker players going through hand histories. They shared data and corroborated the facts. This reads like some poor loser making up figures to satisfy their own inadequacies. Share the data and 2+2 etc would go into meltdown. Pokerstars have had the US DOJ all over their arses for ages. If there was proof that the site was rigged do you think they would be pissing about with money laundering allegations. The fact would have been passed to UK government and the two countries would have been divvying up the cash ages ago. Why would stars want to reward poor play? Because the poor players will lose it back to the rake? Well by this argument the poor players *don't lose* Believe me if the site was rigged to poor players I would be a bloody millionaire ;) http://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/2008/7/16/conspiracykitte128606703599434050.jpg

[DrJbug]

Re: Classic pokerstars

[polo321]

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. .

[DrJbug]

Re: Classic pokerstars Errrr, no I didn't make a graph. It is a standard internet joke. (the Web addresses at the bottom should have given it away lol.) Basically it says that folk who believe there is some big conspiracy against them will believe any old badly presented tat placed before them and ignore all other facts placed before them. Which is basically you. like others have said, that bit of reearch you posted has no solid data, they introduced shedloads of error in rounding everything to nearest 10%, 60/40 etc when the true situations are usually 64/36 or something. Those errors build and make the whole thing pointless. If this was done properly, as I have said earlier, The data should be released and then sparks will fly. As it stands it reads like a joke. If I read something presented as badly as that in one of my journals I would cancel my subscription. However the internet means it gets published despite its shortcomings.

[DrJbug]

Re: Classic pokerstars Another thing that I would like to know. They say they looked at tournament hands. Then make some assumptions like Stars want to induce action. (It's in the section on rag A vs High A hands) Why would any poker site want to do that? In Cash tables ok, they would have a reason to bloat the rake, but MTT's The entry fee is already bought and paid for. To bust people early so they start a new MTT? sounds logical but it is easy to open a new table regardless. Some low limit beginner who cant multi table yet is only going to be playing $1 - $5 games anyway so I can't see the 50 cents extra that they would make worth the grief they would lead themselves open to otherwise. If you accept the whole Black Friday thing was an attempt by people in the USA to ban internet poker then the easiest thing in the world would be to label the biggest sites as systematic cheats, provided you could prove it. In a stroke you would give the legislators all the ammo in the world to draft a bill putting the thumbscrews on everyone, seize every single bank account those sites had. The public approval ratings would be massive, "They saved us from getting robbed" But no... They didn't do that. Do you think perhaps they were not bright enough to think of it and yet these unnamed fellas in your article were?

[Goldenjaguar]

Re: Classic pokerstars To be honest the funiest thing about this thread is the fact OP is moaning about a beat in a freeroll on stars which probably had 5 bellion players in it. Seriously, to polo, ive been playing online poker for 20 years, yes there have been some dogy going ons on a few sites here and there over the years, those sites are soon found out and die. Pokerstars has been going many years and there are many software options out there to track absolutely every single hand, if it was rigged, it would of been exposed a long time ago. The biggest site in the world also has the most bad players (fish) and that is why every now and then youll get a "badbeat", not because the site is rigged, but because the varience has gone against you, its poker, it happens. Why do you think pokerstars is so busy? Ill tell you why, because most competant poker players over a large amount of play will come ahead of the bad players and make money. You played KJ in a freeroll and lost, get over it, learn to fold crap hands, read up a bit on starting hand odds, learn how to play. Theres a very old saying which always rings true. " If you can`t see the fish at the table...its you" Think about it. Jag

[Renaan]

Re: Classic pokerstars I like to think that anyone who thinks that this kinda thing happens because of card rigging are just looking for an excuse for while they're losing :) Instead of just looking at the obv reasons, bad play or standard variance :)

[glceud]

Re: Classic pokerstars

Might feel like 20 years....but I doubt if it actually is. This really is a pretty lame conspiracy thread. Lets discuss if entraction are encouraging rake building by dealing me a king high flush on 3 seperate occasions last week in omaha hi/lo games and on each occasion the ace high flush was also out there?;)

[Goldenjaguar]

Re: Classic pokerstars

Might feel like 20 years....but I doubt if it actually is. This really is a pretty lame conspiracy thread. Lets discuss if entraction are encouraging rake building by dealing me a king high flush on 3 seperate occasions last week in omaha hi/lo games and on each occasion the ace high flush was also out there?;)

Lol , thinking about it seriously, im pretty sure i played online poker 1st time on a site called planet poker in 98/99 ish. Played it live before then, time flies im just showing my age!!! As for entraction, i heard a rumour there headquaters is being shutdown or something and they maybe disappearing.

[DrJbug]

Re: Classic pokerstars

Lol ' date=' thinking about it seriously, im pretty sure i played online poker 1st time on a site called planet poker in 98/99 ish. Played it live before then, time flies im just showing my age!!! As for entraction, i heard a rumour there headquaters is being shutdown or something and they maybe disappearing.[/quote'] I think getting money out of any entraction site is a wise move right now

[muttley]

Re: Classic pokerstars

I like to think that anyone who thinks that this kinda thing happens because of card rigging are just looking for an excuse for while they're losing :) Instead of just looking at the obv reasons, bad play or standard variance :)

It's interesting how the online superstars turn out to be live superstars too. I'm thinking Durrrr (Tom Dwan), Isildur1 (Viktor Blom), Moorman1, (Chris Moorman). Recently I asked a guy who had won the PokerStars Sunday Million not once, but twice, if he approached online play differently. He laughed, asked me if I was one of those online conspiracy believers and said , no, he didn't play differently online.

[glceud]

Re: Classic pokerstars

I think getting money out of any entraction site is a wise move right now

Pretty simple really, just give it to the guy with the ace High flush:eyes