All Categories› Poker› Area 51

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.

Sky Poker forums will be temporarily unavailable from 11pm Wednesday July 25th.
Sky Poker Forums is upgrading its look! Stay tuned for the big reveal!

Integrity of Online Poker sites.

124»

Comments

  • djblacke04djblacke04
    edited January 2011


    lol...

    just gets better and better.....

    real head office is a nice house in a beautiful suburb,and it looks real nice, has 8 employees,turned over less than 200,000 pounds.....is a whole owned compnay of gaming labs.


    this is good tho they test for

    Actual and theoretical return to player.....


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • unknown_usernameunknown_username
    edited January 2011
    In Response to Re: Integrity of Online Poker sites.:
    lol... just gets better and better..... real head office is a nice house in a beautiful suburb,and it looks real nice, has 8 employees,turned over less than 200,000 pounds.....is a whole owned compnay of gaming labs. www.gaminglabs.com this is good tho they test for Actual and theoretical return to player.....
    Posted by djblacke04

    I know they are paid by Alderney, and the poker sites pay their bills, but whatever they are charging ....... it's not enough!




    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • djblacke04djblacke04
    edited January 2011


    so lets just put this into perspective...

    online poker is a multi billion pound industry....

    is licensed by 3 people in alderney and certified by  2 people at tst....

    Alderney is a self regulating island,controlled by 1 person....

    and the company that certifies that these programs/software are fair are based in a nice house...

    sounds great to me....
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • unknown_usernameunknown_username
    edited January 2011
    Me too ........ I'll buy it!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • NODEALNODEAL
    edited January 2011
    Whats wrong with believing there are conpiracies?   its the only logical way to think,    To put down a persons scepticism is just plain stupid.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • unknown_usernameunknown_username
    edited January 2011
    A few extracts from the TST website .....

    At the heart of every software RNG is an algorithm. Software RNG's are also known as PSEUDO-RNG's because these algorithms generate outcomes that only appear to be random.

    Scaling often wreaks havoc with the quality of the RNGs output, causing biases to particular outcomes.


    So it would appear that these are not randomly selected cards but pre-determined ''outcomes'' which themselves are randomly selected, and this is apparently designed to stop anyone cracking the RNG. 

    Personally I'd prefer random cards, not random outcomes, and take my chances on someone cracking the RNG.


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AMYBRAMYBR
    edited January 2011
    Wow, this post really has seemed to have deteriated into jibberish.

    There were some very valid posts earlier on but they seem to be wasted now.  Peoples arrogance and blinkered perception can be very impessive.

    Good luck and all the best to everyone out there.


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • NODEALNODEAL
    edited January 2011
    In Response to Re: Integrity of Online Poker sites.:
    Wow, this post really has seemed to have deteriated into jibberish. There were some very valid posts earlier on but they seem to be wasted now.  Peoples arrogance and blinkered perception can be very impessive. Good luck and all the best to everyone out there.
    Posted by AMYBR
    For a general example of what is commonly termed as a superiority complex and a nice example of arrogance see above post,       I hope he/she recovers soon.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AMYBRAMYBR
    edited January 2011
    Think whatever you like NO DEAL, a fair bit of the gibberish came from you so i'll be the "arrogant guy " and have a "superiority complex" if you like. 

    All my posts have been fairly spoken and non confrontational up until the last one.  When a person is trying to get others peoples views its kind of annoying to hear about birds speed velocity and the quantum elements of double realities based on humun thinking.   Its incredibly frustrating that what was quite an informed discussion devolved into the posts you were putting up. 

    So I'll be the things that you called me, you just be what you are.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • NODEALNODEAL
    edited January 2011
    In Response to Re: Integrity of Online Poker sites.:
    Think whatever you like NO DEAL, a fair bit of the gibberish came from you so i'll be the "arrogant guy " and have a "superiority complex" if you like.  All my posts have been fairly spoken and non confrontational up until the last one.  When a person is trying to get others peoples views its kind of annoying to hear about birds speed velocity and the quantum elements of double realities based on humun thinking.   Its incredibly frustrating that what was quite an informed discussion devolved into the posts you were putting up.  So I'll be the things that you called me, you just be what you are.
    Posted by AMYBR
    LOl   double realities,    I say one thing,  you quote sumink completely different,    classic

    Dont take it personally,    I was honestly execting that you might have looked at my post,    had a laugh and experienced a dohhh  moment.    we have all done it,    No big deal.

    Normal for me is.....  you read my theory,    bash it to bits if it holds no weight,   I blush and say    well   it was just a theory,    or there might be some truth in it.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AMYBRAMYBR
    edited January 2011
    Moving on....

    I had this on my mind alot at the casino last night, really trying to think it through and run comparisons.  Had a 5 hour session and thankfully just about came home in profit.  There were 3 hands that i kept a note of though that I'm sure I'd of played differently on line, lost and classed as bad beats.

    1st one was:  (6 handed table with 2 uber stack maniacs.  Blinds £3/£6)
     Call a raise from the maniac with A5o, not my preferred play but pot control was the key with these two uber stacks (round £1400) flop comes 3 5 9 rainbow.  Call a pot sized bullet to re assess the turn Turn comes A.  Quite happy now as I put him on air on the flop.  Call a pot sized bet on the turn.  River falls 6 (359A6)  Guy looks as smug as Christmas and shoves his stack 1200ish into 240ish  I have 500 behind. Mull it over and fold the 2 pair, he shows 74 for the rivered gut shot straight. Online I think I make a crying call or most likely shove the turn, then F and blind the bad beat.  Playing live, the mechanics of the hand were different.

    2nd:  Simpler scenario.  Involved with a rock and a maniac.  I limp UTG with Q's.  Rock Min raises, Maniac pumps it big I call, Rock Jams.  I fold Q's, showdown is the A's (R) vs A10 (M). Feel good as laid down a hard hand, but pretty sure i dont lay it down online, simply because I wouldnt have had the time to think it through and have such a good feel for the hand and players.  So again I would have perceived this as an online bad beat or cold deck.

    3rd.  Came the very next hand.  Maniac one raises, Maniac 2 reraise, I jam with J's.  Oddly Rock calls with 7's, both Maniacs fold, Rock flps a set.  Again if this was an online hand, when i'd just put down the Q's I might need to have borrowed NODEALS cookies and ladyfriend :)

    I'm pretty sure I'd of last big on all 3 online.  So maybe (just theorising) some of the bad beats we add to our catologue are hands that we would infact lay down live.  But because of the short time that we have to make decisions and the lack of feel for a hand we call in spots where we know we ought not to.  Pretty often I know (online) what cards my opponent hold but the ACTUAL odds of them truely holding them at frequency we see is either a flip or less, which results in the call.

    But as I say the frequencey that they hold those hands, where yours is just 2nd best, if far too high.  Not to mention the frequency of quads etc that were discussed earlier.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • unknown_usernameunknown_username
    edited January 2011
    Most people believe that the RNG is infallible and produces random cards in a split second from 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,404,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 possible combinations. As I understand it this isn't possible because even a 128-bit system(most sites run a 64 bit system) which can handle 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,770,000,000 combinations is still only capable of handling .0000000000001% of all possible deck sequences. A software code has to included to compensate for the shortfall. The problem with this scenario is that skilled players would dominate the game (this was the case in the early days of on-line poker) because the RNG cannot produce sufficient hands. To overcome this shortfall the second generation of RNG's used a constant shuffle technique which did not predetermine the deck. This soon became undesirable as the outcome was less than equitable since one person could theoretically win pot after pot regardless of their starting hands. One site that used this was pokerroom.com (now closed). This technique also did not produce enough random hands and was considered unfair to all players. The present generation software used in online poker today has far more sophistication in seeding the random number using white noise generators and 64-bit hierarchy to produce a larger variety of hands and ( here's the contentious bit) it has a mathmatical function known as 'Equitable Distribution' added. This new technique was brought in at the insistence of several Licensing Organisations in order to produce fair outcomes for all players. Multiple subroutines and sub-programs are written into the online poker software in an attempt to produce a ‘fair’ game within the limitations of the RNG's ability.
    This all a bit difficult to get one's head round I know, but as I understand it, all players are given a fair game based on predetermined outcomes from a pseudo-random RNG. That doesn't mean it's random and depending on your interpretation of the word fair, it doesn't necessarily mean it's 'fair' .... just 'fair to all.'
    And 'fair to all' makes very good business sense.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • WHOAMI196WHOAMI196
    edited January 2011
    In Response to Re: Integrity of Online Poker sites.:
    Most people believe that the RNG is infallible and produces random cards in a split second from 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,404,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 possible combinations. As I understand it this isn't possible because even a 128-bit system which can handle 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,770,000,000 combinations is still only capable of handling .0000000000001% of all possible deck sequences. A software code has to included to compensate for the shortfall. The problem with this scenario is that skilled players would dominate the game (this was the case in the early days of on-line poker) because the RNG cannot produce sufficient hands. To overcome this shortfall the second generation of RNG's used a constant shuffle technique which did not  predetermine the deck.  This soon became undesirable as the outcome was less than  equitable since one person could theoretically win pot after pot regardless of their  starting hands.  One site that used this was pokerroom.com (now closed). This technique also did not produce enough random hands and was considered unfair to all players. The present generation software used in online poker today has far more sophistication in seeding the random number using white noise generators and 64-bit hierarchy to produce a larger variety of hands and ( here's the contentious bit) it has a mathmatical function known as 'Equitable Distribution' added. This new technique was brought in at the insistence of several Licensing Organisations in order to produce fair outcomes for all players. Multiple  subroutines and sub-programs are written into the online poker software in an  attempt to produce a ‘fair’ game within the limitations of the RNG's ability. This all a bit difficult to get one's head round I know, but as I understand it, all players are given a fair game based on predetermined outcomes from a pseudo-random RNG. That doesn't mean it's random and depending on your interpretation of the word fair, it doesn't necessarily mean it's 'fair' .... just 'fair to all.' And 'fair to all' makes very good business sense.
    Posted by elsadog
    Alrite my main man ELSA  we go way back DOG lol, HTF can your brain work and be ast to write all that at early o clock ...i think il read it for a laugh tomoro
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • unknown_usernameunknown_username
    edited January 2011
    In Response to Re: Integrity of Online Poker sites.:
    In Response to Re: Integrity of Online Poker sites. : Alrite my main man ELSA   we go way back DOG lol , HTF can your brain work and be ast to write all that at early o clock ...i think il read it for a laugh tomoro
    Posted by WHOAMI196

    I'd just finished a tournament I'd been playing (elsewhere) for close on 6 hours so my brain was nicely warmed up. You posted more 'unusual outcomes' in your thread than I saw in 6 hours play last night and about 5 hours the previous night combined. 11 hours play 2 nice cashes and hardly a miracle river card to be seen. The real miracle was that I had AA 3 times and they all held - I even slow played them for a huge pot, and they held up. That hasn't happened on here since Tikay was a lad.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GaryQQQGaryQQQ
    edited January 2011
    In Response to Re: Integrity of Online Poker sites.:
    The real miracle was that I had AA 3 times and they all held - I even slow played them for a huge pot, and they held up. That hasn't happened on here since Tikay was a lad.
    Posted by elsadog
    Aces held here in a 4 way all-in pot.

    I can assure you that Tikay had at least reached puberty when this hand was dealt.
    PlayerActionCardsAmountPotBalance
    a Small blind  10.00 10.00 1820.00
    b Big blind  20.00 30.00 3050.00
      Your hole cards
    • A
    • A
    		     
     Fold     
    cRaise  40.00 70.00 160.00
    GaryQQQ Raise  100.00 170.00 2400.00
    a Raise  440.00 610.00 1380.00
    b Call  430.00 1040.00 2620.00
    cAll-in  160.00 1200.00 0.00
    GaryQQQ All-in  2400.00 3600.00 0.00
    a All-in  1380.00 4980.00 0.00
    b Call  2050.00 7030.00 570.00
    a Show
    • 6
    • A
    		   
    b Show
    • K
    • 10
    		   
    c Show
    • K
    • 9
    		   
    GaryQQQ Show
    • A
    • A
    		   
    Flop
       
    • 3
    • J
    • 2
    		     
    Turn
       
    • Q
    		     
    River
       
    • 5
    		     
    GaryQQQ Win Pair of Aces 7030.00  7030.00
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • unknown_usernameunknown_username
    edited January 2011
    Looks like the usual crapshoot to me - not exactly slow playing them. Well done though you managed to hit the 5% shot - Aces holding up! Whatever next?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • IRISHROVERIRISHROVER
    edited January 2011
    In Response to Re: Integrity of Online Poker sites.:
    Most people believe that the RNG is infallible and produces random cards in a split second from 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,404,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000, 000,000 possible combinations. As I understand it this isn't possible because even a 128-bit system(most sites run a 64 bit system) which can handle 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,770,000,000 combinations is still only capable of handling .0000000000001% of all possible deck sequences. A software code has to included to compensate for the shortfall. The problem with this scenario is that skilled players would dominate the game (this was the case in the early days of on-line poker) because the RNG cannot produce sufficient hands. To overcome this shortfall the second generation of RNG's used a constant shuffle technique which did not  predetermine the deck.  This soon became undesirable as the outcome was less than  equitable since one person could theoretically win pot after pot regardless of their  starting hands.  One site that used this was pokerroom.com (now closed). This technique also did not produce enough random hands and was considered unfair to all players. The present generation software used in online poker today has far more sophistication in seeding the random number using white noise generators and 64-bit hierarchy to produce a larger variety of hands and ( here's the contentious bit) it has a mathmatical function known as 'Equitable Distribution' added. This new technique was brought in at the insistence of several Licensing Organisations in order to produce fair outcomes for all players. Multiple  subroutines and sub-programs are written into the online poker software in an  attempt to produce a ‘fair’ game within the limitations of the RNG's ability. This all a bit difficult to get one's head round I know, but as I understand it, all players are given a fair game based on predetermined outcomes from a pseudo-random RNG. That doesn't mean it's random and depending on your interpretation of the word fair, it doesn't necessarily mean it's 'fair' .... just 'fair to all.' And 'fair to all' makes very good business sense.
    Posted by elsadog
    I MUST SAY I LOVE THE WAY YOU EXPLAIN THIS ,
    WD ALAN .

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.