full houses on sky

NoseyBonk · May 2016

In Response to Re: full houses on sky:

In Response to Re: full houses on sky : the game in question has been analysed my hand history was checed and the very helpful coustomer service manager sent a nice email with a free ten pound token i was just anoyed to be given the same hands five hands in a row and al the hands were won by a full house al my issues were resolved the manager gave me a nice apology mail and a very quick reply so big ��to the coustomer service team iv never seen a game like it
Posted by Gaz680

Result! or as the French would say 'résultat!'

Did they offer any clue as to why they'd given you a free token?

Sky_SamT · May 2016

In Response to Re: full houses on sky:

on another point i just had the same hand dealt five times in a row!!! ten jack of diamonds irang coustomer service and gave them the hand history numbers and the very helpful lady gave me a free ten pound token which i used to double up with for nowt
Posted by Gaz680

Just checking your hands and I cannot see those 5 in a row Gaz, do you have a hand number? Getting dealt the exact same hand 5 times in a row must be astronomical odds. And on the same day you question how the site is regulated!

Gaz680 · May 2016

In Response to Re: full houses on sky:

In Response to Re: full houses on sky : Result! or as the French would say ' résultat!' Did they offer any clue as to why they'd given you a free token?
Posted by NoseyBonk

nope no clues but i pointed out how can it be a random and fair game wen i had the same hands five hands runnng and each of those hands was won by a full house ( the same player winnng two by the way)

Gaz680 · May 2016

In Response to Re: full houses on sky:

In Response to Re: full houses on sky : Just checking your hands and I cannot see those 5 in a row Gaz, do you have a hand number? Getting dealt the exact same hand 5 times in a row must be astronomical odds. And on the same day you question how the site is regulated!
Posted by Sky_SamT

iv had the issue resolved sam so its ok i just posted this after like i sad hd a nice email from coustomer servce so im fn wont b posting any more on it

unknown_username · May 2016

I Rivered a Full House last night JJJ88..................

Unfortunately on this occasion it was not a winning hand because my opponent had flopped Quad 8's.

Sort it out Sky

aussie09 · May 2016

In Response to Re: full houses on sky:

In Response to Re: full houses on sky : nope no clues but i pointed out how can it be a random and fair game wen i had the same hands five hands runnng and each of those hands was won by a full house ( the same player winnng two by the way)
Posted by Gaz680

the same player winning two is the most likely occurrence.

thank god it wasn't one player winning all 5 with a full house, or even 5 players winning only once with a full house. nothing to see here, move along now, move along.

NoseyBonk · May 2016

.. checks calendar to see if it's national BS day ..

ALTiltYou · May 2016

Once upon a time, i once went through a stage of thinking online poker was rigged. I was a losing player, i even banned my pokerstars account for a very very long time, 'because it was rigged'. Then i studied poker, got a little better and played live, and realised these '1 outers' '1% chance to win' 'bad beats!' happen in real life too!

hhyftrftdr · May 2016

In Response to Re: full houses on sky:

In Response to Re: full houses on sky : iv had the issue resolved sam so its ok i just posted this after like i sad hd a nice email from coustomer servce so im fn wont b posting any more on it
Posted by Gaz680

Convenient.

Nuggy962 · May 2016

In Response to Re: full houses on sky:

In Response to Re: full houses on sky : Just checking your hands and I cannot see those 5 in a row Gaz, do you have a hand number? Getting dealt the exact same hand 5 times in a row must be astronomical odds. And on the same day you question how the site is regulated!
Posted by Sky_SamT

Haha - good game, you called the bluff and he tries to muck his hand but cards flick over showing said bluff

Game over

NChanning · May 2016

I had 56 suited twice in a session recently. The 2nd time it was diamonds although it could have been hearts now I think about it. I was becoming increasingly concerned by then.

bbMike · May 2016

Let's not confuse odds with probability, odds should reflect probability but I doubt that Leicester team were truly a 5000/1 shot about as much as I doubt the JTd x5 nonsense. In poker we know the exact probability of an occurrence and we can test randomness if we are so inclined.

Things like 49% of boards will have a pair helps keep things in perspective (I've not checked that figure FWIW), but we still have variance to contend with.

Doesn't help though when people post false info to prove an assertion.

craigcu12 · May 2016

So what your saying is the lottery is fixed, football is fixed even the world series must be fixed because these have seen events far more unlikely than than seeing 3 full houses in a row.

Over 4000 people had matched 5 numbers in a lottery draw and won less than a person matching 3!

Leicester city a team with players from lower and non league teams plus a manager favourite to be the first sacked and only just espacing from relegation have now won the premier league 5000-1

The 2008 world series saw a player with quad aces beaten by royal flush!

Even I've had a more unual event when QQ was drawn twice in a row and going on to become set and coming for a 3rd time in a row 6 hands later!

3D printers, Ipads,, air touch technolegy, hover bikes, These all use to be part of science fiction now they've been invented even invisibilty is becoming real.

If it's got odds of happening then it could happen.

Phantom66 · May 2016

In Response to Re: full houses on sky:

Let's not confuse odds with probability, odds should reflect probability but I doubt that Leicester team were truly a 5000/1 shot about as much as I doubt the JTd x5 nonsense. In poker we know the exact probability of an occurrence and we can test randomness if we are so inclined. Things like 49% of boards will have a pair helps keep things in perspective (I've not checked that figure FWIW), but we still have variance to contend with. Doesn't help though when people post false info to prove an assertion.
Posted by bbMike

I cannot post the link because I pinched in from another forum but I have seen the % quoted elsewhere and the maths make sense to me.

"The probability of the board pairing in 5 cards is 49.3%.

We can compute 1 minus the probability of no pair:

1 - (52/52 * 48/51 * 44/50 * 40/49 * 36/48)

=~ 49.3%."

credit to BruceZ

The odds of a paired flop are much lower because there are so much fewer combinations of cards to pair with each other. You can see where the 17% comes from too 1- (52/52 * 48/51 * 44/50) = 17.2%

Also we don't always get to the river so we actually witness alot less hands with a pair on the board.

Phantom66 · May 2016

You also need to understand clusters. Clusters are a natural and expected occurrence in a repeated situation where there are fixed odds.

If you have 1000 occurrences of the same event, e.g. the coin flip, you are actually highly likely to see large streaks of the same results.

You can try it yourself with a spreadsheet and the random number generator, Geldy posted a formula about it too. You can predict the odds of getting a run of the same result given the number of repeats and the probability of getting your result on 1 event.

Clearly if the single event % is low then you will need more occurrences to guarantee seeing a streak of them, but it will happen.

bbMike · May 2016

Yes, I wasn't doubting the 49% just saying I hadn't (couldn't be bothered to!) validate whilst I used the example.

The calc gives the odds of the board having 'at least a pair' (it's counting 2pr and 3/4oak too) but for this purpose it's fine!

Yes we can expect clusters but we don't expect a future outcome based on the developing cluster (unless we've introduced bias somewhere). The probability of 5x JTd is (1/52*1/52)^4 once we've seen the first occurrence but writing that out as a decimal might break my 0 button.

chilling · May 2016

I did just post on sort your software, i had 68h in suscessive hands...........the floors yours number crunchers.........odds of that pls.

Diogenes · May 2016

In Response to Re: full houses on sky:

I did just post on sort your software, i had 68h in suscessive hands...........the floors yours number crunchers.........odds of that pls.
Posted by chilling

Any specific 2 cards suited

but you don't know the odds or whether to multiply them following and I'm the subject of your railing? hoo roo.

Phantom66 · May 2016

In Response to Re: full houses on sky:

Yes, I wasn't doubting the 49% just saying I hadn't (couldn't be bothered to!) validate whilst I used the example. The calc gives the odds of the board having 'at least a pair' (it's counting 2pr and 3/4oak too) but for this purpose it's fine! Yes we can expect clusters but we don't expect a future outcome based on the developing cluster (unless we've introduced bias somewhere). The probability of 5x JTd is (1/52*1/52)^4 once we've seen the first occurrence but writing that out as a decimal might break my 0 button.
Posted by bbMike

I wasn't doubting that you were not doubting me and the 49%, just thought I would show the working. Noone asked for the odds for a pair and only a pair :P

Should the odds of getting JTd again be 2/52*1/51? Your first card dealt next hand can be the J or Td, the 2nd card can only be the one you didn't get?

I was never that good at stats first time round and well lets just say a few years and brain cells have passed by since then.

Phantom66 · May 2016

In Response to Re: full houses on sky:

I did just post on sort your software, i had 68h in suscessive hands...........the floors yours number crunchers.........odds of that pls.
Posted by chilling

See my above answer.

I think the odds of getting exactly the same hand as before is 2/52*1/51 (0.075%) but I might be wrong.

Unless Shifty Shane is dealing, he seems to get AA in consecutive hands quite a lot.

chilling · May 2016

In Response to Re: full houses on sky:

In Response to Re: full houses on sky : Any specific 2 cards suited but you don't know the odds or whether to multiply them following and I'm the subject of your railing? hoo roo.
Posted by Diogenes

I could google the answer if i wanted to matey.Some people like number crunching ok.Im a sports bettor by and large, not a mathmatician.I know what i need to know for that.As for railing you , you were seated to my right.You were an opponent, you're slipping.

Is there anyone out there that thinks poker is purely about MATHS.?

bbMike · May 2016

In Response to Re: full houses on sky:

In Response to Re: full houses on sky : See my above answer. I think the odds of getting exactly the same hand as before is 2/52*1/51 (0.075%) but I might be wrong. Unless Shifty Shane is dealing, he seems to get AA in consecutive hands quite a lot.
Posted by Phantom66

Yes good catch, was a mistype

NChanning · May 2016

On a serious point, (I think it's good advice but I also fear you may not want to hear it).

I never hear winning players or poker professionals talking about the software being rigged or spotting patterns in the flop or finding that after they withdraw they can't win or the guy with the biggest stack always wins the showdowns.

If anyone ever has these thoughts and has ever spent time thinking about them, talking about them or posting them they should compare the amount of time they have spent on doing those things and compare it to the amount of time they have spent watching training videos, running through losing sessions and discussing interesting and tricky hands with a player they respect, reading articles on the internet and studying poker books.

If the amount of time they have put in to the former exceeds the amount of time spent on the latter they may have cracked the case and can finally see why online poker won't "let them win".

weecheez1 · May 2016

In Response to Re: full houses on sky:

On a serious point, (I think it's good advice but I also fear you may not want to hear it). I never hear winning players or poker professionals talking about the software being rigged or spotting patterns in the flop or finding that after they withdraw they can't win or the guy with the biggest stack always wins the showdowns. If anyone ever has these thoughts and has ever spent time thinking about them, talking about them or posting them they should compare the amount of time they have spent on doing those things and compare it to the amount of time they have spent watching training videos, running through losing sessions and discussing interesting and tricky hands with a player they respect, reading articles on the internet and studying poker books. If the amount of time they have put in to the former exceeds the amount of time spent on the latter they may have cracked the case and can finally see why online poker won't "let them win".
Posted by NChanning

Sorry sir but how can you expect us to take this post serious when you have no numbers ,percentage signs and all your punctuation is correct go and put your tin hat back on ;-)

Tikay10 · May 2016

In Response to Re: full houses on sky:

On a serious point, (I think it's good advice but I also fear you may not want to hear it). I never hear winning players or poker professionals talking about the software being rigged or spotting patterns in the flop or finding that after they withdraw they can't win or the guy with the biggest stack always wins the showdowns. If anyone ever has these thoughts and has ever spent time thinking about them, talking about them or posting them they should compare the amount of time they have spent on doing those things and compare it to the amount of time they have spent watching training videos, running through losing sessions and discussing interesting and tricky hands with a player they respect, reading articles on the internet and studying poker books. If the amount of time they have put in to the former exceeds the amount of time spent on the latter they may have cracked the case and can finally see why online poker won't "let them win".
Posted by NChanning

Excellent Post Mr C.

The unlikely triumvirate of Messrs Channing, Orford & Kendall had a less than honourable mention on the most peculiar thread HERE

Apparently we three are all aware the software is dodgy. I reckon between the 3 of us we have been in poker 40+ years, & we never knew. How did we not notice?

chilling · May 2016

In Response to Re: full houses on sky:

On a serious point, (I think it's good advice but I also fear you may not want to hear it). I never hear winning players or poker professionals talking about the software being rigged or spotting patterns in the flop or finding that after they withdraw they can't win or the guy with the biggest stack always wins the showdowns. If anyone ever has these thoughts and has ever spent time thinking about them, talking about them or posting them they should compare the amount of time they have spent on doing those things and compare it to the amount of time they have spent watching training videos, running through losing sessions and discussing interesting and tricky hands with a player they respect, reading articles on the internet and studying poker books. If the amount of time they have put in to the former exceeds the amount of time spent on the latter they may have cracked the case and can finally see why online poker won't "let them win".
Posted by NChanning

I play just for fun with the hope of winning now and again,which i have done.I agree its the players who think they should be winning players,but are not, tend to be the ones looking for excuses.

markycash · May 2016

In Response to Re: full houses on sky:

I did just post on sort your software, i had 68h in suscessive hands...........the floors yours number crunchers.........odds of that pls.
Posted by chilling

Well we don't count the first hand as if your playing poker you are going to be dealt a hand so that is a given.

The odds of being dealt it again are... 26/1 on getting one of the 2 cards you had the last time dealt to you as your first card x 51/1 on getting the same 2nd card = 1326/1. If you play 1 MTT with 300 hands then you have 299 shots at being dealt the same hand twice = a 4.4/1 chance of being dealt the same hand twice consecutively in that tourney.

*P.S. Diogenes, the calculator just arrived from ebay so I thought I would give it a test drive*

Excellent point by Neil!

There is a tendency shown by a weight of evidence in the field of psychology that explains why people do this though...

I mentioned this somewhere on here before. When people win or do well at something they tend to pat themselves on the back and take the credit! It was basically all their doing and down to their obvious skills, luck had nothing to do with it. However, when things go pear shaped there is a tendency to blame outside factors... It was bad luck, the site is rigged, I was wearing the wrong colour of socks, it was because I walked under that ladder the other day etc etc etc. It is an easier pill to swallow than seriously questioning if you yourself could possibly have done something wrong and be introspective.

The people who can be self critical are obviously more likely to do better in poker for that reason as they will review their hands or watch training videos etc.

MattBates · May 2016

In Response to Re: full houses on sky:

In Response to Re: full houses on sky : Excellent Post Mr C. The unlikely triumvirate of Messrs Channing, Orford & Kendall had a less than honourable mention on the most peculiar thread HERE Apparently we three are all aware the software is dodgy. I reckon between the 3 of us we have been in poker 40+ years, & we never knew. How did we not notice?
Posted by Tikay10

Are you seriously saying there is nothing dodgy about software that allows this to happen.....

lovejunky	1440000	1	£4125
long03101	0	2	£2490
DaviDuff	0	3	£1530
Kevilfish	0	4	£1215
RicOrford	0	5	£1035
IRONZ	0	6	£870

NoseyBonk · May 2016

My favourite bit of this thread is "im not talking about the ukpc"

MATT8 · May 2016

In Response to Re: full houses on sky:

On a serious point, (I think it's good advice but I also fear you may not want to hear it). I never hear winning players or poker professionals talking about the software being rigged or spotting patterns in the flop or finding that after they withdraw they can't win or the guy with the biggest stack always wins the showdowns. If anyone ever has these thoughts and has ever spent time thinking about them, talking about them or posting them they should compare the amount of time they have spent on doing those things and compare it to the amount of time they have spent watching training videos, running through losing sessions and discussing interesting and tricky hands with a player they respect, reading articles on the internet and studying poker books. If the amount of time they have put in to the former exceeds the amount of time spent on the latter they may have cracked the case and can finally see why online poker won't "let them win".
Posted by NChanning

Agreed and while this may seem an obvious point to make it is always worth reiterating. If we are honest I expect there's a lot of us who can recognise a little of ourselves in this. I can admit that I've had plenty of moments where I've doubted the integrity of the software on one site or another and allowed myself to fall victim to this kind of paranoia - and it is only ever during periods in which I have been frustrated at being on a losing streak. I've never had this paranoia when I'm winning or consistently doing well.

full houses on sky

Comments