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
What happened here then?... well goodbye...and ...welcome back dav, iv left the site longer than you did just to go to the toilet
glad you come to your senses mate and see you at the table tomorrow
You crease me up Mr Magoo
nooooooooooooooo did i say train shssssssss dont say nowt to tk ,
anyways good bye dave,
welcome back dave ,
good luck dave,
oh and plzzz to meet you dave .
When playing live we always comment 'this would only happen on the internet' when we see quads, the flush aon the end etc etc and when playing on line we say 'this would never happen live'. The number of times I've asked a dealer if they deal in their spare time for a particular on line site (not sky) as they deal the river and knock me out of the tourney. It's all just poker, random cards, random choices by players, random play.
Apparently it's also a game of skill.....sigh.....
I have no concerns about Sky as a poker site.
I essentially said
"If I could predict the cards, I wouldnt be going anywhere"
you know...the same reply you loved :S
I was watching a winners journey the other night, when on the final table one guy was down to less than a quarter of a big blind and then went on to win the tournament.
The cards are dealt randomly and all the community cards come out at random as well.
Nothing is fixed and we all get bad beats, the more we play the more bad beats we get due to the number of hands played online.
Glad to see you decided to stay Dav and we all look forward to seeing you in the Posters Freeroll Wednesday.
What I'm suggesting is that the software, as Dav suggests, is formulated so that cards are not random. Probably nothing illegal in what is happening, just as there is probably nothing illegal on the software for roulette which in the space of a 100 spins will always see 7 or 8 reds on the spin, followed by a small break, then 7 or 8 odd cards on the spin, small break then 7 or 8 odd on the spin etc. I was the hospitality manager in a casino for years and genuine roulette does not run these constant strings of hits for every 100 spin cycle.
The point that Dav was making, and which I have seen, as many many others surely have, is that when the irregular split second delay happens, it is followed by the card, for whatever reason, which produces the bad beat.
I'm in no way moaning either, the games here are small stake, played for fun, I don't play here sensibly for a few reasons.
I'm home alone midweek two days a week. Those days I play bigger stake tourneys which suit me at a different site. It's only those two days I play to the best of my ability, so, playing here is something I can do whilst at work, fighting the kids, kicking the dogs, watching a film, listening to music etc. The obvious flaws of flash player, the software, don't bother me, I'm just agreeing with Dav. I'm not blind so have to agree.
I'm not trying to kick start the convo again!
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, not the first time in my life, and as I said I'm not moaning. I quite honestly, 100% truthfully don't care about faults that exist or don't. Skypoker is my knitting, or modelmaking, or reading etc. It's a past time, literally to pass the time which suits me as I hate not doing something. I like it here for some strange reason, just like we all have favourite pubs.
1) Some computer Nerd would have figured out the pattern and would currently be sitting in spain living off al lour money
2) As with UB (those of you familiar with cheating scandals will know who they are) it would have been found out and investigated by now
3) TK would not as he has said through this thread, be involved with a site that veered from random card generation to a pre-selected pattern or a "Fixed" run of cards to limit the players in each tournament level.
4) The theory that used to do the rounds was that it was fixed to finish the final table in time for the End of the TV show. Obviously this no longer holds water as the show finishes before the final table is aired due to the new structures
To re-iterate a point someone else made. WHAT IS THE POINT? why would the company knock people out of tournaments on purpose to reduce the numbers? Where is the Gain for Sky?
The answers to the above are there is no point, they wouldn't, there is no extra income to gain from doing this. Would you commit a "Crime" which could collapse your poker network (as per UB) for ZERO, yes that's ZERO profit???
If these people have concerns, they should consider not playing online, and perhaps stick to playing live.
A few years ago I broke both my legs in a motorbike accident and for a active person, the months spent doing nothing were a nightmare. Having played lots of live poker in the years previous to this, I, out of boredom joined a very well known, large online gambling/poker site.
I played only ten seat, small stake, sit and goes, top three being paid.
After a little while, I noticed a trend so started keeping records (sad I know) to prove to myself that I wasn't imagining things.
I played 700+ Sit and Goes and I kept records of every all-in 'race' situation pre-flop, whether I was in hand or not.
I did not keep records of under pair versus over pair, just over cards versus pair, ie. AK versus 10 10.
For arguments sake, let's call it a coin flip.
After 700+ tourneys and at least double that (can't remember exact figure but it was in excess of double the number of tourneys played) number of all-in 'race' situations pre-flop, the records I kept showed this.
The chip leader (of the two players involved in the hand) during the all-in pre-flop situation, whether holding the pair, or the over cards, was 61% more likely to win. Now, over that many hands seen, surely 50% or very close to it would have been the actual figure.
My point being, a random card/number generator was not in use. Something was being done to get people out of tourneys (and into another one) as quickly as possible. Not all the time, but at a rate so as not to raise suspicion.
I started to use this to my benefit, early on in game would try to obtain a small chip advantage, when push came to shove and the situation arose, I'd push with my pair or AK or AQ and if involved in a race, if I was ahead in chips with other player, I won 61.3% of the time.
I started to mention these facts within the chatbox during the games.
My account was suspended and I received a not inconsiderable balance figure by cheque in the mail.
I am not suggesting this is happening here.
Question 2.WHATS THE POINT? lol
Only joking but no your sample size is probably not actually big enough to show variance on this type of 50/50. You'd have to be talking 50K - 100K to get a closer resemblance. Also it is not actually a 50 /50 so if you were making no distinction between who held the under pair (slightly ahead) to the overcards then the sample won't work either too many variables just to say you'll measure when then big stack wins.
The point being that these things happen.
If half the time someone is all in with over cards, half the time with the pair, then they are at 50/50 over a period of time of being the winner.
The slight gain from the pair is equalled out by the slight deficit of over cards, because of the number of races involved within.
If you were involved in 1000 races pre flop. 500 times you had over cards, 500 times you had the pair, you'd expect to be a winner 50% of those hands, regardless of having pair or overcards, because the advantage of the pair is negated by the times you had over cards.
My degree is pure mathematics, heavy on probability, I know what I'm on about.
Take a coin, toss it 1000 times, so it spins immeasurably fast and allow it to land on floor. More than 70 of us did this, nobody had a % more than 52 for heads or tails.
Something we did at university.
Over a thousand races witnessed, the percentage should be 50, a slight difference allowable
1000 or more races witnessed, is enough of a sample.
Jeez, it makes my blood boil when it's suggested I am part of a conspiracy to defraud. And if the Software is not legit, I am.
I'm really not sure what right anyone has to suggest that my colleagues & I are dishonest. Hey-ho.
Anyway, picking up a few points.
booboo, thank you for your various replies. You have a degree in Mathematics, whilst I only have a City & Guilds in Maths, so you own me there. But there's more to it than Maths, maths needs interpretation.
You said....
The chip leader (of the two players involved in the hand) during the all-in pre-flop situation, whether holding the pair, or the over cards, was 61% more likely to win. Now, over that many hands seen, surely 50% or very close to it would have been the actual figure.
1) Your sample size is way - WAY - too small to have integrity.
2) The Chip Leaders were not, as you state, "61% more likely to win", & as one with a Degree in mathematics, I'm staggered you should make such a claim. 61% more likely to win a 50/50 = an approx 80% win probability on a 50/50 race. I think you meant "the Chip Leader wins 61% of 50/50 races. That's a VERY different thing.
I wish you well here, & elsewhere, but if you really believe this nonsense that the Software fixes it so that the bigger stack wins, & we are all crooks, I really don't think I shall trouble you further with replies, there's no point.
Good luck in the future, in all you do.
Debunking the Maths.
People use Maths to "prove" points. Maths never lie, but variance is always present.
What are the odds of a player hitting quads, in Hold'Em. Anyone know?
Well, while we await the reply to that, bear this in mind.
In the first hour on Saturday, at Leg One of the LIVE SPT, there were 15 Tables of 10 players. The average hands per hour rate at that stage was about 20. So, in ther first hour, 300 hands were dealt.
We saw Quads FOUR TIMES in that hour.
Meaning the probability of Quads is 1 in 75.
But even the conspiracy "you are all crooks, but we won't take you to Court" Crew know that's wrong.....
I don't think for one moment that the purpose of Dav's comments here were designed to get him Entry to the Posters Freeroll.
However, the thrust of your point - the whole notion of selection criteria for the Posters Freeroll - is an area in which, really, I don't disagree with you. I have made that point to Sky Poker, so that's all I can do.
It irritates us all, or most of us. It irritates me even more that these folks, who don't know me, or my character, suggest I am party to fraud. But not one of them has ever tried to sue Sky Poker, or me, for being dishonest.
Fancy that. Heres a subsidiary company of one of the biggest Companies in Europe, & they think it's fraudelent - what a stoty that would be! - but they don't take action, & in fact still play here.
Go figure.
I had leakage when I read that!
Nothing appeals to me more than intelligence & humour combined. You don't belong in this Section, you are way too bright.
That's what I meant yeah, i think approx 1500 witnessed races is a big enough sample, we'll just have to politely disagree if you think not.
Please blame my English for the confusion, took three attempts to pass an o level whilst already sat with A level passes, couldn't get in uni until I'd passed it.
I'm not in anyway at all suggesting you or anyone else at sky is corrupt.
Apologies if you took it that way, not intended. Sorry.
My series of events at the other site was finalised by an email from a complete stranger. Company which produced the RNG was faffing about to get games over quickly, to lower server costs, to increase profit, to guarantee the contract renewed. Nothing to do with site owners, they just licenced a company for the RNG software. ALLEGEDLY.
And finally, a C&G in maths is no mean feat, especially as calculators weren't about in them days. :-)
If it's not random, it's fraudelent.
Yiou have yet to answer my question as to the connection between the "pause" & the "miracle card". Software is programmed, it does not need time to think. A miracle card & a normal card take the same amount of time for the software to programme & the RNG to produce.
Would you like to demonstrate why that seemingly suspicious pause is necessary?
[QUOTE]"I think you meant "the Chip Leader wins 61% of 50/50 races. That's a VERY different thing." That's what I meant yeah, i think approx 1500 witnessed races is a big enough sample, we'll just have to politely disagree if you think not. Please blame my English for the confusion, took three attempts to pass an o level whilst already sat with A level passes, couldn't get in uni until I'd passed it. I'm not in anyway at all suggesting you or anyone else at sky is corrupt. Apologies if you took it that way, not intended. Sorry. My series of events at the other site was finalised by an email from a complete stranger. Company which produced the RNG was faffing about to get games over quickly, to lower server costs, to increase profit, to guarantee the contract renewed. Nothing to do with site owners, they just licenced a company for the RNG software. ALLEGEDLY. And finally, a C&G in maths is no mean feat, especially as calculators weren't about in them days. :-)
Posted by booboo69
Thank you. 1,500 is nothing even remotely like a big enough sample, so yes, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Thank you, but you you ARE suggesting we, & I, are corrupt. You cannot have it both ways.
My C & G in Maths. Ahh, humour at last, so common ground might be possible eventually. You are right - Calculators were not around then, so we did not use them. I'm quietly proud of the fact that at 13, I was wholly, 100% illiterate, & unable to comprehend numeracy, & at 16, I Passed a C & G in Maths. To this day, I never use a calculator, but I can do the mental arithmetic of most sums quicker than anyone can using a calculator. So if I need to know the average stack during a Tourney, I don't have to use the Lobby. It's takes a nanasecond to calculate, without calculators, or pencil & paper. I do it on the Sky Poker Live Shows every time I'm on.
So I'm not daft. But I'm not clever enough either to be able to reason why a company like Sky Poker would deem it sensible to use corrupt software & Staff.
Have a good day. I feel we are inching closer together.
I have seen many an argument as to why people would use accounts that could see hole cards (in a well known scandal), many reasons why people try and use bots on some sites and it all comes down to one thing MONEY
I have yet to see anyone post a reason as to why any company would fix the card sets in favour of the Chip Leader ?
If theres no money in it then why would it be done?
If this was in fact true then doesn't it mean the first guy to double up would in fact win the tournament as he couldn't lose a pot to someone shorter stacked than him?
I'm sure that no one on the site ACTUALLY thinks that you or Sky Poker are fraudulent in any way and these threads are much more a mistrust of the technology of internet poker and an excuse for bad beats.
Your reputation proceeds you and I for one think that your association alone adds a credible not of honesty and trust to an otherwise faceless corporation (not that theres anything wrong with faceless corporations lol)
Yes, it's a common thing to say, usually by those who take losing badly. It's the Internet age, where these folks can say ridic things Online, but when they meet you face to face, don't say boo to a goose.*
* I wonder where that expression emenates from? I don't actually ever recall doing it, seeing it, or hearing it done, to be honest.