Poker
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
TEXAS_HOLDEM, NO_LIMIT, T5-177458778-46
played at "Table #1" for USD TC from 2011-09-21 11:40 until 2011-09-21 11:41
Seat 1: ignatios7 (3,410 in chips)
Seat 5: harkley (935 in chips)
Seat 9: lostriver89 (3,155 in chips)
ANTES/BLINDS
harkley posts ante (20), lostriver89 posts ante (20), ignatios7 posts ante (20), harkley posts small blind (100), lostriver89 posts big blind (200),
PRE-FLOP
ignatios7 folds, harkley calls 200, lostriver89 raises to 3,135 and is all-in, harkley calls 915 and is all-in.
FLOP [board cards: 6H,7H,5H ]
TURN [board cards: 6H,7H,5H,9H ]
RIVER [board cards: 6H,7H,5H,9H,8H ]
SHOWDOWN
lostriver89 shows [ JS,AD ]
harkley shows [ JH,TD ]
lostriver89 wins 945, harkley wins 945.
SUMMARY
Dealer: ignatios7
Pot: 1,890
ignatios7, loses 20
harkley, bets 935, collects 945, net 10
lostriver89, bets 935, collects 945, net 10
played at "Table #1" for USD TC from 2011-09-21 11:40 until 2011-09-21 11:41
Seat 1: ignatios7 (3,410 in chips)
Seat 5: harkley (935 in chips)
Seat 9: lostriver89 (3,155 in chips)
ANTES/BLINDS
harkley posts ante (20), lostriver89 posts ante (20), ignatios7 posts ante (20), harkley posts small blind (100), lostriver89 posts big blind (200),
PRE-FLOP
ignatios7 folds, harkley calls 200, lostriver89 raises to 3,135 and is all-in, harkley calls 915 and is all-in.
FLOP [board cards: 6H,7H,5H ]
TURN [board cards: 6H,7H,5H,9H ]
RIVER [board cards: 6H,7H,5H,9H,8H ]
SHOWDOWN
lostriver89 shows [ JS,AD ]
harkley shows [ JH,TD ]
lostriver89 wins 945, harkley wins 945.
SUMMARY
Dealer: ignatios7
Pot: 1,890
ignatios7, loses 20
harkley, bets 935, collects 945, net 10
lostriver89, bets 935, collects 945, net 10
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 45
|
By:
yawn
no one cares this isnt even much of a beat |
|
By:
"this isn't even much of a beat"?
Give me a break. After the flop I was shown as 99% and lostriver was 0%. In order for him to split one of these combinations had to come up 3H - 4H 4H - 3H 4H - 8H 8H - 4H 8H - 9H 9H - 8H So there were 6 possible combinations that could push for him out of 2,652 combinations and he got one of them. If you don't consider that a bad beat then what is? |
|
By:
TEXAS_HOLDEM, NO_LIMIT, T5-177853859-7
played at "Table #1" for USD TC from 2011-09-22 21:51 until 2011-09-22 21:52 Seat 3: -deadly- (1,300 in chips) Seat 7: Disquared (1,950 in chips) Seat 9: ronaldo1908 (2,870 in chips) Seat 10: harkley (1,380 in chips) ANTES/BLINDS -deadly- posts small blind (15), Disquared posts big blind (30), PRE-FLOP ronaldo1908 folds, harkley raises to 120, -deadly- raises to 1,300 and is all-in, Disquared folds, harkley calls 1,300. FLOP [board cards: 3S,2D,9S ] TURN [board cards: 3S,2D,9S,8C ] RIVER [board cards: 3S,2D,9S,8C,4D ] SHOWDOWN -deadly- shows [ AH,5H ] harkley shows [ JS,JC ] -deadly- wins 2,630. SUMMARY Dealer: harkley Pot: 2,630 -deadly-, bets 1,300, collects 2,630, net 1,330 Disquared, loses 30 ronaldo1908, loses 0 harkley, loses 1,300 |
|
By:
oh my mistake, didn't notice it was a straight flush!
but still you got the money in pre flop with the worse hand, and on the flop the other guy can still hit a lot of blanks to make Ace high win your 'bad beat' is only affected by the 9 on the turn leaving him with a 1 outer to split. |
|
By:
Is there information missing in the 99% hand? I ran that 2nd hand through cardplayer.
http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-tools/odds-calculator/texas-holdem Pre flop you were 66% - 33% favourite, or 2/1, hardly a massive bad beat, do you insta call JJ to an all in every hand? The odds shown on flop or turn don't matter, the only odds that matter are when the chips went in. The odds feature can be a curse, you go all in with AKs v 22 and see yourself as a 99% favourite on the turn, miraculously the 1% shot comes in and that's all you remember. You curse the software for you losing as a 99% favourite yet you fail to realise you were never a 99% favourite, you were a slight dog when the chips went in. |
|
By:
Juho eliminates the Bounty blind on blind TT v A2 and amazingly no Ace hits the board.
Juho wins a 50 euro sports bet and the final 6 now settle down to battle for the two packages! Good luck to chip leader BigMark.  |
|
By:
Jacob goes out 6th when his 33 loses to Wlodzimierz's A9 after he was crippled by Arttu the hand before
|
|
By:
I think everyone's missing the point. What makes the software so full of it is the amount of 1 outers on the river that hit in STTs. I've played in numerous live STTs as well as at other poker sites and Ongame is by far the worst for river wins. The problem with that is that because everyone knows the way these hands always seem to play out here, no one folds if they have an inside straight or runner-runner chance at a flush which makes it very difficult to play properly.
I'm also still very curious what the Ongame director meant by "we cater to fish and the hands play out to help attract fish." |
|
By:
Can you link me to this statement?
"we cater to fish and the hands play out to help attract fish |
|
By:
Can you link me to this statement?
"we cater to fish and the hands play out to help attract fish |
|
By:
Godfather and punter a forumite posted the link to the video on here and I have seen it.The statement posted above is exactly what he said.Unfortunately I can't remember the name of the forumite who posted it nor do I have the link.I will have a quick look at some old threads and see if I can find it.
|
|
By:
http://calvinayre.com/2011/05/12/business/video-interview-peter-bertlisson-ongame-network/
this may be the link you want but it does not say that the software is fixed for fish only that the essence system favours fish. mind you if that is true why the feck am I still losing  [;)] |
|
By:
Posting hand histories such as these simply proves you have been on the receiving end of some hellish variance.Running bad is horrendous, especially when it goes on for months on end. I had a look at my Ongame scope stats last night, my stt graph is horrendous,which is what I was expecting yet when I check stats for all games up pops one of them sharks.
While I've run like death on the site in STTS, I'm running like God in MTTS. But I tend to forget the games where I've won, while beating myself up over games where I've lost. I went out of a 30 man last night with kk vs 27 off. Why the guy holding 27 off elected to call my 4 x bb raise from the blinds with the worst hand in poker I have no idea, but I spent an hour trying to get over it. Heres another from a $20 d2n tonight. You cant really get it in vs 2 opponents in better shape than this, but I still exit. TEXAS_HOLDEM, NO_LIMIT, T5-178303802-17 Seat 1: selivan767 (1,175 in chips) Seat 2: izziee (1,730 in chips) Seat 3: _almoi_ (1,225 in chips) Seat 4: fuel48 (1,425 in chips) Seat 5: JSun89 (2,400 in chips) Seat 6: jonas161008 (525 in chips) Seat 7: Grotesk11 (2,445 in chips) Seat 8: 2M0mbasa (1,545 in chips) Seat 9: miso70 (1,305 in chips) Seat 10: chipfire227 (1,225 in chips) ANTES/BLINDS _almoi_ posts small blind (100), fuel48 posts big blind (200), PRE-FLOP JSun89 folds, jonas161008 folds, Grotesk11 folds, 2M0mbasa folds, miso70 raises to 800, chipfire227 raises to 1,225 and is all-in, selivan767 calls 1,175 and is all-in, izziee folds, _almoi_ folds, fuel48 folds, miso70 calls 1,225. SHOWDOWN chipfire227 shows [ AC,KC ] selivan767 shows [ AD,QS ] miso70 shows [ KH,QH ] FLOP [board cards: 9H,KS,4C ] TURN [board cards: 9H,KS,4C,3D ] RIVER [board cards: 9H,KS,4C,3D,QC ] This hand doesnt prove its all r133ed, it simply means I'm experiencing yet more wretched variance. This is something you simply have to accept happens, and at times seems to happen way more than it should, because if the best hand pre-flop always won, nobody would play the game. |
|
By:
Just wanna post an interesting read on poker algorithms i found:
It is no secret that online poker sites use an enormous amount of security and encryption to protect their software from poker bots, colluders, and cheaters. However, one secret they can not protect is the deterministic algorithms they use in their software that decides the outcome of hands. Furthermore, any person that knows the algorithms can easily and simply win more often in online poker. Why are they using algorithms anyway? Initially, online poker sites had no need for extra algorithms used to 'level the field' as the simple use of a random number generator (RNG) would appear to produce a fair shuffle and seemingly accurate game. However in 2001, after several programmers were able to expose the flaws of the RNG and the inability of the RNG to produce an adequate number of random decks, (thereby making it easy to predict the flop, turn, and river), the online poker sites had to make changes. After several changes were made in the seed generation of the RNG and sophisticated measures taken to produce a wider variety of random deck sequences, the online poker sites faced a new problem - collusion and cheating by unscrupulous players. This problem was addressed with a new set of algorithms that would produce a fair game by preventing colluding using sequential deterministic algorithms. What Causes All Those Constant Bad Beats? The implementation of those sequential algorithms intended to stop colluders actually created a new problem, it removed the true statistics and probability of the game. In other words, if you are holding pocket aces and the flop is A 9 Q, you essentially have a greater than 91% chance of wining the hand in live play. When the board finishes out 10 J or flush cards and you lose to a flush or straight by your opponent that is called a bad beat. Simply put, the true odds of you winning the hand are no longer part of the game, because of the sequential algorithms used. These algorithms replace the true odds and determine the outcome based on their own mathematical decisions. That is why many people will claim that online poker is ****. What Is The Secret? The secret is understanding how the algorithms work, and using that knowledge to curtail your own constant bad beats. In other words, the program makes a deterministic decision on the winning hand without regard to the odds, your outs, statistics, or any other true measure of the game. Therefore, if you want to win online poker, you need to understand the algorithms and put it to use in your game Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/3002821 |
|
By:
You missed out the crucial bit :
Although, it may seem complex and hard to understand, the secret algorithms used by the online poker sites are easy to use with the help of the Online Poker Code Crack written by Paul Westin. Improve your game, beat the computer-generated codes, and forever avoid constant bad beats You will be posting links to horseracing super systems next. |
|
By:
The bottom line is we all know poker RNG's cannot be 100% random, its simply impossible, but we all believe or hope that it is as random and as fair as it could possible be. Everyone has their theories and their doubts but ultimately they will continue to play online poker because of their love for the game. The '****' theory will continue for however long the game of poker lasts but im bored of it now, so whatever i think about online poker, i wont kid myself like some ppl on here and say im never playing it again cos that simply isnt true. We all have to deal with it, simples. Thank-you and goodnight........err.. sorry good morning and would u believe im off to work in a bit to watch several punters lose their money
|
|
By:
One thing I know to be true is that the better players win in the long term, so the trick is to find the level where you are one of the better players, and as Ovalman says, stick to it till you have built a big enough roll to have a crack at the level above.
Ive won 300 bucks from my last 2500 stts ( average stake $19 ) , so although its a profit, its a minute ROI, and way below what it has historically been. To say its less than I'd earn flipping burgers is clearly true. However looking back nearly 4 years I had a similar run, which was followed by a 5k upswing in the space of about 6 months, and that's what keeps me going I guess. That and the money I've made playing MTTS. Us recreational players are quite fortunate in that poker isnt our main source of income, its simply played for pocket money. How professional players deal with variance I have no idea, though there's some pretty interesting insight in the article by Jared Tendler in this months Poker Player magazine. I thought about quitting my job and playing full time a few years ago, I'm really glad I didn't |
|
By:
http://www.pr.com/press-release/355779
Interesting independent article about RNG They have taken peed off punter idea of 100 hands and done it for 1million !!!  |
|
By:
Well to quote Peter Betlisson, the head of Ongame, from the interview linked above:
"We are really trying to make the software be attractive to fish" "we assign a value to each player then we can let players of the same value play against each other, which is much more fun of course. The fish that will be losing his money immediately from a shark, that is not very fun for him, and we have a problem that 80% of the fish are leaving the network within 3 months and we have to fix that, so that's what we are trying to do right now." |
|
By:
That should have been Peter Bertlisson, sorry
As a postscript, my definition of a fair game is one that treats every player equally, regardless of ability. What is Betfair's? |
|
By:
wykamist2:
"As a postscript, my definition of a fair game is one that treats every player equally, regardless of ability. What is Betfair's?" Does that mean that Betfair should remove r@keb@ck from every player who has it as well then? That seems to give an unfair advantage to s specific group of players. |
|
By:
An interesting independent article about RNG, undertaken by a site advertising/offering rakeback deals.
|
|
By:
Can anyone explain how you can improve the chances of a poor player without interfering with the game . In other words cheating .
Only just found this thread and find the comments by a leading figure of Ongame disturbing . Have contacted Betfair to get clarification . |
|
By:
I'm with you Epicurean. I don't understand how they can "cater" to someone without rigging the deck.
I would understand it if they only showed certain games with similar players as being open to you based on your login - and then you're playing against similar players. But as far as I know all games are open to everyone. Besides what is the definition exactly of a fish? I've played at tables where you have 2 or 3 people going all in on every hand at an STT and I've had games where you had people playing unbelievably tight at the same stakes and tables. Here's a suggestion that I think everyone would love - a "bar" option for STTs. In better words there are players so good you don't want to play against them or players that play so recklessly they ruin the game. When one of your "bar" players enters an STT you automatically get unregistered. |
|
By:
Poker is a game of choice ,Hartley .
Impossible to dictate to people who their opponents should be . Poker is an ego trip for many . The implication that poor players will or are being helped is the crux of the statement . The only conclusion I can draw that maximising of profits is the main concern . |
|
By:
If the poor little fish don't want to get eaten by the sharks then all online sites provide a perfect way to protect them already in the form of having tables with different buy-ins. If people are intent on parting with their money I don't see how the poker site can help them. For the non-grinders most of the money which would go to them as RB just gets paid to the skin instead. So very nice it is that Essence means the skins get to keep more of the rake, but it doesn't help retain the fish.
I think it would be very helpful if Betfair were to clarify the statements made. Frankly I am not interested in continuing to play at a site where the playing field is tilted in some fashion or another. |
|
By:
The explanation given at the Q and A session regarding Essence was that they needed a system that encouraged more of the new players coming across from the sports book to keep playing for long enough to learn the basics and have a modicum of succes, rather than quitting after a couple of brutal beatings.
Personally I agree with Tony G, that the obvious solution would be for sites to stop all rakeback, and take less rake or charge lower entry fees.Cant see that ever happening though. |
|
By:
Chipfire . What system was proposed that could encourage new players to keep playing .
Brutal beats happen and new players have to accept that is part of the learning process. |
|
By:
The statement on the video implied assistance to poor players .
That is what needs explaining in a clear and coherent fashion. |
|
By:
Chip can you explain how Essence encourages fishes to come over from the sports book? Most newbies don't even know what rake is, and getting a couple of quid bunged back at them every fortnight is hardly going to compensate them for the crushing defeats, provided they even notice it.
I don't know about you, but the statement "We are really trying to make the software be attractive to fish" reminds me a bit os a certain Gerard Ratner |
|
By:
Now we all know its a fix when can i put in a claim for compensation and when will i receive my payout. To be honest i knew i was the best player here and something had to be fishy!
|
|
By:
Actually if you think about it logically, there is no reason why any above average player should play at a site which favours the underdog. All things being equal he will make more money at a site where everything is level. As the best players leave the average player level drops and more players become above average. Pursuing this to its logical conclusion means that you end up with just the 2 worst players in the world who can battle it out with each other. I am wondering if they have thought this through properly?
|
|
By:
Chipfire227 "The explanation given at the Q and A session regarding Essence was that they needed a system that encouraged more of the new players coming across from the sports book to keep playing for long enough to learn the basics and have a modicum of succes, rather than quitting after a couple of brutal beatings."
The real reason we all know is simply, they wanna keep as many ppl playing constantly which includes donkeys so they generate more rake and make more profit. From a business perspective its a great idea but from a regular online poker players perspective its nothing short of cheating us out of whats rightly ours. When will ppl realise that Ongame is an atrocious network that no-one should give the time of day to. Everyone should boycott this joke of a site until they sort all this crap out including the 1970s style software! |
|
By:
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt
|
|
By:
^^^^^ now that is profound
 [;)] |
|
By:
Poker is a game of choice ,Hartley .
Impossible to dictate to people who their opponents should be . Poker is an ego trip for many . The implication that poor players will or are being helped is the crux of the statement . The only conclusion I can draw that maximising of profits is the main concern . |
|
By:
Poker is a game of choice ,Hartley. Impossible to dictate to people who their opponents should be . Poker is an ego trip for many .
The implication that poor players will or are being helped is the crux of the statement . The only conclusion I can draw that maximising of profits is the main concern . I agree but people can leave a table in a real casino if they don't like the way one or others play. But the bottom line is we still need clarity on what they are doing precisely to "attract fish". If it's something to do with the promotions, game types etc. then that's fine but if they are in any way rigging the true randomness of the cards then we have a serious problem and I'm sure even Betfair PR would agree with that. And don't point to your RNG link or ECorga which has proven to be suspect - we want to know from the horse's mouth exactly what he was referring to with his statements. |
|
By:
To Betfair PR Manager. The 100 sample for 1 million population only allows for an 80% confidence level which is clearly not sufficient. Mind you a sample of 1,000 hands on a million population would provide a 99% confidence level and 3% confidence interval which is reasonable.
|
|
By:
The OnGame assessments utilised a 1.42 million hand sample together with 12,306 hands coming from $30NL short handed cash games. The live game expectation would be 6,457 winners. The internet site assessments returned with 6,454.5 winners, a variance of -2.5. The pre-flop all-in comparisons not surprisingly were very near normal.
I don't think anyone has ever complained about cash games - it's almost always been the STTs at levels below $20. I would love this site to run the same simulation for STTs ranging from $1 to $20 and see if the number falls in the expected range. |
