www.flopturnriver.com

Poker Forum

Over 1,246,000 Posts!

Already Registered? Username: Password: Remember Forgot Password
Tweet

Analyzing A3s vs A2s... (interesting results)

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display Modes

Atlplayer85

06-23-2006, 05:33 AM Post subject: Analyzing A3s vs A2s... (interesting results)

#1 (permalink)

Join Date: May 2006

Posts: 38

I've always had a suspicion that the poker site I play on is "rigged".
Of course, this could just be me being paranoid, but now I've finally found some interesting results when analyzing my starting hand stats via PokerOffice.

It seems like A2suited would be better than A3suited, since it is connecting, right? They're not really good hands in the first place, we know that, but that's irrelevant.

When I analyzed, this is what I came up with.
I was dealt A-3suited a total of 57 times, with a winrate % of 52%.
The total winnings with this hand is about $63.
vs.
I was deal A-2suited a total of 71 times, with a winrate % of 39%.
The total losses with this is hand is (negative) -$42.

Is that a mere coincidence? I thought so. Then I analyzed a few more.
AJoffsuit vs. AJsuited. Clearly the latter is better, correct?
Ace-Jack/off, dealt 169 times, 63% winrate, winnings = $83.
vs.
Ace-Jack/suited, dealt 71 times, 45% winrate, losses = -$70.

It COULD be just a result of the way I play the hands, maybe I get attached to the suited AJ more easily, and it's harder for me to let it go? Perhaps, but what if it's possible that certain hands are dealt to hit the flop better than others? To generate action, to generate rake? Anyone with AJsuited is going to throw some chips away to see the turn even if there's just ONE of that suit on the flop and no AJ. What if AJ offsuit always spikes a J or A on a rainbow flop? I can't prove this, but it's an interesting theory.

Another interesting analyzation would be 99 vs 88.
Finally, the software is logical.
I've won more with 99 than 88.
but since the former is slightly better than the latter, then it also raises the question... will I hit sets more often with 9's than I will with 8's? In real life brick-and-morter poker, this would never be logical. However, in a world where we play online and we're trusting software algorithms to deal us supposedly random hands... it does raise some questions.

Give it some thought, offer some feedback, and thanks for reading. =)

Play for FREE and practice your game at...

Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!

Happy Jones

06-23-2006, 05:43 AM

#2 (permalink)

Join Date: Jun 2006

Posts: 96

A3s is a better hand then A2s there both connecting cards since they can both only make 1 straight.
Although A3s vs A2s would only be better if both pairs hit otherwise its a split. I treat these hands as identical.

Happy Jones

06-23-2006, 05:46 AM

#3 (permalink)

Join Date: Jun 2006

Posts: 96

Actually theres more I just realized this. A3s is a better hand because a straight comes as 245 while A2s comes as 345. Theres two hands that beat the A2s flop while there only one that beats the A3s flop. Also theres a higher chance someone will be playing 67 then 36.

Harry

06-23-2006, 07:36 AM

#4 (permalink)

Full House

Join Date: May 2006

Location: Philly

Posts: 722

You would need a massively larger sample size to see the actual difference between very similar hands.

PSU Class of 2011 weeeeeeee!

midas06

06-23-2006, 10:08 AM

#5 (permalink)

4-of-a-Kind

Join Date: Jun 2005

Location: NZ

Posts: 2,196

Play more hands

jyms

06-23-2006, 12:52 PM

#6 (permalink)

Tilting Mod

Join Date: Feb 2006

Posts: 4,836

This is wrong on so many levels. If you are trying to prove to us it's all rigged, your at the wrong site. Here, this will help your case to prove it's all rigged.
http://www.billrini.com/archives/001169.html

YouTube - Classified - "Oh... Canada" [Official Video]

djzcko

06-23-2006, 03:00 PM

#7 (permalink)

Flush

Join Date: Jun 2005

Posts: 285

Based on his numbers, this represents about 20k hands played. Not huge, but fairly significant...my experience has been that PT data tends to normalize around 15-20k hands. So, while some of it is sample size, the larger issue is how the hands are played, esp AJ vs. AJ sooted. AJ sooted can be a huge loser if you are always chasing a flush at any cost. A2 vs A3 sooted is a coin toss and therefore one hand could be more profitable than the other at any given point in time. Not sure it has anything to do with "rigged"...just depends on how you play the hands in my opinion.

Renton

06-23-2006, 03:04 PM

#8 (permalink)

Straight Flush

Join Date: Jan 2006

Location: Atlanta, GA, USA

Posts: 5,991

the general data does normalise around 20k hand

however, you need a 500k sample to have accurate specific hand information.

I have 120k and i can still see variance in specific hands.

The longer I play the more I realize how little 5k, 10, 20k, or even 50k hands actually means.

Miffed22001

06-23-2006, 05:01 PM

#9 (permalink)

Straight Flush

Join Date: Jun 2005

Location: Marry Me Cheryl!!!

Posts: 8,181

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renton

QFT

mb2447

06-23-2006, 06:15 PM

#10 (permalink)

Straight

Join Date: Jul 2005

Location: NYC

Posts: 122

My "analyzation" is that yours posts invariably make me want to cry.

Don't be paranoid, just play good cards.

AWOL.

jackvance

06-23-2006, 09:39 PM Post subject: Re: Analyzing A3s vs A2s... (interesting results)

#11 (permalink)

4-of-a-Kind

Join Date: Mar 2006

Posts: 2,910

jackvance is an unknown quantity at this point

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atlplayer85

It COULD be just a result of the way I play the hands, maybe I get attached to the suited AJ more easily, and it's harder for me to let it go?

Indeed this is it.

If you want to prove a theory about the pokersites rigging flops etc, then you would need to do the following:
- determine how they rig them. You say 'to generate more action', but in practical terms, what would they do.
- if they rig it, then there would have to be a discrepency over a very large sample with what would be normally statistically expected.

More to the point, if you hold AJs, the odds* that the flop has
- none of the suit: 46.6%
- one of the suit: 41.6%
- two of the suit: 10.9%
- three of the suit: 0.84%

So.. go ahead and round up a large enough sample and see if the flops are rigged. If they differ significantly from what the odds imply, then we'll talk.

* the math:
for one of the suit, 11 suited cards left out of 50 unknown cards. So 39 of them are offsuit to your hand.
none on the flop= 39*38*37/50*49*48
one suit on the flop= (39*38*11/50*49*48)*3
=> three possible configurations to fit the suit into the offsuits
two suits on the flop= (39*11*10/50*49*48)*3
=> again three possible configurations
three suits on the flop= 11*10*9/50*49*48

Awaji E

06-26-2006, 03:58 AM Post subject: Re: Analyzing A3s vs A2s... (interesting results)

#12 (permalink)

Join Date: Mar 2006

Location: Japan

Posts: 61

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atlplayer85

Ace-Jack/off, dealt 169 times, 63% winrate, winnings = $83.
vs.
Ace-Jack/suited, dealt 71 times, 45% winrate, losses = -$70.

Anyone with AJsuited is going to throw some chips away to see the turn even if there's just ONE of that suit on the flop and no AJ.

I think I figured out why you're losing money with AJs, but not AJo. Don't chase runner-runners.

Lukie

06-26-2006, 06:31 AM

#13 (permalink)

4-of-a-Kind

Join Date: Jul 2005

Location: back with a vengeance

Posts: 3,307

wow

biondino

06-26-2006, 01:00 PM

#14 (permalink)

4-of-a-Kind

Join Date: Apr 2005

Location: Putney, UK; Full Tilt,Mansion; $50 NL and PL; $13 and $16 SNGs at Stars

Posts: 3,170

This thread is teh funny

Let's imagine for a second that online poker IS rigged. The only logical reason for this is for the house to take more rake, right? So it would have to both provide hole cards and flops that bring action.

However, the irony in this is that it DOESN'T FAVOUR ANY SINGLE PLAYER ABOVE ANY OTHER. The players are irrelevant - the house doesn't give a toss who wins and who loses! So you can say with certainty that even in a rigged game, you will win and lose, long term, just as often as you would if it were completely fair.

XTR1000

06-28-2006, 11:32 AM

#15 (permalink)

4-of-a-Kind

Join Date: May 2006

Location: surfing in a room

Posts: 2,188

XTR1000 is an unknown quantity at this point

i found this article, it´s worth reading.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigred

xtr stand for exotic tranny retards

yo

Latest Poker News
KoRnholio	05-26-2012, 03:08 PM Australia Legalized Online Poker coming up in next 6 to 12 Months
According to an email sent out by Mark Bryan, a gaming analyst at Merrill Lynch, the Australian government plans to legalize online poker sometime in the next six to 12 months. This move will coincide ... more at Poker Blogs »

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:53 PM.

Play Texas Holdem Online, Online Texas Holdem Strategy, & Poker Forum

This is not a gambling website.

Poker Forum

Over 1,246,000 Posts!

Poker Forum

Beginners Circle

Analyzing A3s vs A2s... (interesting results)

Play for FREE and practice your game at...