UB/Bet21 Seating Assignments: feeding the conspiracy theorists

For a number of reasons - I recently decided to keep track of certain things over a number of UB/Bet21 sit n go tables - these are money games - not freerolls or TEC games - one of the results I found is a serious skewing in seating assignments. As we all know - certain seats are an advantage to the player, others a disadvantage - seats 1,2,3 & 4 are likely to either be on the button or at least have to bet early on the first two elimination hands - while seats 5,6, & 7 are very unlikely to be on the button, or even to be betting early, on the elimination hands - here is the seating assignments I received over 50 consecutive sng tables:

1st seat (bets first on first hand): 13
2nd seat: 14
3rd seat: 11
4th seat: 10
5th seat: 0
6th seat: 0
7th seat (bets last on first hand): 2

hhhhhmmmmmm

using the Chang Bioscience online binomial probability calculator, the probability that only two or fewer seats out of fifty would be in the desirable 5,6, or 7 positions, by random chance, is: 0.0000000005116498, or 1 out of 1,954,461,821; roughly one out of 2 billion.

hhhhhhmmmmmm

So, should I be flattered that the owners/operators of UB/Bet21 think I am such a good player I need to be handicapped with unfavorable seating positions or what

maybe it would be a good idea for people to start tracking things like seating assignments, proportion of dealt hands which are stiffs, for both player and dealer, etc. -

 

Dont get me started

 

I just started tracking mine.....

In the first ten games I had only seat 1 ,2 or 3.

While that is a small sample I only started tracking it after a huge run of seat 1 or 2 positions got me to saying hummmmm.

The new system where they take you instantly to the next round made it more noticable because Id see myself being first or second seated and I was getting stuck always on the button..

I prefer showdown seating or at least a method that SHOWS an effort at randomness....

I suppose I could just be on a terrible run of bad luck....

 

The chance of that happening is about 1 in 5000 (about twice as improbable as getting 3 blackjacks in a row from a deck shuffled between hands). A bad luck explanation doesn't cut it in my opinion.

Your case, however, is what one might call borderline. There are certainly 5000 people playing more than 10 tournaments on that site, so it had to be someone.

RK's result is, without a doubt, nonrandom. There's just no way to justify it. Either they're out to get him, or their random number generator is crap and he's feeling the effects of it. Either way, I would compare my average earnings in "favorable" positions to earnings in "nonfavorable" positions and demand compensation for exactly (1/2)*(favorable EV - nonfavorable EV)*(# tournaments played), since that is almost exactly how much this BS has lost you. I actually pulled my money (a pittance compared to you guys) from their site a few days ago, and it seems like my decision continues to be validated.


edit - I would also scrap your account, open a new one under a different address, and see how long it takes your seating to be non-random. If it began random and became non-random as you proved your abilities, that would be a pretty damning piece of evidence.

 

non-random

Wumpie - I opened my UB/Bet21 account in September with $25 - still playing on that money - very pittance - still waiting for my pittance bonus - have played over 1,000 sngs and tourneys - no bonus - and lousey seats

my seating assignments really couldn't be a flaw in their random number generator - or an 'error' - could be an EXTREME instance of random chance - 1 out of 2,000,000,000 - but if there was a random error - it would affect all players equally - not just a particular player - if there was a systematic error - it would have to work by some mechanism such as 'the first player assigned a seat gets bad seats'- and why would I always be the first player assigned a seat? - that would randomize out too - random error and sytematic error are technical terms - you might want to read up on 'error analysis' - but virtually impossible any flaw in their random number generator or program would produce those results -

greatest liklihood - I am the victim of extreme bad luck - or - they identify certain players and bias their seat assignments -

I take it as a complement

 

That's an impressive record from $25. I started in with 88 and cashed out 107. I was pretty happy with that.

I am actually up on error analysis, being a chemist ^_^

I see why you suspect that it's not a systematic error, and I agree that it most likely isn't. However, there could be some way in which they generate their numbers that is based perhaps on your player name or your IP. Either way, it is of no consequence. Whether intentional or systematic, it's their fault. I won't believe for a second that 1:2 billion is random. Any scientist publishing something that disagreed with chance by that factor would be canned and never publish again. They really should have to answer for that. The fact that two members of this website have reported similar situations reinforces the suspicion. I'd like to hear from others as well.

 

Wumpie

a chemist - so you are familiar with error analysis and probably a lot of math - that's good -

I could think of a number of ways that the skewing could be produced by a systematic error - but - they all involve the programmers doing really silly stuff for no rational reason - so can't be totally ruled out - and since the seating assignment skewing started fairly recently - that would mean they changed the programming for some reason recently -

I have played a few more tables since the post - every seating has been 1,2,3,or 4, never 5,6,7

 

Too weird. It could be that it's only happened recently because you entered their radar recently. Though if they've been this blatant all along you'd think someone would have picked up on it earlier...

I suppose, assuming for a moment that it's deliberate, that they're trying to redistribute the wealth to the less skilled players so that the skilled players have to waste more in fees before they run off to their tropical islands. In general (from poker knowledge) the less quickly the money becomes lopsided, the more the casino earns because they rake more as players play musical chips.

 

seating assignment

skewing seems to be fairly recent - I really hadn't noticed anything really odd on this before - when I noticed the constant seating pattern - I started informally tracking - then started formally tracking when it continued - so less than a month ago - but I couldn't pinpoint a date

 

I agree on the recent skewing...I think their seating randomizer is hosed. Just recently, I have been lucky enough to be at seat 7 like 60% of the time, probably over the last 20 SnGs.

Of course, looking at others' reasoning, I think that's telling me I'm a hack.

 

Since March 19th, I've been in an incredible dry spell at the tables and I play a lot. In that period, without tracking, I feel I've been sitting most of the time in the best seats : 4,5,6 or 7. Go figure. It's probably me, not the software who's responsible for all the bad decisions I'm making on key moves:joker:

 

For those intending to keep records

it might be useful to also record your seating order.

i.e.

• for a sit n go - how many were already registered before you?
• for a MTT (after round 1) - how many others were at the table when you arrived?

Maybe a pattern will emerge.

As a programmer, I can confirm that we often do really silly stuff for no apparent reason. I find it very hard to buy into the conspiracy idea. A more mundane possibility is that the software update to take players straight to their tables in MTTs may have introduced an unexpected side-effect. (i.e. a bug.)

To me, this issue demonstrates the real problem with the lack of credible communication from UB/Bet21. In that vacuum, conspiracy theories are bound to run riot. (And who knows? They might even be true.)

 

I think Colin is exactly right!

No purposeful intent..

I noticed this repeated seating near around the time when the the program was changed.

The change certainly involves seating as now when an MTT ends one is instantly seated at the next table. This was a good change in that many newbies were confused as their table ended but several slower players played on for up to 45 minutes longer...while first ended table sat in limbo...

That said....I started noticing this bad run of seats about the time this change was rolled out...this change occured at UBT site first by a few weeks maybe...

Im thinking one of the egg heads missed a critical line of code that allows a seating assignment that is not random based ...nor do I think it is skill based assignment... rather something dumb....alphbetical, numerical or other tagged to a member somehow that directs each of us to seat assignment.


Im getting nine seat 1,2,3, assignments to one 4,5,6,7. Maybe user name begining with R gets these seats????

The change occured when the seating update occured....no doubt.

I think its a bug...I hope they look at it or at least that I can figure a cure to get me off the button every freakin game...lol

I am simply not that good nor do I get all that much satisfaction by rising above the adversity...lol Hey....I was an only child...I want seat 6 or 7 everytime!!..;-)

 

seat assignments and conspiracy theories

I agree that there's been something strange about seat assignments since the last software update that implemented the change that takes us to the next table automatically.

At first, I kept getting rotated between seats 1 and 4. Now...it seems like the rotation is seats 2 and 6. I don't recall being in seat 3 or 7 in weeks...or so it seems.

I've also felt at times that the software was programmed against me when, for a week at a time, I'd get stiff after stiff after stiff only to hit with a bust card every time. And when I got 10s or 11s, my double card would be a 2-5. But, with this "conspiracy theory" I think it's just the law of averages and probabilities rearing its ugly face every now and then.

This game has been so streaky for me in the six months I've been on bet21. I have gone through four major losing streaks, only to be followed by better major winning streaks each time. Is that to be expected? Is that an anomaly?

If only I can program my play to be in a major winning streak when Saturday night's $25k tournament arrives.

 

streaks

I have tracked stiffs, etc. - but never detected anything over all, in the long run, that was out of proportion by very much - at least as far as my own cards went - but the cards do seem very streaky -

non-random seating doesn't mean they are out to get you - just that they are screwing up somehow - unfortunately that makes me wonder what other part of their program may be out of kilter -

 

No offense intended...

...to those who've posted on this thread with a "strange" story on their seat assignment to report, but I feel like a word from the (somewhat more) silent majority is good to see at times.

In this case, I want to report nothing at all. That is, nothing strange at all with my seating assignments, which appear to be as random as they've ever been.

I hope your randomness returns as quickly as it left you (but you may find that it never did if you check your sample size)!

 

That's good info to have actually.


As for the sample size, a 1 in 2 billion chance of something occuring means you have a large enough sample size. I get the feeling that a lot of people are skimming this thread thinking "well, 50 repetitions isn't enough to support any conclusion." That's just not true in this case. Getting a larger sample size just serves to eliminate moderate-probability streaks. For instance, a streak of 10 hands that has a probability of 1 in 1000 is reasonable to expect since many players play more than 10,000 hands. Somewhere along the line, they will encounter such a streak.

However, a streak of 50 seatings that has a 1 in 2 billion chance of occuring means that you are no longer random unless such a streak appeared about once in 100 billion seatings. To have such a streak appear in the only 50 seatings you sample means 1) it's not random and 2) your sample size is plenty large. 50 doesn't *seem* like a big sample size to BJ players, but that's all relative to the probability of what you're sampling.

Let's put it this way. Imagine you shuffle up a deck of cards and deal 2. It's a blackjack. Wow, what are the chances? Let's try again... shuffle, deal two, another blackjack! Crazy, keep going. Imagine you managed to deal yourself 8 blackjacks in a row in this manner. What you did is STILL more probable than being seated randomly 50 times and having only 2 of those be in seats 4-7. So if what happened truly was random, it was less probable than 8 consecutive blackjacks from a deck shuffled each time. That ain't no sample size issue. It's non-random.

 

If I were a math guy, I'd probably reply something like: Within how many S.D.'s is RKuczek's result, and if it is within 2 either way, is that not still considered a relatively normal result?

However, being someone with only a working understanding of statistics (i.e. I don't want to begin a math war off my reply), the main purpose of my post was to report my experience, which will hopefully add to the list of current reporting to give a clearer indicator of whether or not this is a blanket problem.

If it is a problem, it is a serious problem I agree. Let's face it, any realist knows that the opportunities for any web-based game to be manipulated in any number of ways is immense. However, while not perfect, this does seem to be a good site to date from all of what I've seen.

 

Just another example. I play a large number of sit n gos & for the last few weeks have gotton seat 1 or 4 every time.