is there a fix

bludreid11

ive never really been a believer that the RNG is fixed however,it seems that most complaints come from the "bad beats" that happen late in any tourney.
 3x in my last tournies, i was within the last 10 before the cash, and it seems that the "big stack " wins
or in most cases the short stack loses.
SO if you think there is a fix,i think thats where it would be.
ITS NOT THE WINNING BUT CASHING.
if the cash is last 20, and your within the last 10/15 before the cash, thats where we need to look.
So make a note the next time you get knocked out with the best hand, how far you were from the cash,and lets see if there is a pattern

THIS SHOULD BE AN OBJECTIVE SCRUTINY OF THE RNG AND THEREFOR TELL US IF THERE IS ANYTHING UNTOWARDS GOING ON

unknown_username

Not really

Let's say there are 20 places paying and 30 left. It stands to reason that the majority of the casualties will be from the bottom 10 players. At the pre-bubble period the players most likely to go all in are the shortstacks. The players most likely to call them will be the biggest stacks. Some big stacks will lose and not be overly damaged and some will win and therefore take out the shortstack.

I think if you really analyse what happens in this period the last ten places to fall will be made up of mostly shortstacks and some midstacks. It is quite rare for a big stack to go out unless two bigstacks clash.

It's common sense really and not an indication of anything untoward.

bludreid11

In Response to Re: is there a fix:

Not really Let's say there are 20 places paying and 30 left. It stands to reason that the majority of the casualties will be from the bottom 10 players. At the pre-bubble period the players most likely to go all in are the shortstacks. The players most likely to call them will be the biggest stacks. Some big stacks will lose and not be overly damaged and some will win and therefore take out the shortstack. I think if you really analyse what happens in this period the last ten places to fall will be made up of mostly shortstacks and some midstacks. It is quite rare for a big stack to go out unless two bigstacks clash. It's common sense really and not an indication of anything untoward.
Posted by elsadog

i wholeheartedly agree wth your summation of the situations at that time of any tourney, however what i was asking was at that point of any tourney, how many people with the best hands going into a hand lose.
just to see IF there is any bias. you will always get "bad beats" throughout the game,i just wonder if it happens more at the end of a tourney ??????

DAVEYZZ

the old "big stack wins so its fixed" argument does not hold up.

a big stack wins at the end of a tourny because they dont go in with anything less than premium hands or because they call a shorty for 2 or 3 bb's and even then its usually a 50/50 is race....

for every one claiming the big stack always wins you will always get someone claiming its the short stack that "always" wins...gl,dave

bigal36903

ITS ALL RIGGED I TELL YA

BLACK_MASS

In Response to Re: is there a fix:

Not really Let's say there are 20 places paying and 30 left. It stands to reason that the majority of the casualties will be from the bottom 10 players. At the pre-bubble period the players most likely to go all in are the shortstacks. The players most likely to call them will be the biggest stacks. Some big stacks will lose and not be overly damaged and some will win and therefore take out the shortstack. I think if you really analyse what happens in this period the last ten places to fall will be made up of mostly shortstacks and some midstacks. It is quite rare for a big stack to go out unless two bigstacks clash. It's common sense really and not an indication of anything untoward.
Posted by elsadog

+1 yes to this ! Nobody in their right mind would ever see fit to criticise the RNG !
Keep poking away stabber and your day will come when " The Gods " see fit. ( They are not rigged either,  they are proper, honest Gods, none of your Fantasyland or foreign muck creations )
If you post your hands on the forum then some people might help you

bludreid11

In Response to Re: is there a fix:

Not really Let's say there are 20 places paying and 30 left. It stands to reason that the majority of the casualties will be from the bottom 10 players. At the pre-bubble period the players most likely to go all in are the shortstacks. The players most likely to call them will be the biggest stacks. Some big stacks will lose and not be overly damaged and some will win and therefore take out the shortstack. I think if you really analyse what happens in this period the last ten places to fall will be made up of mostly shortstacks and some midstacks. It is quite rare for a big stack to go out unless two bigstacks clash. It's common sense really and not an indication of anything untoward.
Posted by elsadog

  I REFER YOU TO YOUR POST         17 5 2011

bludreid11

In Response to Re: is there a fix:

the old "big stack wins so its fixed" argument does not hold up. a big stack wins at the end of a tourny because they dont go in with anything less than premium hands or because they call a shorty for 2 or 3 bb's and even then its usually a 50/50 is race.... for every one claiming the big stack always wins you will always get someone claiming its the short stack that "always" wins...gl,dave
Posted by DAVEYZZ

READ THE QUESTION

unknown_username

In Response to is there a fix:

. . .and lets see if there is a pattern THIS SHOULD BE AN OBJECTIVE SCRUTINY OF THE RNG AND THEREFOR TELL US IF THERE IS ANYTHING UNTOWARDS GOING ON
Posted by bludreid11

So you uncover a pattern, based on a couple of dozen reported incidences of people going out on, or close to, the bubble with big hands that don't hold up? How can that be considered to be "objective scrutiny" of the integrity of the RNG? It won't be proof of anything. You may uncover a correlation - ie the frequency, in which players exit the game through losing with big starting hands that don't hold up, increases as the number of players left in the game decreases (I'm sure such a correlation exists), but unless you can prove cause and effect (ie the first occurs solely as a consequence of the second, which of course is not the case) your findings won't carry any weight.

That's the boring bit. For the unboring bit, I think you should just scream from the rooftops that the games where this happens are rigged  - this is, afterall, Area 51,

Better variance on future games.

unknown_username

interesting thinking sir,
                              is the answer to your question that a short stack is likely to push with kq off and get called by the big stack with 44 races here we go? Desperation plays such as A8 all in getting called are so not uncommon, but then niether are kk vs AA, its hieghtened perspective due to hightened emotion at "getting so close" is my thought, it seems like its always the big stack as its easy to blame it on it as your constantly eyeing there stack with envy?? maybe :-)) calm detatched play for the win imo :-))

cleaverjim

I was short stack in last nites mini d/stack,Top 50 paid but tbh you needed to be top 9 for good payout,Anyway 12 left i had 13k chip leader 270k i went all in with 66 he called with KK i binked a 6.Then with 8 left i push all in 45k and the 2nd highest chip stacked called with QQ,I had 6/9 and hit st8 so imo your post means zero..

cleaverjim

Also may i add when there was only 55 runners oppo calls an allin with 22 she was up against the chip daddy,AND SHE WON v the big stack so really cant see what your point is!Good luck on the tables

DAVEYZZ

In Response to Re: is there a fix:

In Response to Re: is there a fix : READ THE QUESTION
Posted by bludreid11

i did read it......you said the big stack always seems to win....

if the question is "is there a fix" then no there is not..imo

bludreid11

thaks to all who posted.
as i said im not a believer that there is a fix, i just wondered if there was a chance that  the RnG had a bias at the latter end of tournies. It could be a certain seat that wins,or that more of one suit gets dealt out, or if there could be a time set,??????

AS I SAID im not a believer, i just ask questions

debdobs_67

In Response to Re: is there a fix:

thaks to all who posted. as i said im not a believer that there is a fix, i just wondered if there was a chance that  the RnG had a bias at the latter end of tournies. It could be a certain seat that wins,or that more of one suit gets dealt out, or if there could be a time set,?????? AS I SAID im not a believer, i just ask questions
Posted by bludreid11

Certain bits here do make some sense , the hands ARE pre determined , so maybe ure just really asking (does the rng possibly distribute more 'action hands' at these stages of a tourny??

Dont know and prob never will

gl at the tables

debbydobby xxx

NoseyBonk

In Response to Re: is there a fix:

In Response to Re: is there a fix : Certain bits here do make some sense , the hands ARE pre determined , so maybe ure just really asking (does the rng possibly distribute more 'action hands' at these stages of a tourny?? Dont know and prob never will gl at the tables debbydobby xxx
Posted by debdobs_67

I've seen you post this a few times but don't understand what you mean. Can you explain?

unknown_username

In Response to Re: is there a fix:

In Response to Re: is there a fix : I've seen you post this a few times but don't understand what you mean. Can you explain?
Posted by NoseyBonk

I think what Debs means is that the hand is a made sequence rather than card for card as the hand progresses.

The RNG produces sequences of cards and those sequences are monitored and checked for randomness. What has never been explained is whether all sequences are used and in what order. The RNG could be generating many more sequences than are being used. The sequences can be delivered in whatever order is required to obtain a desired result. The sequences can be delivered from any starting point at the table ie. small blind first or any other table position. Think of the hands as being set out on a wheel and that wheel can be rotated to any position.

None of the above possibilities are known but all are possible. When questions are asked to that effect a wall of silence descends from the authorities. Questions I've asked relating to card/hand distribution software are ignored. Even a simple yes or no answer to the question of whether post RNG software is used to determine what happens to the cards is ignored. Replies to the emails were in some cases answered but they simply related back to RNG being certified. Any questions relating to what happens after that were ignored.

NoseyBonk

In Response to Re: is there a fix:

In Response to Re: is there a fix : I think what Debs means is that the hand is a made sequence rather than card for card as the hand progresses. The RNG produces sequences of cards and those sequences are monitored and checked for randomness. What has never been explained is whether all sequences are used and in what order. The RNG could be generating many more sequences than are being used. The sequences can be delivered in whatever order is required to obtain a desired result. The sequences can be delivered from any starting point at the table ie. small blind first or any other table position. Think of the hands as being set out on a wheel and that wheel can be rotated to any position. None of the above possibilities are known but all are possible. When questions are asked to that effect a wall of silence descends from the authorities. Questions I've asked relating to card/hand distribution software are ignored. Even a simple yes or no answer to the question of whether post RNG software is used to determine what happens to the cards is ignored. Replies to the emails were in some cases answered but they simply related back to RNG being certified. Any questions relating to what happens after that were ignored.
Posted by elsadog

The shuffle should work no differently than a human shuffle. It takes the 52 elements (cards) and mixes them up randomly. This is simple to do for any computer. It doesn't need to know, in advance, all of the possible sequences of a 52 card deck.

I think the term 'RNG' is these days used to describe more than just a random number generator.
Sky Poker state that their 'RNG' is used to shuffle, deal hole cards and deal community cards, so that's clearly more than just generating random numbers.
They also state 'the RNG' is audited/tested for fairness, randomness & unpredictability... ness, so I guess it's safe to assume that covers shuffle and deals (?)

 
 

unknown_username

In Response to Re: is there a fix:

In Response to Re: is there a fix : The shuffle should work no differently than a human shuffle. It takes the 52 elements (cards) and mixes them up randomly. This is simple to do for any computer. It doesn't need to know, in advance, all of the possible sequences of a 52 card deck. I think the term 'RNG' is these days used to describe more than just a random number generator. Sky Poker state that their 'RNG' is used to shuffle, deal hole cards and deal community cards, so that's clearly more than just generating random numbers. They also state 'the RNG' is audited/tested for fairness, randomness & unpredictability... ness, so I guess it's safe to assume that covers shuffle and deals (?)    
Posted by NoseyBonk

It doesn't mix them up randomly - it selects them randomly. There is a difference.

It doesn't need to know all sequences and it doesn't need to select all 52 cards. Just the number needed from a deck of 52 for the game in question.

A RNG is just that - it will randomly select one card at a time from a choice of 52. In order to deliver them to the table there would need to be accompanying software.

The testing of the RNG is to ensure it falls within expected parameters of randomness. Any additional functions and asociated tests beyond that basic function are hard to determine as the AGGC and TST have so far been unwilling or unable to confirm or deny whether they exist or not. At one point in the numerous memos the AGGC actually suggested I ask the poker sites. I reminded them that they were licencing and regulation the said sites at which point they ceased to answer my questions.

NoseyBonk

In Response to Re: is there a fix:

A RNG is just that - it will randomly select one card at a time from a choice of 52. In order to deliver them to the table there would need to be accompanying software. The testing of the RNG is to ensure it falls within expected parameters of randomness. Any additional functions and asociated tests beyond that basic function are hard to determine as the AGGC and TST have so far been unwilling or unable to confirm or deny whether they exist or not. At one point in the numerous memos the AGGC actually suggested I ask the poker sites. I reminded them that they were licencing and regulation the said sites at which point they ceased to answer my questions.
Posted by elsadog

I did say in my post that Sky Poker state 'the RNG' does the shuffle AND the deals of both hole & community cards.
 
They then say this 'RNG' is tested for randomness etc

NoseyBonk

In Response to Re: is there a fix:

In Response to Re: is there a fix : It doesn't mix them up randomly - it selects them randomly.
Posted by elsadog

It could do. As a (retired!) systems programmer I could do it many ways. It's quite simple stuff. I couldn't say which method Sky Poker use in their engine as I've not seen the code or any published info about the technicalities.

unknown_username

In Response to Re: is there a fix:

In Response to Re: is there a fix : I did say in my post that Sky Poker state 'the RNG' does the shuffle AND the deals of both hole & community cards.   They then say this 'RNG' is tested for randomness etc
Posted by NoseyBonk

I would question that the statement is accurate. A more accurate description would be the RNG and associated algorithms do the shuffle and the deals.

The RNg is tested for randomness. They state clearly that it was tested in September 2009. If you read further it also says that as a condition of their licence with the AGGC it should be tested every 12 months.

debdobs_67

In Response to Re: is there a fix:

In Response to Re: is there a fix : I think what Debs means is that the hand is a made sequence rather than card for card as the hand progresses. The RNG produces sequences of cards and those sequences are monitored and checked for randomness. What has never been explained is whether all sequences are used and in what order. The RNG could be generating many more sequences than are being used. The sequences can be delivered in whatever order is required to obtain a desired result. The sequences can be delivered from any starting point at the table ie. small blind first or any other table position. Think of the hands as being set out on a wheel and that wheel can be rotated to any position. None of the above possibilities are known but all are possible. When questions are asked to that effect a wall of silence descends from the authorities. Questions I've asked relating to card/hand distribution software are ignored. Even a simple yes or no answer to the question of whether post RNG software is used to determine what happens to the cards is ignored. Replies to the emails were in some cases answered but they simply related back to RNG being certified. Any questions relating to what happens after that were ignored.
Posted by elsadog

Yes elsa exactly THIS
Nosey i aint suggestin anything untoward , just sayin that the 'possibility' of certain deals being dealt at 'certain times' could be possible

AMYBR

Blind faith shouldnt be required for customer satisfaction.

I dont think that anyone has gone deeper down the rabbit hole on this issue than Elsa.  I fully agree, with all of it.

What worries me the most is the regulators seeming intentional amiguity.  Its as though they refuse to make a firm statement on the matter.  I think we all live in a world where we are fully versed in the reasons for this type of standpoint.  Legal ramifications.

Why cant clear cut practises just be layed out?  It shouldnt be difficult.  The fact that organisations are so intentionally evasive has always been an issue to me.

debdobs_67

In Response to Re: is there a fix:

Blind faith shouldnt be required for customer satisfaction. I dont think that anyone has gone deeper down the rabbit hole on this issue than Elsa.  I fully agree, with all of it. What worries me the most is the regulators seeming intentional amiguity.  Its as though they refuse to make a firm statement on the matter.  I think we all live in a world where we are fully versed in the reasons for this type of standpoint.  Legal ramifications. Why cant clear cut practises just be layed out?  It shouldnt be difficult.  The fact that organisations are so intentionally evasive has always been an issue to me.
Posted by AMYBR

defo a big +1 to this