Why the same scenarios?

debdobs_67

Why o why do final table scenarios always have the same type of endings to them? i see this absolutely non stop,regardless if it is myself involved OR 2 others at the table.

Hand History #317401139 (18:29 12/12/2010)

debdobs_67

Now if you cant SEE what i mean then what can you SEE ?

shelski

In Response to Re: Why the same scenarios?:

Now if you cant SEE what i mean then what can you SEE ?
Posted by debdobs_67

the inevitable

igimc

You dont have to show the hand debs,i've seen it a hundred times

debdobs_67

In Response to Re: Why the same scenarios?:

You dont have to show the hand debs,i've seen it a hundred times
Posted by igimc

lol ty m8,xxx

AyrGraeme

Yes I tend to find it always ends with the last 2 players all-in and the smaller stack losing - gets kinda boring after a while

djblacke04

In Response to Re: Why the same scenarios?:

Yes I tend to find it always ends with the last 2 players all-in and the smaller stack losing - gets kinda boring after a while
Posted by AyrGraeme

hmmm.well obviously the smaller stack will lose otherwise the game would carry on...:)

YOUNG_GUN

In Response to Re: Why the same scenarios?:

In Response to Re: Why the same scenarios? : hmmm.well obviously the smaller stack will lose otherwise the game would carry on...:)
Posted by djblacke04

haha pmsl

DOHHHHHHH

Did you lose a flip?

oynutter

Here's a good one Debs--

	Action	Cards	Amount	Pot	Balance
The_Dram	Small blind		3000.00	3000.00	113895.00
capt_tine	Big blind		6000.00	9000.00	60927.50
	Your hole cards	J A
oynutter	Raise		24000.00	33000.00	37177.50
The_Dram	Call		21000.00	54000.00	92895.00
capt_tine	Fold
Flop
		K 10 Q
The_Dram	Check
oynutter	Bet		12000.00	66000.00	25177.50
The_Dram	Raise		24000.00	90000.00	68895.00
oynutter	All-in		25177.50	115177.50	0.00
The_Dram	Call		13177.50	128355.00	55717.50
The_Dram	Show	J A
oynutter	Show	J A
Turn
		5
River
		8
The_Dram	Win	Flush to the Ace	128355.00		184072.50

AyrGraeme

In Response to Re: Why the same scenarios?:

In Response to Re: Why the same scenarios? : hmmm.well obviously the smaller stack will lose otherwise the game would carry on...:)
Posted by djblacke04

Well figured out Taggart

unknown_username

You see the same scenarios because that is what is dealt - scenarios - the RNG can't handle all permutations of a 52 card deck.

AMYBR

In Response to Re: Why the same scenarios?:

You see the same scenarios because that is what is dealt - scenarios - the RNG can't handle all permutations of a 52 card deck.
Posted by elsadog

I agree

SHANXTA

In Response to Re: Why the same scenarios?:

You see the same scenarios because that is what is dealt - scenarios - the RNG can't handle all permutations of a 52 card deck.
Posted by elsadog

this really made me lol

unknown_username

In Response to Re: Why the same scenarios?:

In Response to Re: Why the same scenarios? : this really made me lol
Posted by SHANXTA

You think differently please enlighten us

WHOAMI196

In Response to Re: Why the same scenarios?:

In Response to Re: Why the same scenarios? : hmmm.well obviously the smaller stack will lose otherwise the game would carry on...:)
Posted by djblacke04

HAHA ROFL

GaryQQQ

They all had air. Typical.

SHANXTA

In Response to Re: Why the same scenarios?:

In Response to Re: Why the same scenarios? : You think differently please enlighten us
Posted by elsadog

so you think that Sky's RNG can't handle it, or all RNG's?

unknown_username

No they can't handle it because ..........

A standard 52 card deck has a total possible deck sequences of -

80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,404,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

You can try this yourself on any scientific calculator - just tap in 52 and press the n! key.

The problem is not with the possible deck sequence; it is with the capacity of the computer.

A basic 32-bit architecture computer is able to handle 4,294,967,296 computations (or in this case, decks). That means that out of the quadrillions and quadrillions of possible deck sequences, a 32-bit computer is able to only process 4.2 billion, less than .0000000000000000000000000000000001% of all the possibilities. 

A 64-bit machine is no better, as it is able to process only 18,446,744,073,709,551,616  and a 128-bit system can only process 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,770,000,000 or 1/1 trillionth of all the deck possibilities.

The answer would be a 256-bit system, which can handle -

1,157,920,892,373,161,952,357,098,500,869,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

The good news is that this is more than sufficient to handle all possible deck sequences!

The bad news is that a 256-bit system is far beyond the scope of any online poker room, unless they would like to borrow Roadrunner, the most powerful computer in the world owned by the US Government at Los Alamos Labs. 

That would do it but they might need to increase the rake to pay for it.

AMYBR

unknown_username

Just to follow on ............

The problem therefore is that any poker room RNG is only able to utilise a small percentage of all deck sequences. This leaves it open to having the RNG ''cracked'' by some computer geek ( This happened in the early days of on line poker when the 32 bit RNG was cracked, luckily by a group of University students who undertook it as an exercise and reported it to the poker room).

In order to safeguard future RNG's changes were made which I outlined in an earlier post. It's because of the sub-routines added that the ''deck'' is now dealt as a series of pre-determined sets of cards. The deck isn't shuffled and dealt as you imagine it is......... because as a matter of practicality, it can't be done.

NoseyBonk

In Response to Re: Why the same scenarios?:

No they can't handle it because .......... A standard 52 card deck has a total possible deck sequences of - 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,404,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 You can try this yourself on any scientific calculator - just tap in 52 and press the n ! key. The problem is not with the possible deck sequence; it is with the capacity of the  computer. A basic 32-bit architecture computer is able to handle 4,294,967,296 computations (or in this case, decks). That means that out of the quadrillions and quadrillions of possible deck sequences, a 32-bit computer is able to only process 4.2 billion, less than .0000000000000000000000000000000001% of all the possibilities.  A 64-bit machine is no better, as it is able to process only 18,446,744,073,709,551,616  and a  128-bit system can only process 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,770,000,000 or 1/1 trillionth of all the deck possibilities. The answer would be a 256-bit system, which can handle - 1,157,920,892,373,161,952,357,098,500,869,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 The good news is that this is more than sufficient to handle all possible deck sequences! The bad news is that a 256-bit system is far beyond the scope of any online poker room, unless they would like to borrow Roadrunner, the most powerful computer in the world owned by the US Government at Los Alamos Labs.  That would do it but they might need to increase the rake to pay for it.
Posted by elsadog

Hi Alan,

I don't know the original source of this article but I think the author is somewhat confused.

The 4.2 billion figure is simply the number of different combinations within a single 32-Bit DWORD. That certainly does not mean the computer can only handle numbers up to that limit.
Obtaining 256-Bit random numbers presents no challenge at all so I would imagine poker sites do it. 128-Bit and 256-Bit random numbers are also used within the encryption algorithms we all use every day (secure websites, wireless authentication etc)

I quit programming in the early 90's after spending many years coding on 8-Bit Z80 systems (assembly language). I'd often want to generate random numbers for games and using this author's logic I'd be limited to 256 outcomes. Well I wasn't!

So I think this is a very misleading article - although please know I'm not saying anything against you for posting it! :-)

unknown_username

The information was gained from a number of sources not one single source. The following extracts are from an IBM article on pRNG's and particularly Borland's implementation of Random.  


In most common random number generators, N is 2³² -1 (approximately 4 billion), which is the largest value that will fit into a 32-bit number. Put another way, there are at most 4 billion possible values produced by the sort of number generator encountered most often. To tip our hand a bit, this 4 billion number is not all that large.

In the end, a pseudo-random number generator is a deterministic program that produces a completely predictable series of numbers

There are only 4 billion possible places on a standard random number wheel (with many random-number generation algorithms, including linear-congruent generators; all the numbers between 0 and 4,294,967,295 are generated exactly once, then the sequence repeats). 

If you use a good 128-bit PRNG along with a truly random seed, you might hope that's good enough (although not always, it turns out; we'll discuss why in a little while).

Does a 128-bit seed solve all problems? It provides enough of a search space to rule out brute-force attacks. But other types of attacks can be waged against a generator.

I can PM you a link to the article if you wish............  I'm not sure how my post is misleading. My original numbers stated - ''a 32-bit computer is able to only process 4.2 billion, less than .0000000000000000000000000000000001% of all the possibilities'' - and unless IBM have got it wrong it still stands. Beyond that number it would simply repeat the same sequences.

NoseyBonk

The misleading bit is saying we're limited to 4.2 combos - we're not - that's simply the number of combos available in a 32-Bit DWORD (like the IBM article above says). BUT, we're not limited to 32 bits when dealing with numbers. Sure the CPU operates on a 32 bit bus but we can still deal with 64, 128, 256 etc bit sequences.

So yes - if you implement a 32-bit RNG on a 32-bit platform then it'll be limited to 4.2b combos, because the software will be written with that limit specifically in mind. However, if you implement a 256 bit RNG on a 32 bit platform then you'll cover all the posibilites for 'the deck'. Actually I think 232 bits would cover it... My feeling was that the author of the article you quoted was suggesting you could never do anything that would require more than 32 bits (on a 32-bit platform).

We musn't confuse the CPU bus width with the size of numbers we can deal with. That's why you could enable 256-bit WEP encryption on your wireless (for example).

unknown_username

The IBM article specifically relates to an actual incident where a poker room pRNG was cracked. The poker room in question used a 32 bit pRNG. 

Quote:

 

The shuffling algorithm used in the ASF software always starts with an ordered deck of cards, and then generates a sequence of random numbers used to reorder the deck. In a real deck of cards, there are 52! (approximately 2²²⁶) possible unique shuffles. Recall that the seed for a 32-bit random number generator must be a 32-bit number, meaning that there are just over 4 billion possible seeds. Since the deck is reinitialized and the generator reseeded before each shuffle, only 4 billion possible shuffles can result from this algorithm. Four billion possible shuffles is alarmingly less than 52!.

Changes have been made since the pRNG was cracked but these are in the form of improved seeding and security algorithms. 

 

NoseyBonk

In Response to Re: Why the same scenarios?:

The IBM article specifically relates to an actual incident where a poker room pRNG was cracked. The poker room in question used a 32 bit pRNG.  Quote:   The shuffling algorithm used in the ASF software always starts with an ordered deck of cards, and then generates a sequence of random numbers used to reorder the deck. In a real deck of cards, there are 52! (approximately 2 226 ) possible unique shuffles. Recall that the seed for a 32-bit random number generator must be a 32-bit number, meaning that there are just over 4 billion possible seeds. Since the deck is reinitialized and the generator reseeded before each shuffle, only 4 billion possible shuffles can result from this algorithm. Four billion possible shuffles is alarmingly less than 52!. Changes have been made since the pRNG was cracked but these are in the form of improved seeding and security algorithms.   
Posted by elsadog

Alan I've dropped you a PM.

DOHHHHHHH

Nooooooooooo don't take it to PM !!!

I was getting interested !!! I still am !!!

Is it rigged or not?????    

NoseyBonk

The 4.2b limit is perfectly valid IF, and only if, the developer has chosen to write an RNG limited to working within 32 bits.
There is nothing stopping the developer from writing an RNG based on more than 32 bits.

You certainly don't need a mega giant sized 256 bit computer like the author of that article said! LOL (and yes, I know they're not Alan's words!).

unknown_username

In Response to Re: Why the same scenarios?:

Nooooooooooo don't take it to PM !!! I was getting interested !!! I still am !!! Is it rigged or not?????    
Posted by DOHHHHHHH

Nope. sorry it's all gone to PM's now so you'll never know. However, tickets can be obtained if you PM me your credit card details.

No it's not rigged BTW.

unknown_username

In Response to Re: Why the same scenarios?:

Im confused to say the least... you state there are, lets call it a "bazillion" deck possibilites and that computers cant handle this number.  Surely they dont need to!  They only need to generate a random number between 1-52, this relates to a card and then it selects another one.  The random order in which it does this means it can create a shuffled deck, i.e. one of the bazillion possibilites. The only issue I can see is to make the generator sufficiently secure so that it cant be hacked.
Posted by Patching99

I thought that too. Apparently that doesn't work. A computer can't pick it can only do what it is told to do, therefore it needs to hold every sequence possible from a deck in order to then choose one at random. The computer has to be told which one to choose because it can't choose itself. Ideally a random event would then be used as a trigger to give a random choice from the whole selection. Coming up with a random event is almost impossible and so for the sake of practicality and security the trigger is taken from something that can't easily be determined. In the early days of on line poker they used the site clock broken down into milliseconds to determine which sequence to use at any given time. Unfortunately because the pRNG couldn't handle all possible sequences (only about 4 billion) it was possible to determine from a small number of hands what the time trigger was. This was demonstrated and things had to change from that point on. The systems now are more sophisticated and the pRNG's can handle more sequencies. But additional programmes were introduced to prevent fraudulent activities. It is those additional programmes that are in question.

Think about what you wrote. If the server had to choose one card from 52 it would take a proficient hacker a matter of minutes to crack the draw sequence of every card dealt.

NoseyBonk

In Response to Re: Why the same scenarios?:

Im confused to say the least... you state there are, lets call it a "bazillion" deck possibilites and that computers cant handle this number.  Surely they dont need to!  They only need to generate a random number between 1-52, this relates to a card and then it selects another one.  The random order in which it does this means it can create a shuffled deck, i.e. one of the bazillion possibilites. The only issue I can see is to make the generator sufficiently secure so that it cant be hacked.
Posted by Patching99

Well in my posts I was addressing a specific point that dealing with those large numbers isn't a problem, but yes I agree with you there. Pick 1 of 52, 1 of 51, 1 of 50 etc should in my mind do the trick... Can't see why not but then I have had quite a few 1664's.... lol