Quote:
Originally Posted by Josem 
The long run statistics (even 500 hands was enough to prove the cheating at AP) is sufficient.
|
500 hands it no where near sufficient.
You need 5 million.
The problem is, no one who plays lowstakes on PS probably plays seriously enough to keep a statistical program to keep track of their hand histories. 5 million hands actually isn't a lot in the online-poker world where you can play multiple tables and games go fast. However, no one has yet done that while playing low-stakes continuously. Chances are someone who runs those programs are high level players and don't want to play 5 million hands at low stakes where the players are much less skilled and provide no challange but luck.
It is just with gathered observations from many other people that PS definitly has something fishy. If everyone was to record their hand histories even in the short run and gather them together, it is a step up from proving that PS has it's suspiciousness at some tables.
It's just way too coincidental to be in a game where I observe countless bad beats (not myself, but other people - I just sit and fold and observe) and then run into a game where everything is perfectly normal with bad beats and suckouts occuring at their regular rate.
When I get the time, I'll write a statistical program to gather lots of hands playing lots of low-stakes tables to see if PS is really rigged or not. So far with some of the bad beats and suckouts i've seen that occur back to back, with the same situation (eg. Big-stack goes all-in with trash and knocks out the shorter stackes with a far superiour hand), I'm sure there is something very fishy.