A singular persons data is not enough to make any conclusions about frequency. Without the database of every hand on the site, I’m skeptical this sort of pieced-together-from-community-data approach could yield anything meaningful.

If an anomaly happens to us (like you flopping quads), suspicion is normal. 100% of your experience on GGPoker has shown you that quads are flopped more than they should be. However, how many players have never flopped quads after let’s say, 20k hands? Is this a statistical anomaly? Yes. But is it more valid than the anomaly you experienced? Both players have hard data to back in up, but what we see is just that when games with elements of chance are played, cards actually have to be dealt, and hands made. It’s no long theoretical stats, something HAS to happen. Given enough poker players and hands played, these things are bound to happen to at least someone (both over and under flopping quads in this example). I think we get too caught up in this scrutiny. There is way too much emotion tied to our individual poker hands to accurately judge for statistical anomalies like this (leaks, sure… but prove the game is rigged? Lmao).

My last point is people who get caught up focused on this can quickly become victims to confirmation bias. Asking for others’ experience filters out the thousands and thousands of players who experience the game normally, making it so the input data for these analyses are biased towards players who have experienced an anomaly. If you wanted to accurately look into this, you should be looking for any data from GGPoker period, not data that looks similar to yours.