You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Comments
I just found this statement from a online poker site which i will not name in case i get sued or something similar.
Whether it's for a tournament, a cash game or a play money table, before each hand is dealt the Pseudo Random Number Generator (RNG) shuffles the 52-card deck into a unique ordering.
Every effort has been made to ensure that the RNG produces as close to a random and fair result as possible.
To determine how many unique decks or orderings are possible when shuffling a 52-card deck, mathematically you would use the following formula:
52 = 52*51*50*49
....3*2*1=8.0658175170943878571660636856404e+67
(approximately 80,658,175 followed by 60 zeros)
Before each hand the RNG shuffles the deck into one of these many orderings. The resultant deck is as close to random, possibly equal to, a physical deck produced by either a manual or machine shuffle.
How close is close?
That isn't to say that it is happening, it's just a counter to the statement that there is no good reason to do it. Because we don't know, we have to have faith in our site. Saying it won't, can't or doesn't happen is as foolish as those who say it is definitely fixed.
It must be true because it came straight from the horses mouth.
Any advantage gained by Sky Poker from a "rigged" RNG would be marginal; the impact of such a scam being discovered would be enormous.
As I have already posted, the number of people who would have to be involved in a scam of that magnitude is very large (including auditors external to the company).
Therefore to say that I am as foolish (for asserting that the RNG on this site is not rigged) as those who say the RNG is definitely fixed strikes me as a little wide of the mark.
I don't say that Sky, or any other site, is fixed, but neither do I know that it isn't. Examples of irregularities by large organisations abound and so size or complexity is not a barrier to falsehood.
The people who post the 'it's fixed' theories are entitled to their view, that's why we have area 51. Those who oppose that view are equally entitled to their opinions. The operative word in both cases is 'opinion.'
I feel that my "opinion" has rather more logic to it than that of people who claim that the Sky Poker RNG is rigged and I'm sure that, even playing the role of Devil's Advocate, you can accept that.
That is why I object to you calling my view equally foolish.
People who express opinions should expect them to be challenged when they are clearly wild and inaccurate.
There are degrees of common sense that can be applied to these arguments and I'm quite happy that my opinion is valid. To suspect otherwise in this case shows a lack of a grasp of reality.
I remember posts on 2+2, Pocket Fives and a few other poker forums when some individuals were saying that Absolute Poker was being rigged or manipulated. The large majority of folk insisted that it couldn't happen because it wasn't worth it. Those arguments would still be going on if there hadn't been an error in administration by Absolute.
Whoops!
Sorry to appear flippant but the fact is none of us know for sure. We only have our experience, opinion and what we believe to be true, and that is the same on both sides of the debate. Stating our certainty on that basis is foolish.
One of the largest poker networks in the world has recently been imposing fines on a number of skins off that network because they (the skins) had too many winning players. Poker organisations don't like winning players, they like everyone to lose a little. That way they get maximum longevity, maximum rake and maximum numbers of players on the site.
Morals come a distant second to profits in a lot of major companies. Banks persuade people who can't afford it to take out overdrafts and loans in the knowledge that the big profits come from the penalties imposed when defaults occur. The biggest utility company in the UK purposely allows people to underpay in the knowledge that it makes it almost impossible to swap to another (cheaper) company once the arrears build up. There are many more examples in what are regarded as reputable companies.
All is not as it seems with many large businesses. Are all poker sites any more trustworthy?
We're discussing this one.
I might have an opinion that premiership footballers are vastly overpaid considering the contribution they make to society compared to nurses for example.
I might also have an opinion (or belief) that Elvis is alive and well and working as Michael Jackson's butler in Disneyland.
I think that even you would agree that one of these opinions is more rational than the other.
The opposing "opinions" relating to the RNG on this site have a similar gulf in credibility.
Extra time looks a cert,possibly could even go to penalties ;o)
Yes I know we're talking about this site but my point applies to all sites. The argument has been made many times that there is no good reason to 'fix' the outcome. I argued that this is not so, and that the argument applies to all sites including this one. I haven't heard any counter to that argument. I agree that without any evidence there is a credibility shortfall in the argument for it being fixed. It was never my argument that it is fixed only that some of the reasoning for believing otherwise was flawed.
There are many examples in history of what appeared to be the rational opinion being found wanting upon further evidence being uncovered. When we look back, with today's knowledge, it seems incredible that the then credible opinion could have been so wrong yet at the time it was seen to be the most rational explanation.
The reasons for most illegal actions are motive and opportunity. The argument for there being no motive on the part of the poker sites just doesn't stand up to scrutiny in my opinion. Whether there is or isn't the opportunity, due to the technical aspects/difficulties, is beyond my knowledge and so I can't argue that point. But where there is a will there is generally a way.