|
I played low level SNGs (5 and 10) and the occasional cash game on Full Tilt. I can speak specifically on my experiences with the SNG and my theory as to what's going on. Throughout my life, I've always excelled in math. In college, I studied multiple Probability/Stat courses and I've passed the Probability actuary exam. So, I have always been attracted to Poker because of its close relationship to the laws behind these subjects. Intuitively, I've sensed a strong advantage given to less-skilled players...when playing on Full Tilt. I don't have the data to run numbers...but it's much like a baseball player estimating the speed of the ball when he's at bat or a pianist recognizing the pitch of a note that a song is projecting. When you've dealt with the subjects before, you develop a feeling of being able to approximate.
Now, I am interested in one poster's claim of how his pocket K's have performed in "critical" showdowns. I'd like to compare the theoretical odds he had vs. the real odds that he's claimed...along with test that difference with a confidence interval to see if there is a statistically significant difference in the means. Maintaining the odds on the whole but then skewing the "critical" showdowns would be a brilliant scam because most people wouldn't think to dissect the data into two groups...unless he also had the intuitive sense to suspect this specific scam.
Other posters have made claims that when money is taken off, bad beats seem to noticeably rise, whereas when money is put into the site, a lucky streak is the reward. This actually fits perfectly with a theory that I had originally developed in my mind before reading these posts.
The reality of poker is that the majority of players are poor players. It's much like sex in that 20% of the people are making 80% of it. So, imagine if a poker site allowed this to continue...what would happen? Well, eventually, the poor players would either run out of money or stop posting more money...and the good players would take all the money and horde it. So, what happens? 80% of the people no longer play and now the site only contains 20% of it's original size...meaning it only pulls 20% of its original profits in rake. This seems like a pretty poor business model doesn't it? Most businesses want to increase profits not lose them. This is an interesting long-term problem because it's not a consequence of anything to do with normal business conditions, where you worry about losing market share to a competitor...but rather the competitor is your own customer (the gap between the good and bad player) and the reality of poker odds. So, how does one avoid this conundrum? Answer: Give an advantage to the weaker players...through more forgiving software. So, what does this do? It allows the poor players to keep more money than they should...and hence keep playing games...and therefore maintain the original rake. And who foots the bill? The good players who otherwise would win that money. So, essentially, the poor players are upgraded to slightly below mediocre players and the good players are downgraded to slightly above mediocre players. Do you see an advantage here? Now, the good players continue to play to get the results that they know they should eventually get...and the poor players get a heightened sense of belonging...that they are just around the corner from making real money with their poor play. So, not as many people run out of money nearly as fast as they should...and therefore, the site continues to roll in the rake profits. Now, this also fits with the deposit/withdrawal anomaly that some people have noticed. Who do you think is typically depositing money? Answer: A poor player, who even with the software advantage, is losing in the long run...so, he's rewarded with a nice lucky streak. And who is typically withdrawling money? Answer: Well the good player who is still squeezing out profits...and so he is punished with a bad luck streak. Monitoring the deposit/withdrawal schedules of players is one way to identify the difference between the players (in reality). Which, I'm sure it gets more and more difficult for Full Tilt to identify who is who...since their software is designed to move everyone towards the same ability level...or better to say, results level...making it hard to tell the good from the bad by looking at their stats. This of course is just a theory...but if it's true and if enough good players realize the bias...and quit playing...the whole scheme gets harder and harder to maintain...until it finally falls apart. But essentially what I'm saying is that it's in the Poker site's best interest to skew the results towards the bad players...so as to retain these players and maintain their rake profits. What do others think about this?
|