Analyzing A3s vs A2s... (interesting results)

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. =)

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.

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.

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

Play more hands

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

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.

---

QFT

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

Don't be paranoid, just play good cards.

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

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.

wow

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.

i found this article, it´s worth reading.