10 CC'ers test your favorite site

I've figured out a way that 10 cc'ers could get a great view of how a site's hands are dealt out.

If 10 cc'ers join in the same tourney and agree to check down the first hour or so worth of hands, then after an hour play regular. If checked through quickly, you could probably see 100 hands or so. Do this once a week for a year and you would have 5200 hands from each site it's done on. Not only 5200 hands, 5200 COMPLETE hands. If it's a regular tourney, the first hour would only put you at about 50/100 75/150 or so, so it would make the remaining game kind of like a shoot out.

People have said there's no good way to test a site's software, I think this would do it pretty well. If you could get several tables @ a CC event, you could get a TON of complete hands.

site may ban all 10 of us for collusion.

True. Darn it

I have always wanted to do something like this. However, I want to see what happens In a full ring RAZZ game if everyone stayed in until all seven cards were dealt. Seems to me that if eight players all had seven cards, that would make 56 total cards. What would happen?? Maybe they would put some jokers in the deck??lol

I know this would probably never happen, but I mean, it could be possible.

better yet, just play SNG and share HHs

Community cards would be dealt out.

What I'm more interested (because I have no reason to test anyones software) in is what would happen if all nine players went all in at the same time first hand and one person won, who would get 2nd and 3rd place money? 2nd and 3rd best hands?

I don't understand what you're trying to find out , I understand you want to see all the hands dealt to river, so HH wouldn't do it. can you explain it for a dummy please.





when six players were still in with only four cards left in the deck the seventh card would be one of the four leftover cards dealt face up on the board as a community card.

2nd and 3rd place prize money would have to be split equally between all remaining players , since everyone started the hand with equal amounts there would be no 2nd or 3rd place.

I think it's a way to check for riggedness. The only thing I can think of.

Usually 2nd and 3rd place money goes to the players who had the 2nd most and 3rd most chips. In this case, they all had the same amount, so I believe they add up 2nd and 3rd place prize and distribute it evenly among everyone.

Wouldn't it be the 2nd and 3rd best hands?

Hands: (for ease) AA, KK, QQ, JJ, 10-10, 9-9, 8-8, 7-7, 6-6, 5-5

Wouldn't it be...
1st: AA
2nd: KK
3rd: QQ

??

If the round was folded pre-flop, pre-turn or pre-river HH's wouldn't matter since you couldn't see a complete board.

Not really. If the 3rd place chip stack's hand beats the 2nd place chip stack's hand, the game continues. No prize monies are awarded because someone has a larger stack, until their stack is so large it includes all of the other players chips.

Not if the 1st place person had a higher chip count than both of them, because all their chips are gone.

Example: Persons A, B, C and D. Stacks: A=1000, B and C = 500, D=250.

Everyone is All In, Person A wins. Persons B, C and D are eliminated.
Person A = 1st place, wins 1st place prize money
Person B and C = 2nd place, win (2nd place + 3rd Place)/2 each
Person D = 4th place, wins 4th place prize money

The game will not continue because person A has all the chips. Person B and C split the prize money for 2nd and 3rd place because their chip stacks were equal and second most, person D gets 4th place because his chip stack was the smallest.

ahhh ok. community cards would make sense. I've been curious about that for a while now. Thanks

But, what if Player C ties with Player A? They would then have to continue would they not, until one of them has all the chips? ...Or am I missing something here.

What if all players "Sat-Out" continuosly who would win?

In that case, A and C split the main pot of 1000 from A, B, C and D; A and C split the side pot of 750 from A, B, and C; 500 was returned to A uncalled; D is eliminated in fourth place because of stack size; B is eliminated in third place because of stack size. A and C continue. But, the original case was to show how winnings were split with several going out at the same time.

Eventually it will progress to a stage many many hours in where both the BB and the SB are all-in with the blinds, meaning there will be a showdown - so ultra crapshoot really.

the question


the answer

don't know where you guys got off line , but this is the correct answer.
there are no other chip stacks , one person won it all and the game is over .

That's just what I got from Bodog...

Being that you are looking at prizes for 1st, 2nd, 3rd; TO ME, it seems to make sense you would award them to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd best hands... but I guess not.

The point is that in poker there is NEVER a reward for the second best hand. The point is to have the best hand (and if there's a side pot have the best hand among people in the pot). Besides in cases of a tie, there is one winner and the rest are losers in every poker hand. That's why playing tight is so much better than playing any 2 (obviously people have done well with a LAG style, but I'm talking basic beginner strategy). When you flop top pair you easily could have the second best hand, but if you're outkicked by ANYONE, you lose the hand. There's no such thing as 2nd place in a hand.

What I would do though would do as originally said. Play at a 1/2c table and then when it's checked down there would be no rake. I don't see how it would be collusion as for there to be collusion there has to be someone being cheated. Nevertheless I would contact them to make sure it's ok beforehand.

But I think it would be wasted time. If people believe that action cards are dealt out, and the board is corrected such that ALL players still see a random distribution of cards, and that this correction is done using some sort of algorithm, why would they believe that our test proved anything? It would be an easy refutation and it makes sense, but why waste hours out of peoples' days on people who refuse to listen to reason? Why should players who most likely could be making a profit if they were playing for real play simply to use logic to prove something to people who don't listen to logic?

Would take years and thousands of hands to get a good read on how well the hands are shuffled. If the card generators are as good as they say they are there should be no pattern to them at all. There will be good runs of cards and bad runs of cards. There is no pattern in the word random...