[vrecksler]

I am not talking about suffering a bad beat and saying it is 'rigggged' or anything, but I do wonder if the online experience is as legit as playing in real life. Looking at how the TOC ended, and hearing stories of this poker site being worse than another has me wondering a little.

I played 4 $5 SNG's at Party Poker yesterday and 4 $5 SNG's at Poker Stars to get a little practice in since my SNG game has been falling off lately. I started at PP and had 3 1st and 1 3rd but on PS I had 1 st and no other money finishes. Overall a decent day but the two places were vastly different; at PP my hands were holding up a good majority of the time whereas at PS I was getting outdrawn constantly! Even in my win I doubled up 3 players during the middle stages as the weaker hand continually won. Overpairs, dominated hands, even sets against higher pairs, it was amazing to me how different the two places were (JM, I am starting to beleive!).

So why is that? I know I am playing a lot more hands online than in real life so I will see a lot more things happen, yet I also know that it is extremely hard to program the same kind of randomness that is easy to acheive in real life. 8 games is hardly enough to make ANY kind of decision and I know that poker stats are averaged over the long haul so you can have some crazy action that does not seem to fit, but what does everyone else think?

Thanks!

[dad604]

Poker Star is suppose to have better player than Party so you experience should have been the opposite but having said that, I think at the $5 level there would be lots of suckouts at both sites.

I think the card shuffling is more random online than B&M unless the B&M uses an auto shuffler. I don't believe online is rigged altho sometimes it feels that way. For instance, over a few thousand hands at Paradise, I have never won a hand when I had pocket A's, K's, Q's or J's. Suckout everytime.

[boondocker96]

My vote goes for YES, online poker is straight up, but things do seem a little fishy sometimes.
So I guess Ill have to pass on voting, seeing as how my choice isnt an option.

[Dissolved]

well people "fish" online alot more then in person. online theres no immatiditon(sorry i cant spell tonight) factor, so its easier to make dumb and loose calls.

But you gotta learn to play the system, you win and you loose. you just have to play and try to win.

ive been playing on alot of no-name sites, in limit cash and the players are very tight, ive been able to bluff out alot of hands where i know i was beat, but because the guy(s) didnt have the best hand they would think my agressive play did.

basically, i would just play on a few poker sites and see what u like. bodog and pokerroom were ok for me. i could be up 500-700 but up too late playing and playing in bad moods made me loose more in nights i should have quit

[JM]

I still say I see more suckouts at P* than anywhere else I play at regularly. Definitely fishy to me since it happens in games with strangers and in the CT tourneys where you don't see as much fishing.

[Derryabu]

I have to agree with JM on this,P* is suckout city.I played two FPP tourneys over the last two nights and over the course of these have witnessed some god awful outdraws.Numerous times I've seen top sets get blown out by runner runner flush and str8s,AA and KK get busted with A,K and even nut flushes busted by runner runner boats.
It just doesn't feel right on P* compared to other sites I've played,but I keep going back because the their tournament structure is the best.

[Strange]

Originally Posted by vrecksler

I started at PP and had 3 1st and 1 3rd but on PS I had 1 st and no other money finishes.

Originally Posted by dad604

Poker Star is suppose to have better player than Party so you experience should have been the opposite

This is the kind of thing that I just don't get about bad beat stories. I would have said that the fact that Poker Stars is supposed to have better players is perfectly compatible with doing worse there than on PP.

Why would you want to play somewhere where the players are better?

If you believe that poker has some element of skill to it, then stronger players will always do better than weaker players in the long run, even though weaker players will get lucky from time to time, as will stronger players.

Isn't this obvious? Don't we all already know this?

[R Deckard]

OK, everybody, all together now--

*deep breath*

RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGED!

On a more serious note, please remember that human perception of random events is filtered through the "pattern recognition" program hardwired into all of our brains, which not only makes us identify patterns where none exist, but also selectively remembers those events that "fit" and forgets those that don't.

I'm sure you all remember the famous "Virgin Mary Cheese Sandwich". . .pattern recognition at its finest.

[shadesofgrey]

its all about the number of players playin. There's no trick - @ P*'s

Online, micro, limit - its all suck out city. SnG are the worst. NL is your best shot.

i get the impression, occasionally, there are colluders at the table.

heck NL, i'll watch a table evolve and jump in there. if i believe i can take em.

I swore off SnG tournies with the New Year. except the educational ones.

the online game is straight.

i believe, its the volume of hands played online vs offline/at a home game is not equal... - that shocks All new players coming online = plently of money to be made in NL.

[yeltzen]

Until someone gives me a legit reason for a site to rig their games, I'll never believe the fix is in. It just makes no sense. I know people talk about "action flops" to make more rake, but online players are so awful that pretty much every flop is an "action flop". The sites just have no reason to do it. They make an assload of money as it is and the last thing they need is bad press.