Poker Odds twist

While browsing around the FullTilt forums, I ran into another of the unending ririgged threads. This one led me to

http://www.ultimatebet.com/about-Ultimatebet/rng.html.

It explains how the cards are dealt at FullTilt, and Ultimatebet at least.

It describes how only when cards are needed are they found. In live games they would be found at what we consider the top of the deck. In the article describing the method used at FT and Ultimatebet, there is no deck per se, or an infinite number of decks, same result I think.

Consider a full 9 player table. 18 cards are dealt. Normally leaving 34 undealt cards. For now I will ignore the burn cards.

When the flop comes, according to the article, the only criteria is that a dealt card does not repeat. The article explains about a sophisticated scheme varifiably random clear down to the quantum level. Get out your PHD's.

The article then goes on the mention how the next cards available are generated not over just the table we are sitting at, but all tables in play.

I am sure they are truely random number generators and that from one perspective they are as fair as can be.

My concern is whether or not the cards dealt behave as if they were from a single deck, as all poker odds charts are derived, or whether they behave in more of group mode. This is difficult for me to verbalize, but may have a significance. If I am sure there is only 1 out that can beat me, I will act a certain way, but if I know that there are an infinitly large number of ways to get that one out, should I not act differently?

For a second lets bring down infinity to 52,000 cards, 1000 decks. I know that at this table, only 1 card can beat me. Normally that would be in the 1/29 chances assuming no one had it and all but one folded after the flop.

Ok, I have about (don't get real picky here) .035% chance of seeing that card. But in a live game I know there is only one of em.

Under the scheme discussed at Ultimatebet, and used at Ultimatebet and FT and probably elsewhere, I would have 1000 chances out of 29,000 ????? The odds suggest they are the same. But something doesn't sit right here. There are 1000/2900 chances to see that card. But there are 1000 chances to see that one out.

Statistics. Lets talk about a quarter. 25 cent piece. I can describe that quarter as 25% of a dollar, or I can describe that as 50% of 50 cents, etc.

If I decrease a dollar by that quarter, I have decreased that dollar by 25%. If I put it right back, if I add that quarter to the 75 cents I just made, I have increased that 75% of a dollar by 33%. Yet I still end up with a dollar

Does this mean 25% = 33%?


Something seems so rigged here......Not unfair, but it seems that perhaps the poker odds we use might not be an acurate way to describe and/or define actions.

+1 rep for a good post dj. You do bring up some interesting points.

Personally, I've always wondered how well the RNGs have been tested. Sure, the sites are having independent auditors "certify" them as being random, but what exactly are they testing. How far are they going with their testing? Are they simulating 5 Billion hands?

I work as a software tester for a living, and no matter how good your test cases are, it's always possible that a bug could get through.

^You meant 1000/29000... the ratio still reduces to 1/29, so it makes no difference mathematically (or in actuality). Multiplying any fraction by
"a clever disguise for the number one" (as my old math teacher used to say) just gives you the same number (or in this case probability of hitting your out). Do you accept that 5 x 1 is still 5? Then multiplying 5/1 by 1000/1000 still makes it 5.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj11 Statistics. Lets talk about a quarter. 25 cent piece. I can describe that quarter as 25% of a dollar, or I can describe that as 50% of 50 cents, etc. If I decrease a dollar by that quarter, I have decreased that dollar by 25%. If I put it right back, if I add that quarter to the 75 cents I just made, I have increased that 75% of a dollar by 33%. Yet I still end up with a dollar Does this mean 25% = 33%?

Obviously not. Let x = 1 dollar. Now you reduce it to 3/4 x by taking 1/4 x away. Yes, in terms of the NEW VALUE of what you have left, 3/4 x
(75 cents), you have increased by 33%, but in terms of the amount you started with, you have increased by only 25% relative to that dollar or x.

In other words, 25% = 25%. Remember, percentages are relative.

If that helps, great. If not, just take a break and forget about it for a while.

Hope that helps!

Math class dismissed!!!

I mean no offence here, but please get an understanding of basic maths before saying things seem "rigged".



So what?

Put one white sock and one black sock in a drawer. Pick one at random. The chance that you pick the white one (let's assume the socks are the same size etc etc for all the nits out there) is 50%, right? Now put 23 white socks and 23 black socks in a drawer and choose one. What are the chances you pick a white sock?



No, it simply means that 25% of $1 = 33% of 75c =/= 25% of 75c. I don't see how this has anything to do with anything, in any case.

I don't have a PHD but I do have a good grasp of mathematics. After the hole cards are dealt (as above 9 players) what is left is 34 random cards that have not yet been dealt, whether it's being stored in an infinite virtual pool or as a neat pile of cards in full view.
The only difference is that the cards were randomized before any cards were dealt. Any individual card left in a deck is 1 in 34 be the next card, 1 in 33 to be the next...etc. Your virtual deck whether it's 1,000 of 34,000 or 1,000,000 of 34,000,000 comes down to the same odds.
I understand that a card could wind up on your table that "passed by" other tables (because it had already been dealt) but I can't see how it would affect the odds.

To answer your fears and what everyone is trying to say is, don't sweat it. The cards will still fall just like there is only one deck sitting in front of you. You will still see that 1 card the same amount.

Everyone has a hard time believing in things not sitting right in front of them in. Unicorns exist and aliens will invade the earth soon! Just because the deck of cards is not physically in front of you doesn't mean it will come out differently. Math is math and have some faith. Can I get an AMEN from the congregation.

I understand all that all of you have said. I am not math deficient, but I am not a math whiz anymore either.

The stat thoughts about the 25% = 33% is a joke I have always told myself about statistics. Stats are so often a point of view. I know all this.

I read one telling comment in another thread about randomness. Something like this; "the most uncommon thing about randomness would be for something to be truely random".

As I mull over the scheme of 'card on demand' dealing I know that it probably does provide a closer to truly random deal than probably a live shuffle at a live table. Refer to a vid, I think on YouTube, where Chris Fergeson shuffles a deck perfectly 7 or 8 times, and ends up with a perfectly fresh deck of cards, A-2 and suited. Just like fresh out of the box. He practiced long and hard and got 7 or 8 perfectly interleaved shuffles.

In any group, there will be clumping. In crowds girls clump, and boys clump, and there is seldom a uniform mixing. In the universe, clouds clump in the gas. In a shuffled deck suits clump.

Lets say that the one card that would beat me is the K spades which connects opps A spades to the QJTx spades on the board which flopped my straight flush. In a real deck, there will only be one out. I am not sure opp doesn't already have it, nor someone folded it, or if it is still live. I do know that there is only one.

In the RNG (Trng, not Prng{see article above}) there would be as many of those K spades as there were tables in play where the K spades was still live. Using my example, 1000 of em. I know only one can show up at this table. But the fact that there are unrandom clumps of randomness (my mind has a bit of trouble grasping this) suggests that this method may not be completly random. I also know that that clump of K's I am worried about could be clumped away from the card picker. I feel reasonably certain that the picker will pick that Ksp in approximately the correct proportion of the time as the odds suggest.

Lest you question the clumps of randomness, think for a second about the current theory of the formations of stars, and galaxies out of the remnants of the big bang.

Don't get me wrong here, I am still playing, and will continue to keep playing. What I would really love would be to understand the shuffle and deal of the cards as well under the scheme, as I do or think I do with live cards. Actully I think perhaps the TRNG shuffler may be much more random that a live deck. But again this is something I would want to know. I read somewhere else that statistics show that the TRNG provides what would be called insignificantly smaller variations from what the accepted stats show. What if we can know and understand these insignificantly small variances, and use that knowledge. I just feel there might be a new way to look at this.

....Now that I'm completely dazed by the Einsteins here,I'll just say this......MATH SCHMATH.........PFFFT,WHO NEEDS IT!?...All I know is,that if Talkpkr2me needs an 6 to complete her inside straight....IT AIN'T COMIN'!....I don't need to figure those odds..It will always be 100% out of the realm of possiblity..

I must admit there were some good point brought up here. However, reading these posts is giving me a headache. I am going to continue to believe these deals are on the up and up.

Any post that makes me actually LOL gets +1 on the rep. The sense of humor among members of this community is great.