Are Online Poker games totally random?

Because in my understanding and my little experience, they favor the one with the most advantage at the table, the last card almost always coming out to complete the one with the most chips, I have seen that happen more than 80% of times.

I always say online poker is a simple roulette game...

anadrijav said:

Because in my understanding and my little experience, they favor the one with the most advantage at the table, the last card almost always coming out to complete the one with the most chips, I have seen that happen more than 80% of times.

Click to expand...

Random number generation by computer programming is a simulation of randomness. It is the best that can be done with present technology but is still an approximation (at best).

However, many would concur with your observation of the big stack winning a high percentage of the time. It has been my position the algorithm can then whittle down the field on pace as other rolling tournaments are scheduled. I have argued many times you could set a clock with MTTs as to when players would cash and reach a final table they all play so similarly (especially those you play day in and out and can observe closely).

That for better or worse comes with the online territory.

anadrijav said:

Because in my understanding and my little experience, they favor the one with the most advantage at the table, the last card almost always coming out to complete the one with the most chips, I have seen that happen more than 80% of times.

Click to expand...

In fact, poker rooms check. Because the cards fall out completely randomly. There is no deception. Players prefer to ignore the period when they are lucky. But when it starts to fail, they think that this is a terrible deception, and so on.

I think it’s as random as it could be. I don’t think it favours any players

Hi all!

I think it cannot be affirmed or denied. What remains is to play your best poker, if you do well, keep playing!
Greetings

I don't think this is the case, it is random, the player who has many chips most of the time will call and not always with good cards and more on a bounty and often win, that can influence that perception. I always have to see how players with few chips fold many times because those who have go with garbage hands or not so good, so I do not agree with your point of view

The cards fall the same for everyone,,,can't get any more fair than that.

I think you are wrong. Of course, there are different cases, but I am convinced that the skill and experience of the player are crucial in the long run.

I agree with your assumption but not with your hypothesis. I feel that there is an algorithm that prevents certain players from winning too much. I feel it is based on the money that you have deposited to that particular poker site. It is based on pay to play so until you have deposited a base amount you are subject to the algorithm.

I don't think it's true that the multi-chip player always wins. But I've had a lot of bad luck when it comes down to river for the opponent, or I'm a lot better off at the beginning or in the middle of the party and then I lose.

i think its random and no one is favourite

It is difficult to say that there is a systematic way to favor certain players.
But we will always have that impression. I've seen players go a long way in playing irresponsibly. It bothers me, but we can't escape it.
It is important to be patient and find favorable moments.

This question could be asked in a different way: Are poker sites rigged?

There are many opinions out there, but when you listen to enough top level pros that don't have an affiliation to a site (so they're not being paid to promote the site and there fore have a vested interest in it) and the general consensus is that the RNG's are not rigged. You will find bots on all sites. You will find players that are colluding on all sites. On some of the shadier sites, you might find super user accounts where the player can see everyone elses cards, but the RNG's are legitimate.

DS3 said:

It has been my position the algorithm can then whittle down the field on pace as other rolling tournaments are scheduled.

Click to expand...

Why?

fwiw, most players don't just play 1 or 2 tournaments and wait for them to finish so they can enter another.

You do realize that tournaments will play out (in the longrun) based on blind structure, stack depth & number of entrants.... right?
ie. Hypers go very fast... AND over the long run they will run approx. the same length of time. Guess what... same for LIVE TOURNEYS too... (especially ones that have shortened time to act, clock etc.). This is how they schedule tournaments, KNOWING approx. (very close to it actually) how long they'll last.

I'm curious, what is YOUR experience where you're 'seeing these things happen'?
Because you must have a very keen eye.... I mean with your experience you're able to see this stuff(?) & yet guys who have played 40,000, 100,000.... 250,000 tournaments aren't seeing it at all. (yes.. there are players who play that many tournaments)

anadrijav said:

Because in my understanding and my little experience, they favor the one with the most advantage at the table, the last card almost always coming out to complete the one with the most chips, I have seen that happen more than 80% of times.

Click to expand...

Well in my much greater experience (I'm 'assuming'... as I have a bit more than 'little'), I am certain they don't favor ANYONE at the table. Personally I think that is the most RIDICULOUS thing .... I mean do you think professionaly would be investing (yes.. 'investing') over $100k in a day while playing Tournaments if there was any kind of b.s. like 'bigger stacks are favored'.

I promise I won't post in any more threads like this. It's nonsense (BUT... it is common for newer players)

As the most simple point of logic regarding big stacks winning hands with a higher frequency... if it were not the case then the smaller stacks would constantly win hands and chip up would they not? The field would endlessly rebalance.

From my observations this is more likely in the live game. As a consequence live MTTs appear to play out over various time frames (regardless of escalating blinds) whereas online tourneys are routine in duration.

manzanillo53 makes another point regarding players who have or have not deposited with frequency. I have some similar theories about players loosely streamed to facilitate scheduling efficiencies for the sites - again, so that tourney 'complete' on schedule.

Now regarding some who say losing players will exhibit such bias, I do not follow manzanillo53 but have seen him finish well in tournaments and I get the impression they know how to play and can play well - they also seem chilled in their comments.

I feel a kinship to a degree because I am by definition profitable (I play low levels and generate bankrolls through FRs) and therefore have only ever made limited deposits. I have a skeptical view of several aspects of online poker but am relaxed and even detached from it because it simply is what it is. I feel (right or wrong) the system is weighted but with patience you can navigate the system and profit. There is a frustration that I do not win/profit with the regularity I believe I should - but I grasp that could be a sense of entitlement or the algorithm, or both, I just attempt to be philosophical about it all.

Poker Orifice said:

Why?

fwiw, most players don't just play 1 or 2 tournaments and wait for them to finish so they can enter another.

You do realize that tournaments will play out (in the longrun) based on blind structure, stack depth & number of entrants.... right?
ie. Hypers go very fast... AND over the long run they will run approx. the same length of time. Guess what... same for LIVE TOURNEYS too... (especially ones that have shortened time to act, clock etc.). This is how they schedule tournaments, KNOWING approx. (very close to it actually) how long they'll last.

I'm curious, what is YOUR experience where you're 'seeing these things happen'?
Because you must have a very keen eye.... I mean with your experience you're able to see this stuff(?) & yet guys who have played 40,000, 100,000.... 250,000 tournaments aren't seeing it at all. (yes.. there are players who play that many tournaments)

Click to expand...

Poker Orifice - I know we agree on some issues but not on this. You are welcome to your opinion and I'll retain mine. I am not bothered if anyone subscribes to it or not, I am not trying to convince anyone but am just expressing my view. And, as I constantly underline I am philosophical even phlegmatic about it all.

I find the culture surrounding poker a little odd. It strikes as evangelical, of born again fervor - we must believe (in the poker sites) as an act of faith. But at least 40 poker sites have gone under, several blatantly screwing over their customers, with the likes of Full Tilt bilking players for hundreds of millions. So, I will retain a healthy skepticism as long as I play online.

anadrijav said:

Because in my understanding and my little experience, they favor the one with the most advantage at the table, the last card almost always coming out to complete the one with the most chips, I have seen that happen more than 80% of times.

Click to expand...

Hi!
Despite don't believe the random number generators favor one or another at the table, people who play live and online say that in live the cards are more randomly. I, particularly, think the ace come more frequently than the other cards at PS and the luck factor online is more present at online poker tables in general.

Hi!

This is exactly as you say. It is not best to go all in against a chip leader because he will win in a large percentage of cases. I have seen and experienced this many, many times. I don't understand the point of this. But to whom could this be addressed? Would it make sense to say that? They would also say that this is not the case.

anadrijav said:

I have seen that happen more than 80% of times.

Click to expand...

No you have not seen this happen more than 80% of the time, or at least not over any kind of meaningfull sample. What happen is, that humans tend to remember bad things more than good things, and the worst thing, that happen to us during a poker tournament, is to get eliminated. Per definition we can only get eliminated by someone with a larger stack, and therefore it can seem to us, that the large stack always gets lucky.

The next step in the process is confirmation bias. When you have already gotten it into your head, that the games must be rigged, you will start to look for confirmation of your idea. You will therefore begin to notice hands, you are not even involved in, and see every single hand, where the biggest stack win, as evidence, that your conspiracy theory is right. Whereas if the short stack win as in this hand from a recent final table, I played, you dont even notice it.

https://www.cardschat.com/replayer/624HlrEqV

I think that poker rooms implement technology to be as random as possible but sometimes you have question the randomness.

DS3 said:

Poker Orifice - I know we agree on some issues but not on this. You are welcome to your opinion and I'll retain mine. I am not bothered if anyone subscribes to it or not, I am not trying to convince anyone but am just expressing my view. And, as I constantly underline I am philosophical even phlegmatic about it all.

I find the culture surrounding poker a little odd. It strikes as evangelical, of born again fervor - we must believe (in the poker sites) as an act of faith. But at least 40 poker sites have gone under, several blatantly screwing over their customers, with the likes of Full Tilt bilking players for hundreds of millions. So, I will retain a healthy skepticism as long as I play online.

Click to expand...

This ecclesiastical synopsis seems more like the blind leading the blind. These poker clients are running a business and in the best interest of any money making establishment, is not to screw over their members. If someone doesn't trust the site, then it would be foolish to support them.

With every hand documented and many have ran programs to find anomalies, there has only been a couple who have found deviation. That wouldn't be the reason for "at least 40 poker sites" failures in a competitive market. Always a little odd that those who feel skepticism are the ones who have no problem with a cult like attitude, enjoying the online games.

Poker Orifice said:

Well in my much greater experience (I'm 'assuming'... as I have a bit more than 'little'), I am certain they don't favor ANYONE at the table. Personally I think that is the most RIDICULOUS thing .... I mean do you think professionaly would be investing (yes.. 'investing') over $100k in a day while playing Tournaments if there was any kind of b.s. like 'bigger stacks are favored'.

I promise I won't post in any more threads like this. It's nonsense (BUT... it is common for newer players)

Click to expand...

LOL, yes, this is the question that never stops being asked , at least every 60 days (or more). Some people continue to "prove" it is rigged. My only response to those people. You have a serious gambling problem if you continue to play a game that you "know" is rigged. Have a nice day all!!

The reason most poker sites are not rigged is that a poker site would be shut down if it was discovered to be rigged (and regulated ones are audited regularly). this would make them go out of business. However, a minimal few unregulated ones could be dodgy, as their chance of being discovered is lower, so more of an incentive to pick up extra cash by rigging action.