K
KITAYAWA
Rock Star
Silver Level
Yes, I completely agree with you this is a big mystery random number generator
blef121
Rock Star
Silver Level
it can’t even be checked, I remember there was such a commission that checked and confirmed that everything was fine with pokerstars, but it was a long time ago why no one does this and doesn’t check it would be cool
C
Chipmaster45
Enthusiast
Silver Level
Fundiver,
instead of sinking to insults, why not try to engage in a proper discourse? I shall endeavor to put that aside, however, and respond to the actual question, minus the insult.
For your information, no I did not keep records of my wins and losses, because of what I have witnessed outside of my own playing: Other players getting the same hands I did (AA, JJ, QQ, etc.) and watched as they were repeatedly destroyed by far inferior hands (J5, A2, etc.). This is what triggered the opinion in me that the rng is "patterned" to "react" in certain ways:
1. Statistics which are supposedly meant to govern all poker games (the odds of hitting specific hands) mean nothing to the algorithms within the myriad of poker games online. The algorithms only want to generate the highest amount of players, and as such, will do whatever it's programmers tell it to, i.e. screw over better players because if the inexperienced player loses, they won't care. They'll just fork over more real money, cost be damned. Really good players, meanwhile, get their money stacks (the amount in their individual accounts) decimated.
2. The higher the stack on the table, the more probable the win. Note I said probable, not possible. I have seen it time and time again, both as observer and participant, where big stacks swallow small stack after small stack, regardless of their hole cards. They could (and do) call with K2 (a really bad starting point), or an equally horrible set of hole cards that no really good player would ever touch (such as J5, 8Q, or really small pocket pair) against a much stronger, albeit smaller stack that holds AQ or AA even, and still chase to the river.
you can insult me, fundiver, all you want, but you cannot change what I have seen and experienced myself first hand. No insults will ever dissuade me of this belief.
It is indeed a distinctive pattern that emerges quite often (if not, far too often to truly be random) and if you take the time to objectively observe the poker sites, and see it for yourself, you just might believe it too.
instead of sinking to insults, why not try to engage in a proper discourse? I shall endeavor to put that aside, however, and respond to the actual question, minus the insult.
For your information, no I did not keep records of my wins and losses, because of what I have witnessed outside of my own playing: Other players getting the same hands I did (AA, JJ, QQ, etc.) and watched as they were repeatedly destroyed by far inferior hands (J5, A2, etc.). This is what triggered the opinion in me that the rng is "patterned" to "react" in certain ways:
1. Statistics which are supposedly meant to govern all poker games (the odds of hitting specific hands) mean nothing to the algorithms within the myriad of poker games online. The algorithms only want to generate the highest amount of players, and as such, will do whatever it's programmers tell it to, i.e. screw over better players because if the inexperienced player loses, they won't care. They'll just fork over more real money, cost be damned. Really good players, meanwhile, get their money stacks (the amount in their individual accounts) decimated.
2. The higher the stack on the table, the more probable the win. Note I said probable, not possible. I have seen it time and time again, both as observer and participant, where big stacks swallow small stack after small stack, regardless of their hole cards. They could (and do) call with K2 (a really bad starting point), or an equally horrible set of hole cards that no really good player would ever touch (such as J5, 8Q, or really small pocket pair) against a much stronger, albeit smaller stack that holds AQ or AA even, and still chase to the river.
you can insult me, fundiver, all you want, but you cannot change what I have seen and experienced myself first hand. No insults will ever dissuade me of this belief.
It is indeed a distinctive pattern that emerges quite often (if not, far too often to truly be random) and if you take the time to objectively observe the poker sites, and see it for yourself, you just might believe it too.
pandafreeroll
Enthusiast
Silver Level
Instead of talking gut feeling, you can check yourself: use your hand history and see how often you get dealt each respective starting hand combination. You can check your data for statistically significant difference to the distribution expected under the assumption of random card dealing with a statistical method called chi-square analysis, if you send me a .csv of the hole cards in your hand history I can do it for you.
Edit: to explain, a chi-square analysis of categorical data will yield results that can be interpreted as giving you a likelihood of a sample that is drawn from a population (i.e. all the starting cards ever dealt) in which the variables are distributed as expected i.e. (Every suited/unsuited/pocket-pair combination equally as often respectively) giving you data that is just as different or more different from the expected distribution as yours.
Edit: to explain, a chi-square analysis of categorical data will yield results that can be interpreted as giving you a likelihood of a sample that is drawn from a population (i.e. all the starting cards ever dealt) in which the variables are distributed as expected i.e. (Every suited/unsuited/pocket-pair combination equally as often respectively) giving you data that is just as different or more different from the expected distribution as yours.
Last edited:
pandafreeroll
Enthusiast
Silver Level
Raphael Zabel
Rock Star
Bronze Level
If you think the site is rigged and brings bad beats to destroy your game just get out of it, play live or do the following: just play as a call station and only go all-in if you have the nuts on the river... we know that this is not a good strategy for several reasons, and to win some important tournament or to be profitable in cash games at some point you have to take risks, this is poker, and this is what makes people who claim that certain game is manipulated, incredibly they continue to play even if they continue to lose.
C
Chipmaster45
Enthusiast
Silver Level
To any and all individuals,
I never stated that anything was rigged. What I said was that the program was flawed by its programming. Big difference. The poker site runners may not see a problem with it, as they are making mucho money. Really good, experienced players do, however, and it is making playing online almost intolerable.
Also, the poker sites do not reflect true odds, and that is the saddest thing of all.
P.S. this is not me conforming my beliefs to a scenario, rather I am basing it on fact; what I have personally witnessed. If I witnessed one person kill another person and then another, and so on, I could reasonably assume that they are a serial killer. If I am personally witnessing a pattern where consistently weaker hands crush stronger, even dominant hands more than should be statistically possible, then I can also conceive that something is not quite right.
P.P.S I am speaking of cash tourneys, not just freerolls. Freerolls are whatever they are, but cash tourneys are for money. Yet far too many players treat them like freerolls.
I never stated that anything was rigged. What I said was that the program was flawed by its programming. Big difference. The poker site runners may not see a problem with it, as they are making mucho money. Really good, experienced players do, however, and it is making playing online almost intolerable.
Also, the poker sites do not reflect true odds, and that is the saddest thing of all.
P.S. this is not me conforming my beliefs to a scenario, rather I am basing it on fact; what I have personally witnessed. If I witnessed one person kill another person and then another, and so on, I could reasonably assume that they are a serial killer. If I am personally witnessing a pattern where consistently weaker hands crush stronger, even dominant hands more than should be statistically possible, then I can also conceive that something is not quite right.
P.P.S I am speaking of cash tourneys, not just freerolls. Freerolls are whatever they are, but cash tourneys are for money. Yet far too many players treat them like freerolls.
I Live Poker
Legend
Platinum Level
I have one more question to ask about these subjects: If they are really RNGs or random why are they different from room to room? it's like each room has a kind of addiction in the RNG , I think everyone here will agree that the decks are different?
F
fundiver199
Legend
Loyaler
I have played more than a million hands online on 4 different sites, and I have not observed nor do I beleive in any of this nonsense. I also use a tracker (PT4), which tell me, that my AA win around 80% of the time in cash games. Just as they are supposed to do, if you play them aggressively and dont end up in to many multiway pots. Of course everyone can believe, whatever they want, but posting a wall of text partly in bold letters, and not providing any sort of evidence, probably wont convince anyone else
S
SpaceMage
Enthusiast
Silver Level
From a software perspective a RNG is truly random.
I do suspect that the software swaps the turn and river cards when everyone is all-in to inject a sense of excitement to the hand. I see that sort of thing very often.
If you're playing to the show-down it seems to happen less often.
I do suspect that the software swaps the turn and river cards when everyone is all-in to inject a sense of excitement to the hand. I see that sort of thing very often.
If you're playing to the show-down it seems to happen less often.
U
unadonk
Enthusiast
Silver Level
Of course everyone can believe, whatever they want, but posting a wall of text partly in bold letters, and not providing any sort of evidence, probably wont convince anyone else
Yep - I too want to see more evidence and less FUD
C
Chipmaster45
Enthusiast
Silver Level
fundiver,
your tracker is full of s***. I have been playing on PS, as an example, for just the last few months consistently (as in daily, sometimes, more than one rebuy at a time), and I have watched hands, (and played in them) where AA, KK, JJ, and the like would constantly get crushed. After careful observation I arrived at one inevitable conclusion:
Pokerstars, unlike realistic forms of Poker, is solely focused on feeding big stacks on the table in any given tournament (more often than not), or worse yet feeding inexperienced players who literally call anything, and again, more often than not, win.
This is, once again, down to a flawed algorithm that PS, and many other sites/rooms are not eager to fix because it does not benefit them to do so.
your tracker is full of s***. I have been playing on PS, as an example, for just the last few months consistently (as in daily, sometimes, more than one rebuy at a time), and I have watched hands, (and played in them) where AA, KK, JJ, and the like would constantly get crushed. After careful observation I arrived at one inevitable conclusion:
Pokerstars, unlike realistic forms of Poker, is solely focused on feeding big stacks on the table in any given tournament (more often than not), or worse yet feeding inexperienced players who literally call anything, and again, more often than not, win.
This is, once again, down to a flawed algorithm that PS, and many other sites/rooms are not eager to fix because it does not benefit them to do so.
SopianaeExtra
between my 2 ears
Bronze Level
So many boldly written words, etc. etc. (post #165)
And now even Poker Tracker isn't a reliable source of information any longer. Numbers!!! Digits!!! Statistics!!, throw them all out of the window, because I use a bigger font than you!
And now even Poker Tracker isn't a reliable source of information any longer. Numbers!!! Digits!!! Statistics!!, throw them all out of the window, because I use a bigger font than you!
Claudiunm
Legend
Platinum Level
I have a theory:
Are the cards generated randomly? No
Are they randomly distributed? Yea
Conclusion: In order to make the action more fun/interesting, the set of cards dealt on the table for each hand is not 100% random. And in order to be fair, the distribution of the cards on the table is 100% random.
Are the cards generated randomly? No
Are they randomly distributed? Yea
Conclusion: In order to make the action more fun/interesting, the set of cards dealt on the table for each hand is not 100% random. And in order to be fair, the distribution of the cards on the table is 100% random.
puzzlefish
student of the donk arts
Loyaler
I don't think there's a clear understanding of what is being discussed here.
Chipmaster is talking about observing games as a whole, which includes the equity realization by himself and other players. Fundiver is talking about statistics involving his own hands only, which a tracker is fine for.
If you're going to stay in your own silo and look at your own statistics only over millions of hands, there isn't anything to see or speculate over. The numbers either make sense or are within the limits of what might be expected for running a bit over or under normal EV.
The question/argument is whether or not tournaments can be fast-tracked to completion by dealing in a way that knocks out the most players in the least amount of time - this isn't a new concept, it has previously been discussed. It's the concept of an elimination bot.
Chipmaster is talking about observing games as a whole, which includes the equity realization by himself and other players. Fundiver is talking about statistics involving his own hands only, which a tracker is fine for.
If you're going to stay in your own silo and look at your own statistics only over millions of hands, there isn't anything to see or speculate over. The numbers either make sense or are within the limits of what might be expected for running a bit over or under normal EV.
The question/argument is whether or not tournaments can be fast-tracked to completion by dealing in a way that knocks out the most players in the least amount of time - this isn't a new concept, it has previously been discussed. It's the concept of an elimination bot.
C
Chipmaster45
Enthusiast
Silver Level
SopianaeExtra,
I liken trackers to analytics in any given major sport (baseball, basketball, football, etc.) and while they may work some of the time, oftentimes, they do not apply to the situation on the whole.
After all, how many times have GM's attempted to use those same analytics to improve their teams, only to fail miserably. They did the same thing that fundiver is doing: Only relying on one aspect of their game playing, when they should be looking at the actual hands in play, not just the data (i.e. percentages and such).
If fundiver did this, they would see that the data and what actually happens on the tables do not necessarily correlate.
fundiver is using those analytics to show how his hands correlate to the action on the table, but I am observing first hand, both in the hands I play and the ones I don't (the ones I watch).
I have seen it happen far too often to even remotely believe that it is random in any way. In actuality, I believe there is a definitive pattern at play. One that both favors larger stacks on the table (which is not indicative of how real poker works), and inexperienced players who literally call with the worst hands possible (two suited cards, i.e. clubs, spades, etc.) with maybe one matching suit, and they runner runner to the flush on the river.
I have seen that one scenario, in fact, so many times that I am utterly convinced that it cannot be a coincidence. Please try to understand, I am in no way suggesting it is rigged. I have never contended that. I am merely stating that Pokerstars, and other sites that use similarly constructed RNG's, are knowingly using a flawed system that should have been fixed properly years ago because it makes them the most profits.
I liken trackers to analytics in any given major sport (baseball, basketball, football, etc.) and while they may work some of the time, oftentimes, they do not apply to the situation on the whole.
After all, how many times have GM's attempted to use those same analytics to improve their teams, only to fail miserably. They did the same thing that fundiver is doing: Only relying on one aspect of their game playing, when they should be looking at the actual hands in play, not just the data (i.e. percentages and such).
If fundiver did this, they would see that the data and what actually happens on the tables do not necessarily correlate.
fundiver is using those analytics to show how his hands correlate to the action on the table, but I am observing first hand, both in the hands I play and the ones I don't (the ones I watch).
I have seen it happen far too often to even remotely believe that it is random in any way. In actuality, I believe there is a definitive pattern at play. One that both favors larger stacks on the table (which is not indicative of how real poker works), and inexperienced players who literally call with the worst hands possible (two suited cards, i.e. clubs, spades, etc.) with maybe one matching suit, and they runner runner to the flush on the river.
I have seen that one scenario, in fact, so many times that I am utterly convinced that it cannot be a coincidence. Please try to understand, I am in no way suggesting it is rigged. I have never contended that. I am merely stating that Pokerstars, and other sites that use similarly constructed RNG's, are knowingly using a flawed system that should have been fixed properly years ago because it makes them the most profits.
Last edited:
SopianaeExtra
between my 2 ears
Bronze Level
What hinders you then to exploit this RNG-artificialness and also play at a worse level than where you're actually at?
Invest ten, twenty dollars and play (at the lowest stakes possible) like an absolute idiot. If you're correct, you should easily multiply that money. And if you still lose, well, it's not much of a loss anyway. If I were as convinced as you, I'd have started doing just that a long time ago.
Invest ten, twenty dollars and play (at the lowest stakes possible) like an absolute idiot. If you're correct, you should easily multiply that money. And if you still lose, well, it's not much of a loss anyway. If I were as convinced as you, I'd have started doing just that a long time ago.