Algorithm is ridiculous

[Lee B]

I won the first tournament i played on unibet a few months ago 500 pounds plus. Been playing texas holdem for mamy years. Nothing against unibet. I know all online poker is rigged and i enjoyed winning the firat tournament. 

  Since then lol 

 Just been bubbled with A high flush losing to straight flush . Then literally bubbled again  with AA to lose to all in kq . Before that i  lost with 5 x KK on the bounce over 3 days.

 I have also won with ridiculous outs many times but algorithm honeymoon period lasted just 1 tournament lol 

  Most players are poor and there are many 50/50 flips which makes it harder to beat an algorithm you know is against you. 

 

 

[LIKE2FISH]

I play on 9 different sites reguarly at the moment and its the same everywhere you will get bad beats constant as the speed of online poekr and multi tabling!

No where is rigged :)) Why would it be the sites make money from rake, does not matter to a site who wins or loses )) 

 

[GR1ZZL3R]

11 hours ago, Lee B said:

I won the first tournament i played on unibet a few months ago 500 pounds plus. Been playing texas holdem for mamy years. Nothing against unibet. I know all online poker is rigged and i enjoyed winning the firat tournament. 

  Since then lol 

 Just been bubbled with A high flush losing to straight flush . Then literally bubbled again  with AA to lose to all in kq . Before that i  lost with 5 x KK on the bounce over 3 days.

 I have also won with ridiculous outs many times but algorithm honeymoon period lasted just 1 tournament lol 

  Most players are poor and there are many 50/50 flips which makes it harder to beat an algorithm you know is against you. 

 

 

    Dear Lee,

      Just because you won your first tournament does not mean you should expect to keep winning, variance is much more fickle than that. It's almost as bad as expecting a dead heating horse to pay out as much as an uncontested winner. 

                   Yours sincerely,

                               Keyboard Warrior Twat. 

[Lee B]

Grizzly bear / Unibet

  My little boy knows more about poker than you. I dont need you to explain variance. Ive been studying variance in poker a long time. Ive played millions of hands on ipoker, 888, pokerstars and party poker. You cant gas light me pal. They all have an algorithm that works differently. Its not random. They are all rigged for action. Its a fact that more big hands like AA v KK happen online. There are many proven anomalies in online poker. If you dont know then you dont know. The truth is a rare thing these days 

  

 

[Lee B]

19 hours ago, LIKE2FISH said:

I play on 9 different sites reguarly at the moment and its the same everywhere you will get bad beats constant as the speed of online poekr and multi tabling!

No where is rigged :)) Why would it be the sites make money from rake, does not matter to a site who wins or loses )) 

 

Rake comes from quicker games which comes from lots of action. You clearly dont know what you are talking about. 

 You dont play on 9 sites regular. Thats bullshit. Who does that lol. 

[Lee B]

9 hours ago, GR1ZZL3R said:

    Dear Lee,

      Just because you won your first tournament does not mean you should expect to keep winning, variance is much more fickle than that. It's almost as bad as expecting a dead heating horse to pay out as much as an uncontested winner. 

                   Yours sincerely,

                               Keyboard Warrior Twat. 

Dont misquote me either. I said i won the first tournament i played. The very first tournament i played. I hit so many outs its unreal. Bit like when you first play slots. You win a bit lose a lot. Thats how algorithms work my freind. Dont try make it sound like its the first tournament ive ever won . 

 

[ValueHeavy]

[Jami-Unibet]

I'll entertain this once and only once. 

22 hours ago, Lee B said:

I know all online poker is rigged and i enjoyed winning the firat tournament. 

Incorrect. Not saying there are no rigged sites but saying all online poker is rigged is just incorrect. 

 

22 hours ago, Lee B said:

Just been bubbled with A high flush losing to straight flush . Then literally bubbled again  with AA to lose to all in kq . Before that i  lost with 5 x KK on the bounce over 3 days.

Even as a sample size it's insignificant.  is 12.40% to win preflop against . Losing with KK 5 times over 3 days the probability will be much higher. 

 

22 hours ago, Lee B said:

 I have also won with ridiculous outs many times but algorithm honeymoon period lasted just 1 tournament lol 

 

Good that you remember this, our brain tends to only remember the beats with ridiculous outs instead of the wins. "The algorithm" doesn't remember nor care about you. 

 

1 hour ago, Lee B said:

Ive played millions of hands on ipoker, 888, pokerstars and party poker.

Lovely, then you have surely seen a lot of beats and know how they work.

 

1 hour ago, Lee B said:

They are all rigged for action. Its a fact that more big hands like AA v KK happen online.

Incorrect like I said before. Why on earth would we risk our licenses (and with that our business) to rig something that is a really minor part of our business? And especially when said minor part provides rake without rigging it. 

 

1 hour ago, Lee B said:

Rake comes from quicker games which comes from lots of action.

The games are the same speed no matter the cards. I would even argue that the games would be slower if it was rigged with action cards. 

 

1 hour ago, Lee B said:

 You dont play on 9 sites regular. Thats bullshit. Who does that lol. 

Many poker players do play on multiple sites regularly.

 

I understand we all get frustrated from time to time especially if we are not running good in poker or anything else but I ask you to not take it out on other players just because you don't agree with their opinions or statements.

[SShcherbyna]

1 hour ago, Lee B said:

Its a fact that more big hands like AA v KK happen online. There are many proven anomalies in online poker

Proof please, otherwise it's blah blah blah. 

For years now I have been reading from various Sherlocks that there are a lot of anomalies in online poker, and then it turns out that their arguments are based on at best a few tens of thousands of hands.

[pinki]

1 hour ago, Lee B said:

 

  My little boy knows more about poker than you. I dont need you to explain variance. Ive been studying variance in poker a long time.   

 

you know so much and you create such posts. again and again.

1 hour ago, Lee B said:

They are all rigged for action. Its a fact that more big hands like AA v KK happen online. There are many proven anomalies in online poker. If you dont know then you dont know. The truth is a rare thing these days 

 

are you writing about online poker in terms of e.g. live cash games or tournaments like the current EPT? Has a heavy object fallen on your head lately?

[Stubbe-Unibet]

30 minutes ago, SShcherbyna said:

Proof please, otherwise it's blah blah blah. 

For years now I have been reading from various Sherlocks that there are a lot of anomalies in online poker, and then it turns out that their arguments are based on at best a few tens of thousands of hands.

It's not possible to get bigger samples, as all the high volume players who are tracking their hands on other sites, they are in on the scam. If they were to publish data on their hand histories, it'd be too obvious you should for instance always fold AA preflop, and they'd lose their edge.

I at least think that's the only plausible explanation for none of the many, many thousands of players with sufficient hand data to ever have come forward to reveal what's really going on! 

[ValueHeavy]

I'll let the great Phil Galfond explain it more clearly for you:

 

[SShcherbyna]

Again, the main thing is to be able to use anomalies in poker to your advantage.
There is a lot of evidence on the Internet that short stacks are lucky. Therefore, if you want to win the tournament, you must first do something stupid and lose almost the entire stack:

Spoiler

Then be sure to wait until the stack becomes less than 3BB (otherwise the algorithm will not work!) and the "short stack destroys AA" function will be activated:
 

Spoiler

Next, the main thing is to get to the TOP 3, do not touch the statistics button (who needs it, he knows) and wait for any pocket pair (the main thing is that it should be less than 99, with which I destroyed AA) and that's it, you won the tournament:

Spoiler

But! Be sure to leave 30 euros in Banzai after 7 days, waiting for {0} (who needs it, he knows) times the pocket 66.  Only then can you repeat the "short stack destroys AA" algorithm. 

Pay attention, I have everything with evidence!

[Lee B]

I have won a lot of Big tournaments on 888 and Pokerstars. I make final tables on a daily basis. I still play poker onlone and enjoy it. 

 Who are all you people getting triggered in defence of online poker? 

 Did somebody actually get the odds calculator out? Seriously. 

   I am well aware that it is hard to prove online poker is rigged, just as hard as it is to prove that it isnt rigged.

   To start with you can argue there is no limit to variance. Its possible to toss a coin in the air and it can land on tails 20 times in a row. You cant prove anything is wrong without looking at the coin/software. It is very easy to manipulate games without anyone being able to prove otherwise but when you studied probability and looked at variance and played texas holdem for decades you just know. 

 

 

[Jami-Unibet]

3 hours ago, Lee B said:

 Who are all you people getting triggered in defence of online poker? 

 

Not triggered, we've just had the same topic quite a few times.

3 hours ago, Lee B said:

 Did somebody actually get the odds calculator out? Seriously. 

 

Yes, I can't remember the exact % (with certain suits) without having it out. 

 

3 hours ago, Lee B said:

To start with you can argue there is no limit to variance.

Correct, you might get AA once a year, you might get it X times in a row. You might play the said X AA "GTO" or solver approved or "correct" every time but end up losing. 

 

3 hours ago, Lee B said:

Its possible to toss a coin in the air and it can land on tails 20 times in a row.

Absolutely correct. The probability of that happening is around 0.0001% according to google.

 

3 hours ago, Lee B said:

You cant prove anything is wrong without looking at the coin/software.

Also correct. 

 

3 hours ago, Lee B said:

It is very easy to manipulate games without anyone being able to prove otherwise

You did not read my last reply. First of all it would not be "very easy", and second it would not be worth it.

 

3 hours ago, Lee B said:

but when you studied probability and looked at variance and played texas holdem for decades you just know. 

It might be the language barrier here but this sentence is contradicting itself. If you've studied probability and looked at variance you know. It's not "you just know". 

[SShcherbyna]

5 hours ago, Lee B said:

Did somebody actually get the odds calculator out? Seriously. 

I took out a calculator, what to do next? 🤓

Spoiler

 

5 hours ago, Lee B said:

I am well aware that it is hard to prove online poker is rigged, just as hard as it is to prove that it isnt rigged.

Is this your strongest argument for your claim that poker is rigged? I thought you'd better prepare, because "There are many proven anomalies in online poker". I'm a little disappointed 😕

5 hours ago, Lee B said:

It is very easy to manipulate games without anyone being able to prove otherwise but when you studied probability and looked at variance and played texas holdem for decades you just know. 

You are already a bit confused yourself.

[WuDu]

10 hours ago, Jami-Unibet said:

Incorrect like I said before. Why on earth would we risk our licenses (and with that our business) to rig something that is a really minor part of our business? And especially when said minor part provides rake without rigging it. 

So if poker were more important to Unibet, rigging would be potentially on the table? Meaning there are scenarios were rigging could be possible?

Never understood this defense.

Having said that, from my experience playing poker at Unibet never felt rigged. Playing at ipoker however...

[Stubbe-Unibet]

1 hour ago, WuDu said:

So if poker were more important to Unibet, rigging would be potentially on the table? Meaning there are scenarios were rigging could be possible?

Never understood this defense.

Having said that, from my experience playing poker at Unibet never felt rigged. Playing at ipoker however...

Only you can read and interpret the sentence like that 😄 

Having the (certified by independent 3rd party) RNG rigged would obviously never make sense, but if poker is 3% of your business, it makes even less sense, as you gain even less while risking everything. Had poker been the main product, you'd still risk everything while the benefit could be slightly bigger (but still negligible). For anyone that actually understands poker, it's quite obvious that this is a conspiracy theory not unlike that of flat earth.

[GR1ZZL3R]

13 hours ago, Lee B said:

Grizzly bear / Unibet

  My little boy knows more about poker than you. I dont need you to explain variance. Ive been studying variance in poker a long time. Ive played millions of hands on ipoker, 888, pokerstars and party poker. You cant gas light me pal. They all have an algorithm that works differently. Its not random. They are all rigged for action. Its a fact that more big hands like AA v KK happen online. There are many proven anomalies in online poker. If you dont know then you dont know. The truth is a rare thing these days 

  

 

    Dear Lee,

         Your little boy may indeed know more about poker than me, many people do, but since he's not entered this conversation I have to address your comments not his, unless he's telling you what to write? You may not need me to explain variance to you, there are far more competent people that could do that if you wanted, but have you really been studying variance a long time? Just playing millions of hands of a game is not necessarily actually studying a somewhat related topic. How do you know all these sites have different algorithms, have you hand histories to back up these assertions or do you just know?  Just saying it's random is not good enough, can you give a concrete example of how it's not random so we can rule out confirmation bias? It is a fact that more hands like AA v KK happen online, it's also a fact that millions billions more hands are played online so it would be very strange if that were not the case. Can't you see that you're not comparing like for like, so... how many times have you had AA v KK online and how many times AA v KK in live play? If we get some actual numbers we can start comparing, not actual numbers but maybe ratios or percentages or something. As for the proven anomalies in online poker can you point me to some credible sources, just saying something is doesn't mean it is. If I don't know then I don't know, correct, but I suspect you don't either, and as for the truth, well who really knows? 

13 hours ago, Lee B said:

Dont misquote me either. I said i won the first tournament i played. The very first tournament i played. I hit so many outs its unreal. Bit like when you first play slots. You win a bit lose a lot. Thats how algorithms work my freind. Dont try make it sound like its the first tournament ive ever won . 

 

 

I didn't misquote you but I admit I may have misinterpreted your statement. Actually I could have because in your opening thread you said, and I quote:

 

On 5/3/2023 at 10:09 PM, Lee B said:

I won the first tournament i played on unibet a few months ago 500 pounds plus.

 

Now you're saying, and I quote:

 

14 hours ago, Lee B said:

I said i won the first tournament i played. The very first tournament i played.

 

There's an anomaly there somewhere, maybe the algorithm needs working on, but it sure confuses me.

 

 

[Lee B]

I knew grizzly bear would be triggered by this post. You are eithered paid to be on community chat every day or you need to get a life

[SShcherbyna]

17 minutes ago, Lee B said:

You are eithered paid to be on community chat every day or you need to get a life

 

13 hours ago, Stubbe-Unibet said:

It's not possible to get bigger samples, as all the high volume players who are tracking their hands on other sites, they are in on the scam.

good hit, @Stubbe-Unibet 👍

Edited May 5, 2023 by SShcherbyna

[Lee B]

Unless any of you can prove online poker is not rigged which you cant then you have no ground to mock anyone. 

 

 AA v KK should happen around 1 every 6000 hands on average. Does it happen more often than that? Just slightly. There is no defence for thay. Its laughable. Like i said before, nothing against unibet. 

[SShcherbyna]

8 minutes ago, Lee B said:

Unless any of you can prove online poker is not rigged which you cant then you have no ground to mock anyone.

You accuse an entire industry of fraud without providing any proof and at the same time complain that you are not perceived the way you would like, seriously?

13 minutes ago, Lee B said:

AA v KK should happen around 1 every 6000 hands on average. Does it happen more often than that? Just slightly. There is no defence for thay. Its laughable. Like i said before, nothing against unibet. 

Again, where is the evidence?  In my opinion AA in KK occurs once every 6543 hands on average.

[Lee B]

I had poker tracker and tracked my own hands for years. They do it to help their own game mainly, not to prove online poker is rigged. Im not trying to do that either. Just says how little you all know. You obviously cant prove the outcomes are rigged by 1 players hand history, no matter how clear it was because you still couldnt prove it wasnt variance. Not only that , who has billions of pounds to take them to court and fight against the corporate giants.

 Patterns are in the luck bell and and actual cards dealt. Not winning and losing. If you dont inderstand that then you dont know poker 

 

[GR1ZZL3R]

 

40 minutes ago, Lee B said:

I knew grizzly bear would be triggered by this post. You are eithered paid to be on community chat every day or you need to get a life

    You do seem to know a lot with very little actual evidence but I suppose if you know, then, well, you know. What I know is that when someone comes on a site making spurious statements with little or no evidence and someone calls him out for it, the speed with which they then resort to making personal comments rather than counter arguments is inversely proportional to their intellectual capacity for rational discourse.  You appear to now hold the record for straying into unwarranted territory, suggesting that your arguments are poorly constructed and have very little correlation to facts.