Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

# PokerStars tournament all-in pot equities v. pots won

13,874 views

### Steve Brecher

May 18, 2003, 5:37:46 PM5/18/03
to
Using emailed hand histories, I tabulated the results of 1675 pots in
PokerStars tournaments in which betting ended prior to the river because
players in the pot were all-in, and in which none of the all-in players was
drawing dead. The great majority of the tournaments were multi-table; a few
were two-table, and fewer still single-table. There were a total of 3420
all-in hands (usually two per pot, but in a few instances three or even
four).

For each all-in, I collected the player's equity in the pot at the time of
the all-in and the proportion of the pot the player won (1.0 for a win, 0.0
for a loss, 0.5 for a two-way split, etc.) The pot equity of a hand is the
average proportion of the pot that a player would win over the long run.
For example, in the following sample Hold 'Em Showdown output,

990 pots with board cards: Tc 9d 7s

9h9s 8d8s
% chance of outright win 74.040404 24.343434
% chance of win or split 75.656566 25.959596
expected return, % of pot 74.848485 25.151515
fair pot odds:1 0.336032 2.975904
pots won: 741.00 249.00

--the "expected return, % of pot" result shows the pot equity of each hand.

The chi square statistic does not indicate significant variance of actual
from expected (3392.7 on 3421 hands). A plot of rolling 30-"bin" averages
of sorted equity vs. pots won looks linear; the linear regression is
y = 0.9908x + 0.0045
which is not significantly different from the theoretical y = 1.0x + 0 that
describes the "no dealing bias" case.

Looking at the "big" favorites/underdogs, and expressing the favorite's
chances as odds against the underdog:

Odds at least # of hands Avg equity Avg pot won
2:1 1121 0.8123 0.8134
3:1 753 0.8617 0.8597
4:1 623 0.8806 0.8777
9:1 260 0.9383 0.9321

In sum, I see no evidence that "bad beats" are more frequent than expected.

(I am grateful to Paul Pudaite for analytical guidance, but any errors are
my own.)

--
For mail, please use my surname where indicated:
st...@surname.reno.nv.us (Steve Brecher)

### Runner Runner

May 19, 2003, 10:46:11 AM5/19/03
to
"Steve Brecher" <s...@my.signature.at.end> wrote in message news:<ba8uf...@enews2.newsguy.com>...

> Using emailed hand histories, I tabulated the results of 1675 pots in
> PokerStars tournaments in which betting ended prior to the river because
> players in the pot were all-in, and in which none of the all-in players was

<snip some details of a much needed study>

> In sum, I see no evidence that "bad beats" are more frequent than expected.
>
> (I am grateful to Paul Pudaite for analytical guidance, but any errors are
> my own.)

A couple of questions:

What do you mean by: "Using emailed hand histories"?

Did the hand histories come from multiple sources and if so how were
they chosen and controlled?

Do you, Paul Pudaite, or anyone involved in this study work in the
poker industry or financially related fields.

Did PokerStars provide any assistance with your study.

You are a well known and I believe respected RGP poster. I am sure
you are also well known personally by many on RGP. I am not trying to
undermine your work but I think it is important to know where it is
coming from. This is not just your theory or strictly an opinion. It
is a presentation of data and conclusions and as such could assume the
status of fact.

This is great stuff if not tainted either by sample size, statistical
problems, or other bias. The crux of the question surrounding online
poker site dealing/randomness integrity revolves around lack of
accountability. When any audit is done factors in addition to the
results assume equal importance. Integrity is important when
examining integrity.

I would simplly like to see the bar set higher for acceptance of
results in terms of non-statistical bias. Lord knows if you posted
something that appeared statistically biased you would hear about it
here on RGP. Let's make the accountability requirements equally high.
That is, at least as much as can be done in the anonymous world of
newsgroup personalities and unregulated offshore online poker sites.

RR

### AlwaysAware

May 19, 2003, 12:10:42 PM5/19/03
to
I am also curious about the buy in amounts of these tournament hand histories.
Do higher buy in's make a difference in any way? Do \$100 tourney's have less
"suck out" potential than freerolls? And what portions did your hand histories
represent?

Thanks
Joan

>(Runner Runner)

### Gary Carson

May 19, 2003, 12:45:11 PM5/19/03
to
On 19 May 2003 16:10:42 GMT, alway...@aol.com (AlwaysAware) wrote:

>I am also curious about the buy in amounts of these tournament hand
histories. >Do higher buy in's make a difference in any way? Do \$100
tourney's have less>"suck out" potential than freerolls? And what

Don't forget sunspots and tides.

A good conspiracy theory cannot be killed.

### AlwaysAware

May 19, 2003, 12:59:01 PM5/19/03
to
Hey:

I am not doubting Steve's work, and I think it is good that he did it.. I am
not a math whiz nor am I a conpiracy subscriber... but common sense tells me
that less skilled players may be in the freerolls more than in the higher buy
in tourney's and therefore, more likely to move in chips with KQ get called by
JT and 77 and have AA also call and go down in flames. Doesn't skill play some
part in the outcome - i.e. less likely for the opportunity of certain suck
outs?

Joan

>garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu (Gary Carson)

### Chris O'Connor

May 19, 2003, 12:56:01 PM5/19/03
to
On May 19 2003 12:45PM, Gary Carson wrote:

> Don't forget sunspots and tides.
>
> A good conspiracy theory cannot be killed.

Is this a 'planet X' reference, Gary?

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

### Gary Carson

May 19, 2003, 1:52:20 PM5/19/03
to
On 19 May 2003 16:59:01 GMT, alway...@aol.com (AlwaysAware) wrote:

>Hey:
>
>I am not doubting Steve's work, and I think it is good that he did
it.. I am
>not a math whiz nor am I a conpiracy subscriber... but common sense
tells me
>that less skilled players may be in the freerolls more than in the
>in tourney's and therefore, more likely to move in chips with KQ get
called by
>JT and 77 and have AA also call and go down in flames. Doesn't skill
play some
>part in the outcome - i.e. less likely for the opportunity of certain
suck
>outs?

I see, my sarcasm was misplaced, sorry about that.

You don't fully understand what he did.

You're probably right that games with more people willing to go allin
when far behind will have more longshot draws hit. That's just
because they'll have more longshot draws.

There's no real way to test whether more draws are attempted than
expected because the number of draws expected depends on playing
decisions.

What he looked at was the number of draws made given a certain number
of attempts. We can compute that expected number. We can't predict
how many times people draw to gutshots, but we can predict how often
those attempts will get there. That's what he looked at -- the
frequency of hits relative to the frequency of attempts.

Yoiu might expect the frequency of gutshots made to be higher in
smaller events, but not the relative frequency.

### Steve Brecher

May 19, 2003, 1:19:12 PM5/19/03
to
"Runner Runner" <noteno...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Steve Brecher" <s...@my.signature.at.end> wrote in message
news:<ba8uf...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
> > Using emailed hand histories, I tabulated the results of 1675 pots in
> > PokerStars tournaments in which betting ended prior to the river because
> > players in the pot were all-in, and in which none of the all-in players
was
>
> <snip some details of a much needed study>
>
> > In sum, I see no evidence that "bad beats" are more frequent than
expected.
> >
> > (I am grateful to Paul Pudaite for analytical guidance, but any errors
are
> > my own.)
>
>
> A couple of questions:
>
> What do you mean by: "Using emailed hand histories"?
>
> Did the hand histories come from multiple sources and if so how were
> they chosen and controlled?

No, they came from a signle source -- myself. The hand histories are
those of all the PokerStars tournaments in which I have played.

> Do you, Paul Pudaite, or anyone involved in this study work in the
> poker industry or financially related fields.

No.

> Did PokerStars provide any assistance with your study.

No.

### Steve Brecher

May 19, 2003, 1:35:49 PM5/19/03
to
"AlwaysAware" <alway...@aol.com> wrote:
> I am also curious about the buy in amounts of these tournament hand
histories.
> Do higher buy in's make a difference in any way? Do \$100 tourney's have
less
> "suck out" potential than freerolls?

They were all hold 'em tournaments (I forgot to mention that in my original
post). Almost all were no-limit or pot-limit; a couple were limit. The
majority were \$50+5; some were \$200+15 and a few were other buy-in amounts.
None were freerolls.

I don't have any breakdowns of the results by type of tournament.

> And what portions did your hand histories represent?

(If this means what portion of each tournament--) The portion from the
start of the tournament until I busted out or won, for all-in hands at
tables at which I was playing.

### Steve Brecher

May 19, 2003, 1:41:48 PM5/19/03
to
"AlwaysAware" <alway...@aol.com> wrote:
> ... common sense tells me

> that less skilled players may be in the freerolls more than in the higher
> in tourney's and therefore, more likely to move in chips with KQ get
called by
> JT and 77 and have AA also call and go down in flames. Doesn't skill play
some
> part in the outcome - i.e. less likely for the opportunity of certain suck
> outs?

Perhaps -- I don't know -- there may be more all-ins and hence a higher
absolute number of suck outs in some kinds of events as opposed to other
kinds. What I was studying, however, was, given that two or more players
were all in, how well hands held up vis-a-vis how well they should hold up
if the cards dealt to the board were randomly selected from the set of
unseen cards.

### Steve Brecher

May 19, 2003, 1:58:15 PM5/19/03
to
"Steve Brecher" <s...@my.signature.at.end> wrote:

> ... The hand histories are

> those of all the PokerStars tournaments in which I have played.

Correction: I started collecting hand histories after I played some
tournaments. So the hand histories used in the study were those of all the
PokerStars tournaments in which I have played since I started collecting
hand histories.

### AlwaysAware

May 19, 2003, 2:45:07 PM5/19/03
to
>garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu (Gary Carson)

>I see, my sarcasm was misplaced, sorry about that.
>

sarcasm only works on me when the subject matter isn't already over my head..
though, I figured it for (most likely) that - I took the opportunity to clarify
the reason for my question.

As for the rest of your post, it will take me awhile to digest, expect an

Joan

### Alix Martin

May 19, 2003, 4:48:57 PM5/19/03
to
"Steve Brecher" <s...@my.signature.at.end> wrote in message news:<bab3m...@enews3.newsguy.com>...

Side question : in NL holdem preflop all-ins, for the different hands,
how much ev is won/lost in comparison with folding before the all-in
bet ? Raising hands can afford to have negative ev when called since
they win when not called. Calling hands should have positive ev, but
is this true for the KQ and JT that many people take all in ?

Additional classication possibilities : (players left to act * all-in
move / pot size) , Steve Brecher / random pokerstar players

Alix

### Hristo Kasabov

Jun 6, 2012, 12:51:12 AM6/6/12
to
What in the name of ... is these idiot rivers ?

Why make this shuffel ? and why is not fair ?
Why support the biggest stack ? Biggest stack won on any 2 cards ?
And why river never help me and always help against me ?

I watch lot of tounaments with pro players i never see these shits against them.

Watch this.

http://aldarion.bgmeet.com/omg8.png -- only in yopur dream can happen this.
http://aldarion.bgmeet.com/omg10.png -- what is the chance for that ?
http://aldarion.bgmeet.com/omg11.png
http://aldarion.bgmeet.com/omg12.png
http://aldarion.bgmeet.com/omg13.png
http://aldarion.bgmeet.com/omg14.png - haha sure.....all in preflop sure.
http://aldarion.bgmeet.com/omg15.png
http://aldarion.bgmeet.com/omg16.png
http://aldarion.bgmeet.com/omg17.png
http://aldarion.bgmeet.com/omg18.png
http://aldarion.bgmeet.com/omg19.png -- what in the name of .. is this ? re-raise after the flop ? he was 100% sure will won. why ? i am half man or i not deserve to win ?
http://aldarion.bgmeet.com/omg20.png - this is 5 minutes ago. all in preflop by me, called by idiot.

i have ower 1000 saved hands. like these.

i think is good idea put them on youtube, twitter, facebook. If they are deleted will make own site - is not hard..Players must know what will face when play in pokerstars.
Why this was not happen on Fullilt for example ? There AA was AA, KK was KK, and 8 9 beat AK 1 to 100 hands.

Now who smart man can explain these rivers.
Before put some stupid answer like - it`s poker, happen, or badbeat, grab deck cards and see after how many hands will come these rivers.

becouse i try this and the result was amazing. 1 to 100 hands put this 1%.

I will wait to see who will answer, for now i am sure will have zero answers.

### aahh...@ya.ru

Aug 20, 2012, 10:23:28 PM8/20/12
to
online pokerstars not all honestly, I think that there is a list where there are players that give out bogus hand, if you are in the list, how would you play you will lose!

### aahh...@ya.ru

Aug 29, 2012, 3:39:19 AM8/29/12
to

### aahh...@ya.ru

Aug 29, 2012, 11:00:55 PM8/29/12
to
proof that at PokerStars ace falls more, the king and queen, too (russian text)

Сегодня сыграл 5 часов по 20 столов, и минус 40 баин

мой ник: Muha 77

### shi...@rkmail.ru

Sep 15, 2012, 9:27:38 PM9/15/12
to
понедельник, 19 мая 2003 г., 2:05:15 UTC+4 пользователь Steve Brecher написал:
> Using emailed hand histories, I tabulated the results of 1675 pots in PokerStars tournaments in which betting ended prior to the river because players in the pot were all-in, and in which none of the all-in players was drawing dead. The great majority of the tournaments were multi-table; a few were two-table, and fewer still single-table. There were a total of 3420 all-in hands (usually two per pot, but in a few instances three or even four).For each all-in, I collected the player's equity in the pot at the time of the all-in and the proportion of the pot the player won (1.0 for a win, 0.0 for a loss, 0.5 for a two-way split, etc.) The pot equity of a hand is the average proportion of the pot that a player would win over the long run. For example, in the following sample Hold 'Em Showdown output,990 pots with board cards: Tc 9d 7s9h9s 8d8s % chance of outright win 74.040404 24.343434 % chance of win or split 75.656566 25.959596 expected return, % of pot 74.848485 25.151515 fair pot odds:1 0.336032 2.975904pots won: 741.00 249.00--the "expected return, % of pot" result shows the pot equity of each hand. The chi square statistic does not indicate significant variance of actual from expected (3392.7 on 3421 hands). A plot of rolling 30-"bin" averages of sorted equity vs. pots won looks linear; the linear regression is y = 0.9908x + 0.0045 which is not significantly different from the theoretical y = 1.0x + 0 that describes the "no dealing bias" case.Looking at the "big" favorites/underdogs, and expressing the favorite's chances as odds against the underdog:Odds at least # of hands Avg equity Avg pot won2:1 1121 0.8123 0.8134 3:1 753 0.8617 0.85974:1 623 0.8806 0.87779:1 260 0.9383 0.9321In sum, I see no evidence that "bad beats" are more frequent than expected. (I am grateful to Paul Pudaite for analytical guidance, but any errors are my own.)-- For mail, please use my surname where indicated: st...@surname.reno.nv.us (Steve Brecher)

На данную "ЛАБУДУ" я изложил свои аргументы, но ПОСТ мой УДАЛИЛИ, так как ВОЗРАЗИТЬ ОКАЗАЛОСЬ НЕЧЕГО. В своем посте я назвал МОШЕННИКОМ "автора" сей "лабуды", который занимается ЭЛЕМЕНТАРНЫМ ОБМАНОМ, выгораживающий Покер Старс, где МОШЕННИЧЕСТВО и ПОДЛОГ-ОБЫЧНОЕ ДЕЛО!!!
Требую ВЕРНУТЬ мой пост, а если ВОЗРАЗИТЬ НЕЧЕГО-НЕ ВРИТЕ!!!

### Firstname Lastname

Sep 16, 2012, 1:50:12 AM9/16/12
to
Brech,

You did your analysis all wrong. First, you need to select hands where one opponent was dominated.

You'll find that grace from pokerstars is given at a higher rate the more you are dominated. You need something like AA vs KK....or AA vs AK....things like that.

Furthermore, you need to find a way to track the results of the dominating hands after they've been on a recent rush.

What usually happens after a big rush, is Stars gives you an unbelievable run of powerful hands that gets clobbered back to back to back and brings you right back down if you go all-in with them.

### florea_i...@yahoo.com

Sep 21, 2012, 4:01:02 PM9/21/12
to
pokerstars a site where the soft is run by the few ....a big cowenry made by those thiefs......random shuffle cards is only an illusion

### florea_i...@yahoo.com

Sep 21, 2012, 4:04:33 PM9/21/12
to

a joke invented (random shuffle cards)how in earth can they recognise is a cowenry they must find a reason to hide that is a cowenry because otherwise they will lose raiting

### florea_i...@yahoo.com

Sep 21, 2012, 4:07:03 PM9/21/12
to
pozition,style.....tactics ,school of poker... in order to reduce the chances to lose..(random shuffle cards)..is all BULL SHIT

### florea_i...@yahoo.com

Sep 21, 2012, 4:14:11 PM9/21/12
to
pokerstars is a big cowenry some players just are not allowed to advance any further....a hav played at bigger staks also and it seems to me no difference

### shi...@rkmail.ru

Sep 23, 2012, 11:04:14 PM9/23/12
to
суббота, 22 сентября 2012 г., 0:07:03 UTC+4 пользователь (неизвестно) написал:
> pozition,style.....tactics ,school of poker... in order to reduce the chances to lose..(random shuffle cards)..is all BULL SHIT

На эту страничку меня перенаправили Покер Старс, когда ОПРАВДЫВАТЬСЯ у них НЕ БЫЛО АРГУМЕНТОВ, то что ОНИ МОШЕННИЧЕСКОЕ БЫДЛО, БЫДЛЯЦКОГО, ВОРОВСКОГО румма! Но когда я увидел весь ЭТОТ БРЕД про "анализ" игранных рук на этом румме, Я ПОНЯЛ: ЭТИ ТВАРИ ПРОСТО ИЗДЕВАЮТСЯ, переправляя по этой ссылке НЕДОВОЛЬНЫХ ИГРОКОВ. Все ЧИТАЮТ ЭТОТ БРЕД и ПОНИМАЮТ, ЧТО ИХ ПРОСТО "КИНУЛИ"(ОБМАНУЛИ) УРОДЫ МОШЕННИЧЕСКОГО РУММА Покер Старс. Примитивно это выглядит ТАК: приходит игрок на Покер Старс, делает ДЕПОЗИТ, ИГРАЕТ-проигрывает, делает ДЕПОЗИТ, опять играет-проигрывает и так, пока не задумается-А ПОЧЕМУ ТАК ВСЕ ТУПО? Попытается узнать у "обслуги" румма, а те ему сначала будут "ВЕШАТЬ ЛАПШУ НА УШИ"-просто ВРАТЬ, а когда он им надоест со своими вопросами, да и отвечать на них станет НЕЧЕГО, вот тогда они и "ОБОСНОВЫВАЮТ" свою "ЧЕСТНОСТЬ" "статистикой" ПОДОБНОГО ЭТОМУ Брешу ДЕБИЛОИДА! А ЭТА ПРОСТИТУТКА Бреш, так и не ответил мне, ГНИДА! И у ЭТОГО ГАВНОПИДОРА НЕЧЕГО МНЕ СООБЩИТЬ по существу! УРОДЫ! Такую игру ИЗГАДИЛИ, СУКИ!!!

### cistern...@libero.it

Sep 26, 2012, 2:03:32 PM9/26/12
to
ma quali mani casuali,nn e normale perdere 10 sit di seguito con la mano migliore in mano,e poi AA A10 perche mi ha fatto tre volte colore?????e poi in heads up perche tutti e due fanno un punto forter,mentre dal vivo per la maggiorparte delle volte anche se si e 3/4 in gioco in una mano il spesso nessuno fa coppia sul flop??? mentre online si.basta questo nn e poker ma una semplice macchinetta!!!mettetevelo tutti in testa ,io nn gioco piu come prima ma a volte penso che se tocca a me vale la pena rischiare!!ciao

### koukos...@gmail.com

Oct 1, 2012, 5:22:04 AM10/1/12
to
καναδυο ερωτηματα
ειδα πολλεσ φερεσ θεση να νικαει παντα και με χειτερο φυλλο
στατιστικα μπορειτε να μου πειτε πωσ γινετε 3 φορεσ οι αα να χασουν απο αQ στο ιδιο τουρνουα
στα 3 πρωτα φυλλα να εχεισ 3 ιδια ο αντιπαλλοσ τιποτα η ζευγαρη μεγαλυτερο απο το δικο σου και να χανεισ στα επομενα 2 φυλλα απο χρωμμα κεντα με 3 μεγαλυτερα του αντιπαλου
αν σου τυχαινει με ποσοστο50% τα παραπανω δεν τρεχει κατι?

### collants...@yahoo.fr

Oct 9, 2012, 1:29:35 PM10/9/12
to
Pokerstar make win always the same player ! Some finish in win places 15 times in one day. Its just impossible !
And the river ?! Decide 99% of time the game !

### collants...@yahoo.fr

Oct 9, 2012, 10:35:30 PM10/9/12
to
A winner count on pokerstar ! We are the 10october, he have win already 20.000\$.
Winner of the million just after subscribe on pokerstar ! Her 11th MTT, he win the million. After win, win ! Thats a winner count !

2012 October 63/354 18% 2+1 11% \$20,564
2012 September 217/1373 16% 7+10 12% \$154,933
2012 August 168/1173 14% 12 10% \$90,804
2012 July 114/822 14% 7+1 10% \$46,650
2012 June 115/933 12% 8 9% \$76,451
2012 May 137/1108 12% 10 9% \$211,441
2012 April 97/777 12% 4 8% \$55,226
2012 March 162/1165 14% 12 11% \$99,308
2012 February 275/1754 16% 12 10% \$156,606
2012 January 227/1579 14% 22+2 11% \$163,778
2011 December 166/1225 14% 16 10% \$116,774
2011 November 193/1393 14% 22 11% \$112,957
2011 October 177/1353 13% 15+1 10% \$136,914
2011 September 229/1434 16% 16+4 11% \$152,243
2011 August 185/1330 14% 23+1 10% \$97,677
2011 July 205/1444 14% 24 10% \$98,350
2011 June 141/949 15% 12 10% \$82,244
2011 May 95/659 14% 7 10% \$119,827
2011 April 34/234 15% 2 11% \$93,165
2011 March 42/327 13% 1 9% \$12,728
2011 February 67/439 15% 5 13% \$40,838
2011 January 93/685 14% 5 10% \$31,002
2010 December 123/1000 12% 12 9% \$41,932
2010 November 46/407 11% 5 9% \$10,606
2010 October 9/89 10% 1 10% \$20,612
2010 September1/11 9% 0 0% \$34
2010 August 1/12 8% 0 8% \$99
2010 July 13/99 13% 1 9% \$23,364
2010 June 19/116 16% 4 15% \$72,805
2010 May 9/88 10% 0 8% \$5,711
2010 April 15/160 9% 0 8% \$13,440
2010 March 25/171 15% 3 12% \$111,922
2010 February 1/11 9% 1 9% \$205,571

### cyrila...@gmail.com

Nov 2, 2012, 1:38:14 PM11/2/12
to

### vangel...@gmail.com

Dec 7, 2012, 11:24:16 AM12/7/12
to
Hi what do you say here is not correct in mathematical way, thats one fact.
Its great to show higher level of tournaments, but we all know that we are more talking about mincash tournaments or cash games. Just to know i started to play just because i heard about this problems. 3 days i played i get 21 lost to 3 win when i was min 70% bettter..... can you explain that? I havent win no coinflip 5 to 0 and to be fair i win 1 situation when i had just 30%. Thats really weird.
Im know going throuh stats to see some algoritm in these.
Great day NV

### diamondc...@gmail.com

Dec 9, 2012, 3:43:15 PM12/9/12
to
what bs
how many times do you see flush cards and sucks outs
do you really think its real?
please its a software and a software can be programmed to cheat

I hope pokerstar and other poker sites get caught and the only one;s that can stop them is
too many complaints
and the cops gets involved

### figueiri...@gmail.com

Dec 14, 2012, 10:17:31 PM12/14/12
to
Segunda-feira, 19 de Maio de 2003 15:46:11 UTC+1, Runner Runner escreveu:
> "Steve Brecher" <s...@my.signature.at.end> wrote in message news:<ba8uf...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
> > Using emailed hand histories, I tabulated the results of 1675 pots in
> > PokerStars tournaments in which betting ended prior to the river because
> > players in the pot were all-in, and in which none of the all-in players was
>
> <snip some details of a much needed study>
>
> > In sum, I see no evidence that "bad beats" are more frequent than expected.
> >
> > (I am grateful to Paul Pudaite for analytical guidance, but any errors are
> > my own.)
>
>
> A couple of questions:
>
> What do you mean by: "Using emailed hand histories"?
>
> Did the hand histories come from multiple sources and if so how were
> they chosen and controlled?
>
> Do you, Paul Pudaite, or anyone involved in this study work in the
> poker industry or financially related fields.
>
> Did PokerStars provide any assistance with your study.
>
>
> You are a well known and I believe respected RGP poster. I am sure
> you are also well known personally by many on RGP. I am not trying to
> undermine your work but I think it is important to know where it is
> coming from. This is not just your theory or strictly an opinion. It
> is a presentation of data and conclusions and as such could assume the
> status of fact.
>
> This is great stuff if not tainted either by sample size, statistical
> problems, or other bias. The crux of the question surrounding online
> poker site dealing/randomness integrity revolves around lack of
> accountability. When any audit is done factors in addition to the
> results assume equal importance. Integrity is important when
> examining integrity.
>
> I would simplly like to see the bar set higher for acceptance of
> results in terms of non-statistical bias. Lord knows if you posted
> something that appeared statistically biased you would hear about it
> here on RGP. Let's make the accountability requirements equally high.
> That is, at least as much as can be done in the anonymous world of
> newsgroup personalities and unregulated offshore online poker sites.
>
> RR

### figueiri...@gmail.com

Dec 14, 2012, 10:23:27 PM12/14/12
to

I play poker for the FIRST TIME in my entire life,in pokerstars,and after 3 minutes of game i had a POKER.My opponent gets a ROYAL STREET FLUSH with a card in the turn and another in the river.A matematician told me that the probalities of this are so low,that even playng for 3000 years,every day, 8 hours a day,that should never happen.Its fantastic how i get this in 3 minutes,playing poker for the firs time. It happened 15/december/2012 in the hand #9075992679 of pokerstars.

### wixo...@gmail.com

Jan 15, 2013, 11:28:19 AM1/15/13
to
MA SE E' TUTTO CASUALE...............PERCHE':
-IL CHIP LEADER ALLO SHOW DOWN VINCE QUASI SEMPRE ANCHE CON CARTE RIDICOLE?
-PERCHE' CON DUE KK SERVITI AL FLOP ESCE QUASI SEMPRE L'ASSO?
-PERCHE' DUE ASSI SERVITI DIFFICILMENTE VINCONO?
-PERCHE' I BUONI CLIENTI DI POKERSTARS (QUELLI CON TANTE STELLINE) HANNO TANTISSIME MANI CON MOSTER CARD?
-PERCHE' QUANDO UN GIOCATORE E' CORTO GLI ARRIVANO SEMPRE BELLE CARTE PER FARE ALLIN E PUNTUALMENTE PERDE?
-PERCHE' NEI TORNEI CON GRANDI PREMI, AI PRIMI POSTI ARRIVANO GIOCATORI MAI
-SENTITI NE' MAI VISTI GIOCARE?
-PERCHE' ESCONO TANTISSIMI ASSI?
-PERCHE' AL RIVER ESCE SPESSISSIMO L'ASSO?
-PERCHE' SE VINCI UNA SERA POI PER SETTIMANE NON RIESCI A VINCERE NEANCHE CON SCALA REALE?
-PERCHE' SE TI AZZARDI A FARE UN PRELIEVO POI PER MESI NON RIESCI PIU' A VINCERE NEANCHE UN TORNEO PER BAMBINI?
-PERCHE' KA QA JA INCONTRA QUASI SEMPRE UNA COPPIA?
-PERCHE' QA INCONTRA QUASI SEMPRE KA?

IN CONCLUSIONE, CAPISCO CHE UN TORNEIO NON DEVE DURARE GIORNI.......MA NON CI FACESSERO CREDERE CHE SIA TUTTO CASUALE!!!!!!!!
PURTROPPO DANNO TROPPE CONDIZIONI AL SOFTWARE PER VELOCIZZARE I TORNEI E FAVORIRE CHI SANNO LORO...........

### alexis.l...@gmail.com

Jan 30, 2013, 4:01:34 PM1/30/13
to
que des salopes c'est bâtard de pokerstars

### umbert...@hotmail.it

Feb 9, 2013, 6:29:20 AM2/9/13
to

### nick_n...@hotmail.co.uk

Mar 2, 2013, 6:56:00 PM3/2/13
to
What a load of baloney. It's very rare for me to put my chip stack in behind. When my chips are in i usually see their 2% become 100% by the river. Pokerstars u suck! And Iam not just having a rant. It's so true. It disgusts me. Hence I don't play there anymore.

### meme

Mar 4, 2013, 8:41:12 AM3/4/13
to
Mr Steve,

Pstar takes into the account the amount of money you have on your account, your history of deposits, your current frequent player points (or whatever they call it).
Its just a big scam, all of it.

I hope the scumbag money-laundering-owner will burn in hell.

### mihaj...@gmail.com

Mar 12, 2013, 2:37:00 AM3/12/13
to
Dne ponedeljek, 19. maj 2003 00:05:15 UTC+2 je oseba Steve Brecher napisala:
> Using emailed hand histories, I tabulated the results of 1675 pots in
> PokerStars tournaments in which betting ended prior to the river because
> players in the pot were all-in, and in which none of the all-in players was
> In sum, I see no evidence that "bad beats" are more frequent than expected.
>
> (I am grateful to Paul Pudaite for analytical guidance, but any errors are
> my own.)
>
> --
> For mail, please use my surname where indicated:
> st...@surname.reno.nv.us (Steve Brecher)

pa to so sami izgovori,kak so porazdeljene karte,a nihče od vas na PokerStarsu pa ne govori in ne prizna o goljufiji!!!!!! Ne verjamem vam več na besedo,da je vse pošteno,kajti sam vidim da ni tako,kot VI trdite na PokerStarsu,temveč vas je sama ena velika GOLJUFIJA !!!!!!!!!!! Take GOLJUFE,kot ste VI na PokerStarsu,je treba dat v javnost,da se razve po celem svetu,kaki goljufi ste,ne pa da se delate neke "poštene"!Niste in nikoli me ne boste prepričali,da je iz vaše strani vse " ČISTO ",kajti,kot sem vam rekel ze,da sam vidim na lastne oči,kakšne karte dobivam,zato mi ne govorit o "slučaju"!Jas še bi vam verjel na besedo,ampak na tak način pa ze ne,da enkrat ali pa parkrat zmagaš,kot na primer ENA na ENA,potem pa izgubiš skoraj DVAJSET KRAT ali pa za STO PROCENTOV ali pa preko,kar zaporedoma ! Ni to malo vse skupaj čudno,da potem zgubiš milionkrat zaporedom,pa lahko igraš kak hočeš ali ionako ali tako,pa še lahko misliš zraven ko nor,ampak boš vseeno izgubil ! Saj pravim ves čas,to je ze vse skupaj res smešno in čudno,ko da je to vse skupaj tako nastavljeno,kajti ne bo nekdo sčlil pamet,da se ne da tako nastavit,tak kot VI mi trdite ves čas na PokerStarsu ! In take GOLJUFE bi trebalo ze zdavnaj zapret in ukinit PokerStars iz spleta,ne pa da še kar naprej napizduje po medijih in po turnirjih,kak so pošteni ! Tak bi morali naredit,kot se je to zgodilo na Full Tilt Poker,ko so govorili vodilni mozje,da je vse pošteno a na koncu se je izkazalo,da le ni bilo vse "ČISTO" in so se tozili med igralcem in z vodilnimi,samo da ste sedaj Vi prevzeli to licenco in zato ste ga vzeli,da boste še več pokradli in okrog prenašali igralce ! Pa še to,da ne pozabim napisat,kot sem prebral na vaši spletni strani,da je rekel tale VAŠ majstor PACO HOPE,vodja Cigital spletnih storitev,recitiram njegovo izjavo " RESNIČNO NAKLJUČNE ŠTEVILKE SO JEDRO POŠTENIH SPLETNIH IGER NA SREČO ",ja in moj odgovor je,da bi moral on PACO HOPE drugače povedat in to je,kak se punijo zepi in kak se krade !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Saj pravim VAS bi moral dat nekdo v javnost in povedat vsem,kaj se dogaja na PokerStarsu,da NI nobene POŠTENOSTI temveč VAS je sama ena velika LOPOVŠČINA oz.GOLJUFI ali kak se reče v angleškem jeziku " cheat,swingller " tako nekak se reče,kajti ne znam dobro angleški jezik,kajti če bi znal govorit,potem verjemte mi,da bi vam marsikaj napisal v angleščini in to ne lepe besede,kajti je ze dosti to,kaj JAS osebno mislim o VAS in to je da ste ena veliki GOLJUFI na PokerStarsu in pa na spletu ! Upam da boste nekoč PROPADLI zaradi goljufije,ki se je to zgodilo z FULL TILT POKER ! Nič nimam lepo mišljenje o vas,temveč samo najslabše,kajti na začetku,ko sem postal vaš član,sem imel lepo mišljenje o VAS,toda sedaj zadnje čase,to kar se dogaja,pa sem drugačnega mnenja in na tem bom tudi ostal,dokler ne boste,do igralcev počteni tak kak je treba ! Na tak način,kot ga VI izvajate med potek iger,potem lahko vsak izgubi,pa si lahko kak pametn,ampak proti goljufom ne moraš NIČ,če veste kaj sem mislil z temi besedami rečt ! lep pozdrav in upam da boste me razumeli,da to kar se dogaja pri VAS mi ni vseeno,kajti potemtakem jas ne vidim več prihodnosti pri vas in potem jas ne vem zakaj bi bil še jas vaš član,ko pa je to vse skupaj ena velika " IGRA " ! Na tak način boste izgubili člane oz.IGRALCE,če ga boste tako LOMILI ! uPAM,DA BOSTE MI ZNALI ODGOVORIT NA TO VPRAŠANJE ?! lukas426

### mel712...@gmail.com

Mar 31, 2013, 10:02:59 AM3/31/13
to
this is all set on by pokerstars this is not accurate info so please dont listen to it

### mel712...@gmail.com

Mar 31, 2013, 10:04:16 AM3/31/13
to
it not even certified intel this is a joke just random bullshit put on here for ppl to believe to funny.. nice cover up pokerstars

### bet...@gmail.com

Apr 1, 2013, 9:31:22 PM4/1/13
to
i love pokerstars

### 888viol...@gmail.com

Apr 10, 2013, 5:17:41 PM4/10/13
to
Le lundi 19 mai 2003 00:05:15 UTC+2, Steve Brecher a écrit :

### ptrb...@gmail.com

May 20, 2013, 12:25:27 AM5/20/13
to
hi why are the sponcer players always cashing on poker stars right will give another exsample kid poker danny n said on twitter that he will play way \$10 and turn it into \$100 no bother he bet thousands way his mates friends and all the publicity was good for poker stars there was thousands watching and guess what he turned \$10 into \$100 well \$3 under in 1 hour now do you not know the odds in that 100/1 my friend a poker pro and said well look at full tilt and named other sites use no who they are now come on they look after there own ave put in over £20000 pound sterling but a can afford it a play for fun but the digging ave been doing phil ivey said it like a slot machine you meant to win 15% well we now no that not true so tell me you maybe here 1 story a guy came from nowere won money but best bit is they hate paying you put shocking thbey moan and groan

### milet...@gmail.com

Jun 1, 2013, 1:28:31 PM6/1/13
to

### blaz.so...@gmail.com

Jun 9, 2013, 2:31:02 PM6/9/13
to
So thats what I am talking about even lower pds of I jave full house on tje flop and morron that has only runner up pair call all in and gues ehat, he gets street flush and that happened toe 3 times that I was righed with the same situations and same combinations... I can tell you about higher full houses on rivers like 1000 times, fulls ober flushes etc... In four years of playing every day and really I study poker and its tactics and how to play but only 3 micro buy in tourneys eon and a ehole bunch of tutneys where I got rigged when I was really good and had big stack!!!! For me I think it is fucking impossible to reach a final table on ps but in libe tourneys I have won a lot of money, so tell me what is erong with ps??????

### customer...@net-cost.com

Jul 19, 2013, 2:18:33 AM7/19/13
to
Mats and statistics doesnt work, I played 250 hands with only AA, AK, KK and QQ , from any position, passive and aggressive , all of them lost.
Message has been deleted

### flare...@live.com

Sep 2, 2013, 3:08:09 PM9/2/13
to
POKER STARS IS SHIT SITE GUYS

### Truthseeker

Sep 3, 2013, 2:36:11 PM9/3/13
to
flare...@live.com wrote:

> POKER STARS IS SHIT SITE GUYS

Care to enlighten us with how you came to that conclusion?

PokerStars is a class act, and I look forward to being able to play
there again someday.

--
Truthseeker

"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."