cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
OliD
Rank 10
Rank 10

I know what I saw and I say what I see. 

0 Likes
Reply
OliD
Rank 10
Rank 10
In poker, variance is the measure of uncertainty. A play that has high variance has a great deal of uncertainty. A play that has a relatively certain outcome has a low variance. ... Variance is important for the poker player because it quantifies the notions of upswing and downswing.

My comments were relating to the unlikelihood of been DEALT paired flops, ie the famous not-so-RNG, not the variance of upswing or downswing of my subsequent resulting losses or profits, both of which are negligible, perhaps a result of the equally famous theory of Equitable Distribution.

Are you honestly going to deny the use of algorithms in computer based industry, some such could easily be written, by man, to behave however they commanded?

Get a grip Grizzler and then please get a life, outside the remit of kissing fake ass.
0 Likes
Reply
Stubbe-Unibet
Unibet Poker Expert
Unibet Poker Expert
@OliD, I'm happy to try and get the data on all flops in hands you've played. Not something that's easily accessible, but I should be able to get it and post it here next week, so we can prove that it's simply a question of failing to understand variance, sample sizes etc. and reality and perception often being two very different beasts Smile
0 Likes
Reply
OliD
Rank 10
Rank 10

No, again you are missing the point. It's not related to hands in which I necessarily played. It's related to all flops at tables and tourneys I play and witness, regardless of whether I play the hand or not. It's not that I feel I am being punished personally, that would of course be ridiculous, and by your own terms, illegal - other "players" also have to play these boards, some more than me as I may have already chosen to fold pre flop.

Again, like I have said on multiple occasions tonight alone, I understand my sample size of 13 is very very very very small but realised I couldn't even begin to make a point without listing actual hands from an actual tourney played in, for fear of being ridiculed by the usual crowd just waiting in the wings such as Livertool and Grizzler (again, this is not some miscomprehension that they would wish to ridicule me personally, as I have witnessed the same characters, whose motives remain questionable, questioning and outright denying the legitimate observations of many many of your own customers over the years).

Even you own chum acknowledges that four paired flops in a row and 7 for 13 is high but not statistically impossible. fair enough, but to put this down to variance rather than the behaviour of your fully certified RNG seems odd. After all, the sole purpose of this mechanism is to present the cards in a fully randomised order, so to have glaringly blatant patterns such as we are discussing seems entirely contradictory.

Do you actually disagree with the interpetation of variance at the top of my previous post? Poker is a complicated subject I grant you but I assure you I haven't perceived there to be an anomalous quantity of paired flops, it's a witnessed reality, the borders of both beasts being perfectly clear to me.

 

 

0 Likes
Reply
Argevolen
Rank 15
Rank 15

@OliD wrote:

Even you own chum acknowledges that four paired flops in a row and 7 for 13 is high but not statistically impossible. fair enough, but to put this down to variance rather than the behaviour of your fully certified RNG seems odd. After all, the sole purpose of this mechanism is to present the cards in a fully randomised order, so to have glaringly blatant patterns such as we are discussing seems entirely contradictory.


I don't quite understand what you mean by your observations?
What is the cause of this anomaly?
Does Unibet intentionally create it?
Is it a side effect of the adaptive RNG?
Is the RNG honest but imperfect?

What is the probability that two of the 23 people have the same date of birth?Smirk Try to answer roughly, without calculations.

 

Spoiler
51%

 


 

Reply
GR1ZZL3R
Rank 25
Rank 25

@OliD 

Your very first question in the opening thread was "Has anybody else noticed the entirely abnormal amount of paired flops being dealt in Tour and Open MTTs in the past week?" Nobody yet has answered yes which would suggest among other possibilities, that it's only happening to you, nobody can be bothered to answer, or it's not happening to anybody else. It may be abnormal, but only over a short run of a very small sample, so in the long term is completely normal. My questionable motive is to point this out, not attack you personally or resort to name calling, but the fact is that the majority of poker players, or indeed roulette, slots, blackjack, indeed any sort of bettors, simply do not understand variance. I certainly don't, and there are many far better qualified than me that don't, it's just a fact of life that we have to live with. I could point out many instances of strange or unusual sequences that occur from time to time, but I don't, mainly because by the time I get round to it they tend to have slowed down, disappeared altogether, or simply returned to the "norm." Humans are wired to see patterns, you saw what you saw and I'm not "outright denying that," no-ones disputing that, the majority of us are merely trying to point out that what you saw is most likely a temporary abundance of flopped pairs that will soon be a long distant memory. 

 

It Is What It Is
Reply
Stubbe-Unibet
Unibet Poker Expert
Unibet Poker Expert

@OliD wrote:

Even you own chum acknowledges that four paired flops in a row and 7 for 13 is high but not statistically impossible. fair enough, but to put this down to variance rather than the behaviour of your fully certified RNG seems odd.

No, it doesn't seem odd at all, and I can't even comprehend your logic. I honestly don't even know what you're trying to say. The RNG is designed in such a way that it'll pair the board more often when certain users are involved, when it's a certain kind of tournament or when the planets are aligned a certain way?


@OliD wrote:

No, again you are missing the point. It's not related to hands in which I necessarily played. It's related to all flops at tables and tourneys I play and witness, regardless of whether I play the hand or not. It's not that I feel I am being punished personally, that would of course be ridiculous, and by your own terms, illegal - other "players" also have to play these boards, some more than me as I may have already chosen to fold pre flop.


I'm not missing "the point". As I said, I'll share data for all hands you've played, so you can see it's just a question of your perception being off Smile


@OliD wrote:

Again, like I have said on multiple occasions tonight alone, I understand my sample size of 13 is very very very very small but realised I couldn't even begin to make a point without listing actual hands from an actual tourney played in, for fear of being ridiculed by the usual crowd just waiting in the wings such as Livertool and Grizzler (again, this is not some miscomprehension that they would wish to ridicule me personally, as I have witnessed the same characters, whose motives remain questionable, questioning and outright denying the legitimate observations of many many of your own customers over the years).


You certainly don't seem to understand the fact that the sample size is way, way too small to draw any kind of conclusions - again, it's an occurrence with a 17% likelihood and you're talking about 10s of hands or a couple hundred. What you're "observing" is something that happens many times every day. Your observations are completely legitimate, but your speculations and assumptions are nonsensical at best.


@OliD wrote:

Do you actually disagree with the interpetation of variance at the top of my previous post? Poker is a complicated subject I grant you but I assure you I haven't perceived there to be an anomalous quantity of paired flops, it's a witnessed reality, the borders of both beasts being perfectly clear to me.

As you'll see if/when I manage to get the data; you're wrong. You have "observed" something completely normal on a small sample size and looking at your hands lifetime, it's all as expected.

Reply
OliD
Rank 10
Rank 10

Hi Grizzler,

thank you for your peculiar response. You query why nobody has answered my initial question and yet you fail to see the response from mod agreeing that 7 for 13 in the space of five minutes would seem high. You then go on to agree yourself that I witnessed what I did. I concede that nobody other than the usual cast of site defenders have responded to my public post but I reason that to be because, as has always happened here, genuine queries are come down on hard like a ton a bricks, by the same people with the same justifications - you know nothing, sample size is too small, the system is infallible. Like I said to stubbe, I get that, certain people have a vested interest in downplaying such theories to maintain their own existence. You however, have still not answered my subsequent question, are you affiliated to Unibet? 

I am not commenting on the odds of seeing such things patterns over the infinitesimal long run because I only wish to sit and play a reasonable deal for a single session, perhaps two, per day, yet I do understand the odds of such events are calculated over the long run. However surely the purpose of RNG is to ensure a perpetually random outcome rather than pilling in all the same type of flops into a short period of time ergo, self defeating. I understand that if you wait long enough for example a random generator will produce a numerically ascending sequence of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 but to witness this more than even once in a short period may suggest something doesn't work quite as it should. Why it should behave this way would be a matter for the propiertor, hence my raising it within this forum but again I sense any responsibility would easily be offloaded to a third party such as the certifier. 

Don't get me wrong I enjoy playing at Unibet and I hope to see you at the tables one day, perhaps even in person at an event so I can apologise to you for your taking offence to some of my earlier remarks. For me it's really not personal but I have to confess it feels like it's taken pretty personally by others.

Reply
Stubbe-Unibet
Unibet Poker Expert
Unibet Poker Expert

@OliD wrote:

Hi Grizzler,

thank you for your peculiar response. You query why nobody has answered my initial question and yet you fail to see the response from mod agreeing that 7 for 13 in the space of five minutes would seem high. You then go on to agree yourself that I witnessed what I did. I concede that nobody other than the usual cast of site defenders have responded to my public post but I reason that to be because, as has always happened here, genuine queries are come down on hard like a ton a bricks, by the same people with the same justifications - you know nothing, sample size is too small, the system is infallible. Like I said to stubbe, I get that, certain people have a vested interest in downplaying such theories to maintain their own existence. You however, have still not answered my subsequent question, are you affiliated to Unibet? 

I am not commenting on the odds of seeing such things patterns over the infinitesimal long run because I only wish to sit and play a reasonable deal for a single session, perhaps two, per day, yet I do understand the odds of such events are calculated over the long run. However surely the purpose of RNG is to ensure a perpetually random outcome rather than pilling in all the same type of flops into a short period of time ergo, self defeating. I understand that if you wait long enough for example a random generator will produce a numerically ascending sequence of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 but to witness this more than even once in a short period may suggest something doesn't work quite as it should. Why it should behave this way would be a matter for the propiertor, hence my raising it within this forum but again I sense any responsibility would easily be offloaded to a third party such as the certifier. 

Don't get me wrong I enjoy playing at Unibet and I hope to see you at the tables one day, perhaps even in person at an event so I can apologise to you for your taking offence to some of my earlier remarks. For me it's really not personal but I have to confess it feels like it's taken pretty personally by others.


Of course an occurrence of 6 out of 13, when likelihood is 17%, is high. No one ever questioned this. Again, your observation is legitimate, in regards to the occurrence of the event. Where it starts to go south is when you suggest this is highly irregular and proof that the RNG is broken.

Your example with the sequence doesn't make any sense in this context, when we're talking a likelihood of 0.0000000010%. This isn't remotely close to what you're talking about with paired boards. There's 0.5% chance of getting 3 paired boards in a row.

0 Likes
Reply
GR1ZZL3R
Rank 25
Rank 25

@OliD wrote:

Hi Grizzler,

thank you for your peculiar response. You query why nobody has answered my initial question and yet you fail to see the response from mod agreeing that 7 for 13 in the space of five minutes would seem high. 

You got a reply from a mod then completely dismissed it as being from a company employee, not what you wanted. So I replied, maybe a bit sharply, but so many of these theories are proposed by people that really do NOT understand variance, who does, and will simply refuse to believe any answer that doesn't agree with them. Anyone disagreeing is immediately pegged as a company employee, having a vested interest, or just part of the whole conspiracy. That was your first response so you can hardly blame me for thinking the same of you.

You then go on to agree yourself that I witnessed what I did. I concede that nobody other than the usual cast of site defenders have responded to my public post but I reason that to be because, as has always happened here, genuine queries are come down on hard like a ton a bricks, by the same people with the same justifications - you know nothing, sample size is too small, the system is infallible.

Genuine queries are answered in the main part genuinely. I see nothing in the replies so far as ungenuine. If you know these responses always happen then why pose the question in the first place? 

 Like I said to stubbe, I get that, certain people have a vested interest in downplaying such theories to maintain their own existence. You however, have still not answered my subsequent question, are you affiliated to Unibet? 

No.

I am not commenting on the odds of seeing such things patterns over the infinitesimal long run because I only wish to sit and play a reasonable deal for a single session, perhaps two, per day, yet I do understand the odds of such events are calculated over the long run. However surely the purpose of RNG is to ensure a perpetually random outcome rather than pilling in all the same type of flops into a short period of time ergo, self defeating. I understand that if you wait long enough for example a random generator will produce a numerically ascending sequence of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 but to witness this more than even once in a short period may suggest something doesn't work quite as it should. Why it should behave this way would be a matter for the propiertor, hence my raising it within this forum but again I sense any responsibility would easily be offloaded to a third party such as the certifier. 

The possibility is that the rng has dealt sequences like you've seen, probably many times, still a tiny percentage of all the flops dealt, but you have not been there at those times so have not seen them.

Don't get me wrong I enjoy playing at Unibet and I hope to see you at the tables one day, perhaps even in person at an event so I can apologise to you for your taking offence to some of my earlier remarks. For me it's really not personal but I have to confess it feels like it's taken pretty personally by others.

I play mostly UK and UO qualifiers so we've probably played many times already and hopefully if we ever do meet can have a drink and chat about all kinds of weird and wonderful happenings. I don't really take offence to name calling or whatever, it comes with the territory, I answer as I see it, and in 99.99% of cases is expected, (that's from a sample size of 3 or 4 Rofl) but I think it only detracts from proper discussions. I hope stubbe manages to get some data together so we can examine it in more detail. 

 

 

 


 

It Is What It Is
Reply