RNG?

BlackFish3

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT:

For every individual card that is dealt, why dont they just do a random 1-52 draw???? Like pick a number between 1 and 52, and that card is dealt. So for a 6 max game, there would be 17 "random draws" like the lottery, for the 6 sets of hole cards and 5 community cards? Shall I get my application form in for dragons den? ........
Posted by DOHHHHHHH

I think that's basically what is done (although not a number between 1-52), but the debate is on how the number is picked.
As for the dealing, I assume once the order of the cards has been sorted by ordering the numbers that have been randomly chosen, that the game is dealt like it would be in live poker. There is only a shuffle preflop on sky.

unknown_username

The question off how the cards are distributed to the table isn't clear. One assumes that the cards are dealt, in chosen order, to the table depending on button position. This, as far as I can tell isn't made clear or even stated anywhere.

The RNG may have produced a randomised deck, which at that point is now a known sequence, but how it is delivered is just as important. No checks are undertaken with regard to this as far as I can see in any certificate of compliance.

DannyMcs

One assumes that the cards are dealt, in chosen order, to the table depending on button position. This, as far as I can tell isn't made clear or even stated anywhere.

I imagine this isn't made clear because anyone with a lick of sense would assume the same. First card goes to the SB and round from there. How else would they do it?

BlackFish3

elsa, just a personal question... why does this whole thing bother you so much? You seem really worried about the RNG being cracked/inaccurate etc. When really it presents practically random deals and is so unlikely to be hacked. Or are you just interested in the inner working of the whole thing out of curiosity?

unknown_username

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT:

elsa, just a personal question... why does this whole thing bother you so much? You seem really worried about the RNG being cracked/inaccurate etc. When really it presents practically random deals and is so unlikely to be hacked. Or are you just interested in the inner working of the whole thing out of curiosity?
Posted by BlackFish3

LOL ..... It doesn't bother me one bit and I certainly don't worry about the RNG being cracked or inaccurate but I don't automatically believe everything I'm told either. 

What does bother me is that a lot of people have made posts on this forum relating to whether or not the game is rigged or fixed or whatever term they decide to use. Some times they rant about it because they have had a bad run of cards and sometimes they attempt to put their thoughts forward in a polite and considered manner. Too often they are met with ridicule and the standard statements intended to rebuff their outrageous suggestion that anything could be wrong. 

I decided to have a look at the ''why everthing must be alright because ...........'' statements made so often and see how they stack up to a bit of scrutiny. 

unknown_username

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT:

I imagine this isn't made clear because anyone with a lick of sense would assume the same. First card goes to the SB and round from there. How else would they do it?
Posted by DannyMcs

Not possessing a lick of sense I decided to ask the people who should know. I sent an email to the Alderney Gambling Commission and asked them. 

I've just received their reply .............. they don't know! They suggest I ask the poker site!

unknown_username

A number of emails have been exchanged on the above subject with the Deputy Licensing Officer at the Alderney GC. They are stonewalling this and seem to be either unable or unwilling to answer my questions relating to what happens post shuffle and what checks they undertake. 

I've now asked them to confirm that either,checks are undertaken which satisfy the fair and unbiased distribution of shuffled cards to the table, or alternatively, that no checks are undertaken. 

I'm not holding my breath on this one.

loonytoons

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT:

A number of emails have been exchanged on the above subject with the Deputy Licensing Officer at the Alderney GC. They are stonewalling this and seem to be either unable or unwilling to answer my questions relating to what happens post shuffle and what checks they undertake.  I've now asked them to confirm that either,checks are undertaken which satisfy the fair and unbiased distribution of shuffled cards to the table, or alternatively, that no checks are undertaken.  I'm not holding my breath on this one.
Posted by elsadog

Who are the alderney gc? what qualifications do its members hold that ensures they are capable of scrutinising the sites (i know i couldnt lol) and who regulates them? and who pays their wages/expenses? im just interested! anyone know?

unknown_username

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT:

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT : Who are the alderney gc? what qualifications do its members hold that ensures they are capable of scrutinising the sites (i know i couldnt lol) and who regulates them? and who pays their wages/expenses? im just interested! anyone know?
Posted by loonytoons

They are basically a licensing authority to run your on line gambling site from Alderney. They charge a substantial fee for the licence. As far as I can tell nobody regulates them. They also licence PS among others.

One interesting point is that you couldn't take them to court in Britain as the jurisdiction is the Court of Alderney...... Nice!

NODEAL

Ok   now that that is sorted,    can we now deal with the fact that general relativity states that time is experienced differently depending on where one is and how fast one is traveling in the universe,  If someone sent out a pulse a nano second after the big bang and the at one second intervals due to the accelerated expansion of the universe we would get the signals at more than 100,000 year intervals...  lol

soo   what this has to do with rng I realy dont know..   lol     reality sucks cos we all occupy different space time locations....   ohhh   im all mixed up...    Im just gonna trust its all ok.

Sorted

IRISHROVER

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT:

You're wasting your time mate. None of these organisations are going to give you details on how sky deal cards once the deck has been selected. If they do know, which I very much doubt, they would never tell a random punter.
Posted by DannyMcs

Lets cut to the core of the question here guys ,
that is :

How difficult would it be for any online poker site,
to  deal cards in a biased way  ,
whether it be to create action or favour selected players ?

unknown_username

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT:

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT : Lets cut to the core of the question here guys , that is : How difficult would it be for any online poker site, to  deal cards in a biased way  , whether it be to create action or favour selected players ?
Posted by IRISHROVER

I don't think they favour selected players. That wouldn't really make much sense and there's nothing to gain by doing it. I've heard it said that they would have role models for players to aspire to but that would happen naturally, so no point.

If cards were to be delivered in a biased way there would have to be a gain. More pertinent seems to be the equalising of ability. New players get a taste of success - hook, line and sinker. Their money lasts longer - more rake. Small wins for the majority would certainly maximise the rake and keep the limited amount of cash available recycling for longer. Everyone winning or losing a little bit would be ideal. Big winners and big losers is bad for business. The ideal business model would be everyone losing a little over the long term with the only winner being the rake.

I don't know how difficult it would be to bias the deal. The RNG would be functioning correctly so any checks would show all is well. This would satisfy any checks on randomness and card frequency. At today's level of programming and software I would imagine it is possible to bias the delivery to achieve whatever result they wished. 

Looking at the advertising from TST Global is very interesting, (they are the parent company of the people that perform the RNG checks), TST design the software that runs alongside the RNG to deliver the game.

My problem is that if there is nothing to hide why don't the governing bodies identify these checks as part of the certificate of conformity. They make a big show of presenting an RNG certificate and yet leave a gaping hole in terms of player assurance.

If it looks dodgy, feels dodgy and smells dodgy, it likely is dodgy.

I've had no luck in emailing the company that provides the RNG certificates - they bounce any enquiries straight back. I have obtained the name of the Chief Technical Officer of the parent company and I've emailed him. My question is very simple. I haven't asked what happens, I've simply asked if they check what happens. So, no secrets need to be given out - just a simple Yes or No. I'll post any reply I get on here .......... I'm not hopeful.

IRISHROVER

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT:

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT : I don't think they favour selected players. That wouldn't really make much sense and there's nothing to gain by doing it. I've heard it said that they would have role models for players to aspire to but that would happen naturally, so no point. If cards were to be delivered in a biased way there would have to be a gain. More pertinent seems to be the equalising of ability. New players get a taste of success - hook, line and sinker. . Their money lasts longer - more rake. Small wins for the majority would certainly maximise the rake and keep the limited amount of cash available recycling for longer. Everyone winning or losing a little bit would be ideal. Big winners and big losers is bad for business. The ideal business model would be everyone losing a little over the long term with the only winner being the rakeI don't know how difficult it would be to bias the deal. The RNG would be functioning correctly so any checks would show all is well. This would satisfy any checks on randomness and card frequency. At today's level of programming and software I would imagine it is possible to bias the delivery to achieve whatever result they wished.  Looking at the advertising from TST Global is very interesting, (they are the parent company of the people that perform the RNG checks), TST design the software that runs alongside the RNG to deliver the game. My problem is that if there is nothing to hide why don't the governing bodies identify these checks as part of the certificate of conformity. They make a big show of presenting an RNG certificate and yet leave a gaping hole in terms of player assurance. If it looks dodgy, feels dodgy and smells dodgy, it likely is dodgy. I've had no luck in emailing the company that provides the RNG certificates - they bounce any enquiries straight back. I have obtained the name of the Chief Technical Officer of the parent company and I've emailed him. My question is very simple. I haven't asked what happens, I've simply asked if they check what happens. So, no secrets need to be given out - just a simple Yes or No. I'll post any reply I get on here .......... I'm not hopeful.
Posted by elsadog

Well now what i highlighted above is definitely my field ,
why ?

Because every player i play against on skypoker in s&g & mtt games ,
i sharkscope them ( search for their stats for newbies ) &
without doubt they are consistently big losing players & consistently big winning players on skypoker .

Now i would have at least a few thousand searches done on players in skypoker
over the past 3 years .

So the above theory for another poker site may add up but not for this one .
Note this is my 1st real comment in this thread i have made
 & take it as the unbiased truth on my
part .

unknown_username

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT:

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT : Well now what i highlighted above is definitely my field , why ? Because every player i play against on skypoker in s&g & mtt games , i sharkscope them ( search for their stats for newbies ) & without doubt they are consistently big losing players & consistently big winning players on skypoker . Now i would have at least a few thousand searches done on players in skypoker over the past 3 years . So the above theory for another poker site may add up but not for this one . Note this is my 1st real comment in this thread i have made  & take it as the unbiased truth on my part .
Posted by IRISHROVER

Don't quite understand what you are saying there Denis. Are you saying that they are all winning players on Sky? A few thousand of them and they are all winning? Have I misread what you mean?

Edit:   Oh I see, I get it ...... you mean they are either big winners or big losers - is that right?

IRISHROVER

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT:

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT : Don't quite understand what you are saying there Denis. Are you saying that they are all winning players on Sky? A few thousand of them and they are all winning? Have I misread what you mean? Edit:   Oh I see, I get it ...... you mean they are either big winners or big losers - is that right?
Posted by elsadog

Yes a balanced  mixture of both winning players and a balance mixture of losing player .
1st thing i look at when i check stats on a player is their playing life graph since
they have joined skypoker ,
from this i move in deeper if necessary in to their stats .
Plus i constantly update info on all opponents .
But as said  this don't add up on this site />

Everyone winning or losing a little bit would be ideal. Big winners and big losers is bad for business. The ideal business model would be everyone losing a little over the long term with the only winner being the rake.

unknown_username

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT:

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT : Yes a balanced  mixture of both winning players and a balance mixture of losing player . 1st thing i look at when i check stats on a player is their playing life graph since they have joined skypoker , from this i move in deeper if necessary in to their stats . Plus i constantly update info on all opponents . But as said  this don't add up on this site /> Everyone winning or losing a little bit would be ideal. Big winners and big losers is bad for business. The ideal business model would be everyone losing a little over the long term with the only winner being the rake.
Posted by IRISHROVER

The IDEAL business model ........ but unrealistic.

I would have thought there would be a small percentage of winning players and the rest spread across the remaining areas - some making small profit - majority break even and small losses and a small minority of big losers. The reason is common sense because very few big losers could afford to continue playing at a rate of big losses. 

I think it's a bit more subtle than just winners and losers. Winners will always win and losers will always lose - it's how long it takes that is the important factor. If the winners take 20% longer to win x amount, and the losers take 20% longer to lose x amount, the rake increases by 20% - the winners still win and the losers still lose but the rake increases.

Sharkscope stats won't highlight that - I doubt any stats could.

unknown_username

If you trawl through this subject the general consensus is that over a sustained period 15% win, 70% break even or lose and 15% lose big time.

Some estimates say that as few as 3% are killing the game. Most of this is just guesswork though.

Sharkscopers gives this data:

Network% Profitable PlayersMerge44%Cereus39%B2B33%Cake32%Party32%Ongame.it31%Everest31%Sky31%PKR30%PokerStars.it29%IPN28%SvenskaSpel27%PokerStars27%Pacific27%PokerClub26%Betfair25%Ongame25%FullTilt25%iPoker24%CryptoLogic23%Peoples22%iPoker.it20%

If this is correct then this is a huge figure. 

Obviously they can't all be big winners so
most are winning a small amount. 

The remaining % are break even and losing
players. 

That pretty much falls in with what I said above
that the profit/loss graph would be very flat.

IRISHROVER

  We will have to agree to differ on this bud .
 
  What i see is a lot of players quiet quickly
 either having a winning graph or losing graph .

 In answer to how do big losing players afford to continue ?
 
 why they still play is most likely it is a cheap nights entertainment ,
 over time this adds to a big loss .
 But entertainment costs like , pub , meals or other activities would cost the same
 or most likely a lot more over time  .

unknown_username

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT:

  We will have to agree to differ on this bud .     What i see is a lot of players quiet quickly  either having a winning graph or losing graph .  In answer to how do big losing players afford to continue ?    why they still play is most likely it is a cheap nights entertainment ,  over time this adds to a big loss .  But entertainment costs like , pub , meals or other activities would cost the same  or most likely a lot more over time  .
Posted by IRISHROVER

The above figures are not mine. They were taken from sharkscope's own site. If an average of 30% are winning only a small percentage of them will win big. The remaining 70% will be spread across small losses down to the big losers. I think common sense should tell you that the majority of players will fall into the mid-ground of winning a little and losing a little.

Your game is DYM's so I assume most of your data is based on DYM's ......... I'm sure that would skew your data from the overall picture.

Still we can agree to differ

DeucesLive

that's perfectly normal though surely... most poker players are competent, no more (regardless of what they think of their own ability). Most people have a fundamental understanding of the game, then an ability to possibly read players well, read textures, have good bet sizing- but the majority of that skill is then offset by an inability to avoid tilt, inability to play at maximum level consistently, love of gambling occasionally etc. This leaves most people in that middle bracket of roughly breaking even- that's nothing to do with RNG.

A select few have got fantastic ability, concentration and dedication to make a constant profit- and they do. A similarly small amount couldn't care less about poker and just chuck money about for a bit of fun until they go bust, then repeat the next day/week/month etc. They make a sizeable loss.

That's normal poker- I don't understand the correlation with biased RNG.

Tikay10

You seem to be forgetting something when you keep relying on Sharkscope stats.

They do not include Cash. The online poker world does not revolve around Tourneys & SNG variants, far from it.

On most sites, Cash games amount to about 70% of the total traffic.

unknown_username

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT:

that's perfectly normal though surely... most poker players are competent, no more (regardless of what they think of their own ability). Most people have a fundamental understanding of the game, then an ability to possibly read players well, read textures, have good bet sizing- but the majority of that skill is then offset by an inability to avoid tilt, inability to play at maximum level consistently, love of gambling occasionally etc. This leaves most people in that middle bracket of roughly breaking even- that's nothing to do with RNG. A select few have got fantastic ability, concentration and dedication to make a constant profit- and they do. A similarly small amount couldn't care less about poker and just chuck money about for a bit of fun until they go bust, then repeat the next day/week/month etc. They make a sizeable loss. That's normal poker- I don't understand the correlation with biased RNG.
Posted by DeucesLive

Who said the RNG was biased? 

The rest of what you say would make sense if, considering the huge turnover of players throughout poker, all new players came into the game already endowed with the skills you mention. And assuming also that all players improve - some do - some just don't.

unknown_username

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT:

You seem to be forgetting something when you keep relying on Sharkscope stats. They do not include Cash. The online poker world does not revolve around Tourneys & SNG variants, far from it. On most sites, Cash games amount to about 70% of the total traffic.
Posted by Tikay10

Very true. 

Sharkscope was quoted based on a small selection. I merely countered that by taking the big picture according to Sharkscope.

IRISHROVER

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT:

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT : The above figures are not mine. They were taken from sharkscope's own site. If an average of 30% are winning only a small percentage of them will win big. The remaining 70% will be spread across small losses down to the big losers. I think common sense should tell you that the majority of players will fall into the mid-ground of winning a little and losing a little. Your game is DYM's so I assume most of your data is based on DYM's ......... I'm sure that would skew your data from the overall picture. Still we can agree to differ
Posted by elsadog

Just to clarify on above high-light ,
i checked my overall stats on this and deepstack mtt games come up
as my most frequently played games .

Tikay10

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT:

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT : Very true.  Sharkscope was quoted based on a small selection. I merely countered that by taking the big picture according to Sharkscope.
Posted by elsadog

Yes - the big picture excluding Cash, which makes up by far the majority of Online Poker Action.

And, FWIW, MTT's & SNG's are much higher variance than cash. Meaning, more people lose more money at them than they ever would in Cash.

Anyway, I'll leave you guys to it. 

unknown_username

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT:

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT : Just to clarify on above high-light , i checked my overall stats on this and deepstack mtt games come up as my most frequently played games .
Posted by IRISHROVER

They may show them as your most frequent games but deepstack's have a relatively small nucleus of players on Sky. I would have thought that the stats you quoted on other people would reflect the DYM games as they have a far broader player base.

Anyway as tikay pointed out S/Scope stats don't include cash games. Whether the figure would be different I don't know. It's generally accepted that mtt's have greater variance than cash so I'd have to think about what effect cash would have on the overall % of winners to losers.

edit: he beat me to it

unknown_username

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT:

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT : Yes - the big picture excluding Cash, which makes up by far the majority of Online Poker Action. And, FWIW, MTT's & SNG's are much higher variance than cash. Meaning, more people lose more money at them than they ever would in Cash. Anyway, I'll leave you guys to it. 
Posted by Tikay10

That would put the winners % up then which flattens the profile of winners to losers.......... A small % making good profits a small % losing lots and a huge % in the middle winning a bit and losing a bit.

Tikay10

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT:

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT : That would put the winners % up then which flattens the profile of winners to losers.......... A small % making good profits a small % losing lots and a huge % in the middle winning a bit and losing a bit.
Posted by elsadog

That's about the top & bottom of it.

On Sky Poker, PokerStars, FT, & Live, in the UK, Europe, Asia, the Americas, the world over.

It was always so. 

unknown_username

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT:

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT : That's about the top & bottom of it. On Sky Poker, PokerStars, FT, & Live, in the UK, Europe, Asia, the Americas, the world over. It was always so.  
Posted by Tikay10

There's a very interesting article on this subject by Alex Rousso.

From a database of 41,000 players who had played a minimum of 5,000 hands only 721 were winners. He extrapolates this out to only 1% of players overall being long term big winners. He goes on to say that the rest are not all losers, and that 33% of all players are in credit to one degree or another. With the remaining 66% losing to one degree or another and that a large number of losers would be break even or winners were it not for the rake.

It follows that a large number of winners would not be so, without rakeback deals.

unknown_username

In Response to Re: RNG ( on all poker sites ) A CIVIL DISCUSSION IN GENERAL CHAT / please leave this here mod4 / bernie / & skyrich:

My main concerns with RNG's (in general) are anti collusion software algorythms.  I have gone into detail in depth elsewhere so I shall not repeat it in such detail here.  Many online poker sites intoduced anti collusion algorythms following well documented public scandals.  The effect of this software basically levels the playing field to a degree, preventing any individual winning a disproportiante percentage of the time.  This software is described somewhat as a safeguard as it potentially would prevent the actions seen in scandals past.  I'm trying to find a quality source article to attach.  I dont want to get onto too much detail as I dont wish to "muddy the water". So as I say My main concerns and questions surround the effects that these algorythms, and in a more general sense player bots, have upon psuedo RNG's.  Please may I request that if anyone doubts that these algorythms or player bots exhist that they do a little research.
Posted by AMYBR

Can you elaborate?