GR1ZZL3R

Anyone could be offended by any name, and they have a right to say so. Someone else may not be offended by the same name and they too have a right to say so. Ultimately it's always going to be down to the site owner or controller or operative as to what is or isn't offensive, and maybe the sanctions imposed are not actually written in the t&c's but more a case of common sense. Just for the record I think it was offensive and agree with the sanctions, but anyone disagreeing is perfectly entitled to, it's very unlikely to change the outcome. Going off on a tangent about a completely unconnected subject is somewhat pointless, a poor but these days common tactic to muddy the waters.

Some of us are longing for the day!

35/36. The crash looms ever larger. 🤨

@kevanbt I presume that's supposed to read GR1ZZL3R, anyway an update on the AA situation. I'm undecided whether it's rigged or not as I'm still not being dealt AA often enough, clearly a possibility of things being rigged. However out of the last 35 times I've been dealt AA I've won pre flop 11 times, post flop 23 times and only lost once, winning 34 out of 35 times. This is clearly better than the "true" rate I should win at so can it be rigged both ways, maybe Aces acting as both particles and waves and the lack of one cancelling out the surplus of another, or Aces being alive "winning " and "dead" not being dealt enough both at the same time. It's damned hard enough playing poker as it is without having to study Quantum Theory or conducting thought experiments at the same time as trying to decide whether to call or fold the 35th time you have Aces, you know they're going to catch up in the losing column sooner or later so why not fold pre flop and only lose 4c? I'm not sure London actually moved but it could be hiding in a box with Dick Whittington's cat, both "in" Europe physically (not the mainland) but "out" of Europe mentally.If you advertised for European friends to join your group it would have to be on the basis they brought two believers with them to try to keep the stats balanced. Maybe they could be European non-believers living in America where they all believe, fulfilling both states at once. Maybe more random samples need to be randomly sampled, it's hard to know where to draw the line. IT IS.

I think you're missing the point by quite a bit. The evidence: Later it seems confirmed. I have nothing against players venting about bad beats or dodgy play by opponents, but let's face it, who cares. Once you've heard your 16,000th bad beat story the novelty begins to wear a bit thin, and when no-one wants to hear your bad beat story why should you listen to theirs? Prizes on offer for the bad beats promo in the current UOS series have been stopped, apparently due to a lack of enthusiasm. What I do have an issue with is someone venting then claiming it's rigged on laughably thin evidence. The last "rigged" thread contained a link to a study on Pokerstars being rigged, the evidence being 55,000 hands, which in the opinion of most experienced poker players is simply not enough. It's generally the way of the world these days that when something goes wrong people have to find someone or something to blame, it couldn't possibly be their own fault, could it? Poker players are no different, threads are written to show "It wasn't my fault, there's something dodgy going on!" To be fair in a lot of instances it wasn't their fault, they simply got unlucky as most of us do at times, but then most of us shrug it off to various degrees and carry on. I think there are much rarer instances of posting how lucky someone got because in a lot of cases it would show how badly they played and got lucky, and no-one wants to be seen as a bad player. They can all rant away if they choose, we all can choose whether to listen or read yet another, but when making accusations of wrong doing they should not expect to be believed without good evidence. "Get the impression," "wouldn't surprise me" and losing when "win % was 96" is not really acceptable as such.

Poker Professor GR1ZZL3R's Hand Analysis Class: #1 Includes detailed discussion on the probabilities.* What were the stakes? N/A What was your stack size? N/A What was villain's stack size? N/A What was your position? N/A What was villain's position? N/A What were your hole cards? N/A What was the pre flop action? N/A What was dealt on the flop? N/A but hero hit three of a kind. A set? Trips? What of? N/A What was the flop action? All in. What was the turn card? N/A What was the river card? N/A but villain hits runner runner to make a straight. What was Hero's reaction? I've just lost when 96% favourite, the site is corrupt! My expert analysis? From the little information available Hero played the hand well enough. Conclusion. *Hero was unlucky.

He quoted one example of losing a hand when he was 96% favourite to win but lost, then immediately claimed Unibet is Now you're really showing your ignorance and willingness to argue just for the sake of it. Sscherbyna is correct as the hand was never up for analysis, just the odds. It doesn't need a poker professor to explain a fairly simple mathematical concept that 96% favourites will lose approximately once every 25 times. Whining about it (and yes we all do, whether publicly or privately) does not change the odds.

There is, never has been, and never will be such a thing as a good frozen pizza.

They don't need to whine but in many cases it's a natural reaction. Sadly these days finding someone or something to blame is the default reaction to anything going wrong in anything someone does, (I don't want to bring politics in through the backdoor like some others but think Trump, a perfect example.) Whining can be counter productive and does not necessarily address the underlying issues. Maybe we can't but that's no reason not to try. Moaning about one 96% winning chance losing just highlights the lack of basic knowledge, and there are some willing to try and help a player by pointing out the flawed thinking. I may do it a bit sarcastically which doesn't always come across well in the written word, Estzen and Sscherbyna are making factual points. If the help is rejected or refused does that mean we shouldn't try to help the next one? Well I would say yes as the opening post is basically a rambling mess of half formulated theories and unsubstantiated statements with absolutely no evidence or statistics to back them up. If people want these things to be taken seriously they should be prepared to put some serious work into their presentation.

Probably going to happen, just guessing here, maybe one in twenty five times. Just unlucky eh? And yet you're still playing here!

From what I can see this site is called Unibet.😉

So not for very long then? What, everybody? Every time? How often, what percentage, how many times? Everybody? The same players? Every time? Have you any stats or just a "feeling." How often? So report it! Would surprise me. AI might be becoming a problem at high stakes but there are ways of checking, and since Potripper has there been any evidence of users being able to see hole cards? Are you a losing player? I've used this one before but I think it still applies!

Hi @geoffowen and welcome to the community. I'll try and answer but sometimes it can get a bit fussy. 1. Prices are offered all the time, a lot of races are priced up the day before, I'm not sure of the time frame because I rarely look too far ahead. A "Board Price" is usually the price once the on course bookmakers chalk up their prices for the next race on the "Board." If you take 6/4 and the horse wins at 5/2 you should be paid at the higher price BUT there are exceptions, races where extra places are paid amongst others. I've fallen foul of this rule in the past, assuming it's automatic when it isn't, something to be aware of. 2. If a race has a horse price boosted then you cannot maintain the BOG, you take the horse at the price it's boosted to and if it wins at a bigger price then you lose out. Hope this helps and "May Your Odds Go With You."🍻

Well well well. At least one part correct. A much more realistic appraisal.

Personally I don't think the "extremely unlikely" should even come into it. It could happen, as the oft quoted odds of 14,000,000 to 1 odds for winning the UK lottery do happen regularly. The t&cs state that winnings will be limited to 250,000 E per 24 hours, but bets capable of winning more are taken, it appears, routinely. The original question was what happens if a bet wins more than the stated limit, which payout applies, (I'm guessing the lower limit 😄) and further why can we make bets that would pay more if we can't collect more? Talking racing or sports bet is just muddying the waters, I made a racing bet purely for convenience to see whether the limits could be surpassed, which are actually £100,000. A quick Google search throws up numerous examples of "extremely unlikely" winning bets that were very relevant for some lucky punters. 🤨

@Stubbe-Unibet That may well be the case as you see it but how many punters come to these threads querying pay outs, admittedly the majority not having read the t&cs. Purely in the interests of research I have made a small bet with an extremely unlikely chance of winning, but it does illustrate one of the anomalies I think we're all trying to get to the bottom of. The bet was accepted immediately without any referral or conditions attached, even though the payout would far exceed the stated terms. Any unwary punter would obviously be extremely disappointed to think they've won over a million quid, however unlikely that seems, only to be told they haven't. I know we should all read t&cs but how many do?😪 Realising I've won a million quid. Being told its only a quarter of a million euros

Neither did I, I meant a live trader that approves bets prematch, 👍 rather than automated approval. I'd also be interested to see what the actual limits are, not that I'm ever going to put a bet on that will get near them. 😄 Jami left UB a few weeks ago. 😪 Probably CS could give some answers but I'm not that desperate to find out.🤔

My 10 free spins.

I'm not saying it's ok at all. 🤨 I'm saying you've got two different limits, one in the terms and conditions and one with live traders, you're now saying there's a third, automated one. If you've never won a bet that should pay you out at more than the advertised limits you'll never know which limits to trust. 🤔 Personally I'm saying why risk it, I have accounts with a few betting sites as it seems you do, so why run the risk of a massive disappointment,? 😭 Spreading these possibly risky payouts a bit thinner just seems sensible.

Sorry but I think I do actually. If I'm not expressing myself clearly enough for you to understand then I apologise and will try again. If a bet is forwarded to a trader to be approved for a higher limit than those advertised, say 1M against an advertised 250,000, then you would expect, should your bet win, to be paid out at that higher limit. Unfortunately there are so many cases that when one of these bets does hit then the operator (I'm not saying Unibet or indeed naming anyone) can simply claim that the bet was accepted in error, by an inexperienced or unauthorised trader for example, or a myriad of any other excuses. The overriding statement will be "see our terms and conditions" and "payout limits." Someone may well have a bet with "possible winnings 1,000,000" approved by a trader, but actually cashing it if it wins could be a different matter. I would actually like it if someone did win a million just to see what, if anything, happened, but I wouldn't say it was a done deal to be able to collect, I'm merely pointing out one of the many possible pitfalls that can be encountered when large sums of money are at stake. Punters have to be on very sure ground in these cases, I'm suggesting an example where things might not always be clear cut. One obvious solution if your bet would pay out at twice the advertised limits is to split it and bet with 2 bookmakers, surely a far safer proposition than testing the limits of any one bookie to pay out "over the odds."

Back in "the good old days" bets to pay out more than the limits were sometimes accepted by mistake and the rare winner would lead to disappointment and arguments. I have not heard of any bookie paying out more than the advertised maximum. These days it shouldn't be possible for these bets to be accepted but mistakes are made and sometimes programming errors do occur, and even a bet manually accepted will be unlikely to be honoured at over the stated limits, it would simply be called human error and that the bet was accepted by mistake. I wouldn't recommend keep making bets that would pay out more than the stated limits, I suspect you would have an extremely difficult if not impossible task trying to get paid the full amount. Surely "better safe than sorry" applies here. 🤔

Hi @jjokio Most if not all bookmakers will have a limit on bets, most varying from sport to sport and particular types of bets. These will be usually found in their t&cs which are the ones you should focus on. If indeed it says maximum payout of 1M euro and your bet wins at odds that should pay 2M euro you will only receive the maximum payout allowed. This is something to take into consideration when making these small multiples trying for a huge payout. Good Luck in your betting.

Just as a corollary to the above I've spent a couple of hours collating the missing Aces from my own data base (Unibet Hand History Replayer.) The researcher found that big pairs, especially AA, were not dealt as often as would be expected. My stats absolutely confirm this shocking revelation, a sad indictment of the rogue poker sites we have to put our money on. Of the previous 5,893 (I think a fair sample for an old wreck rec like me) hands I have been dealt, expecting AA at a rate of about once every 220 hands therefore 26 times, I have only been dealt them a paltry 21 times, a huge under representation. I've always considered myself unlucky at cards but now the truth will out, I don't get a fair chance to slam all my money in with Pocket Rockets and make far more money than I have been doing. But to be absolutely fair I'm in a bit of quandary what to do really, as an oft quoted statistic states that AA will beat a random hand 85% of the time. In an effort for full and frank disclosure I have to say that my Aces won 20 of the 21 times, an incredulous 95% success rate. Could the RNG be dealing me less than the "correct" number of paired AA but letting me win more than my fair share of times with them as an inbuilt compensation factor? If you get dealt more than your fair share of AA do you lose more often as an effort to "balance." These and more questions can only be answered in the fullness of time by more minutes of researching more hundreds of hands and jumping to a fair percentage of conclusions before anyone else. Maths is hard "If there is a 50-50 chance of something going wrong then 9 times out of 10 it will."

I've read the first two chapters of the Pokerstars case study, and have always been interested in maths based stuff if never actually any good at it, so would be interested to hear opinions of anyone that knows the subject better. Anyway , here goes some layman's points of view. Firstly it almost reads as if someone has come to certain conclusions before doing any statistical work and is merely doing the actual study to prove his point. Isn't that the wrong way round? I seem to recall reading that good research is coming up with a hypothesis then trying to do everything you can to prove it wrong before making any conclusions. Anyway there seems to be an obvious (to poker players) issue with the sample size which crops up a couple of times because it's only 50K hands. If something should statistically happen 23% of the time but actually occurs 46% then this is noted as a huge difference, but... the 46% refers to 7/15. A sample size of 15. Is that really significant? The case of two players getting quads is worked out at 81 million to 1, but the guy bangs on about the player no way having played 81M hands. He doesn't seem to realise that you don't actually have to play 81 million hands for an 81 million to one chance to occur, it could happen the first hand someone ever played, couldn't it? I've seen two players get quads in the same hand, I'm sure some of you will have, and I've not played 81 million hands, not yet anyway. I've seen the same number come up 5 times in a row on a roulette table, about a 60 million to one shot, so am I just lucky or a statistical freak. Some of the statistics are astonishing, incredible or astounding, I'm more inclined to rate them as maybe slightly odd in the Poker Microverse, or maybe Unibet's RNG is slightly more random than Pokerstar's. Any thoughts anyone?

The first time I heard the number of hands played as a reference point was some years ago, Blackrain79 saying he'd had a losing stretch over 100,000 hands. Matt Berkey uses a 100,000 hand sample size fairly regularly as a possibly fair sample size to get any sort of meaningful statistics, even then variance could produce some anomalies, so as stated 55K hands is probably meaningless. Recently I somewhat flippantly asked "how many hands" in (yet) another conspiracy thread, (no answer yet 🤔) so I suggest each of these and new threads are first and foremost greeted with similar questions before going any further. "A sample size of how many hands were used as proof of something dodgy going on." I suspect there will be a very small number of answers, admittedly from a small sample size. 😂