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!
this site is f i x e d
big fix
Comments
Great to hear tho didn't know it was broken........
and you and elvis are alive and well?
Not random = fixed
You can't say I don't think the results are truly random but I don't think it's rigged lol. They are one in the same.
How about something like this - let's call it the spectrum of doubt:
Believe it is completely Random . . . . . . . . .Have doubts . . . . . . . . . . . Believe it is rigged
What people believe will be based on their own personal experiences (not necessarily restricted to the online poker experience), and the evidence (or lack of it) that leads them to believe what they do? All heavily biased, of course, by whether they're winners or losers - most of the "it's rigged" contingent, if not all, will be long term losing players. Most of those who believe the integrity of the results are beyond all question, tend to be winning players. There's no "evidence", in the public forum, that lends itself to one end or the other - I doubt anyone has ever played enough hands/games for their advantage/disadvantage to average to their EV, so analysing individual players' results will not be conclusive. Reliance has therefore to be placed on statistical analysis of of the server logs, but in the absence of the methodology of such audits, statements to the effect that the RNG is independently certified for it's integrity carry no more weight as "evidence" that those to the effect of "this, this and this has happened, so it must be rigged".
An interesting consideration to apply to long series of "bad beats" are the two legal tests:
Criminal Law = "beyond all reasonable doubt"
Civil Law = "on balance of probability"
Is it unreasonable for people to have doubts, where they experience long runs of incredible results (wins or losses)? Possibly you could argue that their doubts are unfounded, but of course, going back to my point above, there's no more evidence to conclude this than there is to conclude anything the other way.
Short anwser is, to my mind, everyone has to decide at what point any doubts they may have should result in them no longer playing. Simples.
Like some people say they believe it's rigged in favour of particular players, or rigged in favour of the big stack, the short stack etc etc. Others say that it's not rigged in anyone's favour but is just designed to create action.
But surely anything where the system is deliberately altering what should be a completely random result is the definition of it being rigged??
Think of a petrolk pump which doesnt give the amount on the display. It may have been deliberately set to give you less than displayed by a dishonest vendor, or there may be a fault in the machine which vendor doesnt know about
EDIT: Not suggesting here or any other site has a fulty rng. Just saying that if something was fauly that doesnt always mean its been deliberately manipulated
This is a very good point - and with regard to RNGs that drive online gaming software, it raises interesting questions about how any software developer has achieved "random".
If you were to produce a program using Microsoft Excel, and incorporated a routine using Excel's built in random number generator, then your "random" number would be completely dependent on the integrity of Microsoft's built in function (=RAND). You may believe your program generates a completely valid random number, and promote it as so, but in truth you've no guarantee this is the case as the base random generator isn't your work. That wouldn't, to my mind, constitute a deliberate intention to deceive, just a degree of naivity, and unintentional misrepresentation. I have no idea what language Microgaming, or the creator's of the Sky software have used, but it wouldn't surprise me if the underlying code that generates the random numbers is based upon functions built into the language, or a pre-written module that's incorporated, and not a completely unique piece of code. Perhaps one of the Sky reps here knows the answer?
Referring back to previous threads on bad beats, distribution of results etc, I do wonder whether any of the certification checks done include ones to check for the distribution of results - ie, although overall, across say, five million tournament hands dealt, the number of pair v pair coincidences would fall into line with expectations (ie it happens on average once every two hundred and eightly nine hands dealt out; 1/17 x 1/17), but if 80% of these occurred in the final stages of a tournament, it would suggest something was not quite right?
When I first joined Sky, there use to be a page that published the most recent certification audit results, ie expected number of pairs dealt and the actual number and so on. Can't find this page anymore - does anyone know where it's moved to?
I think you and I both believe there is no rigged shenanigans on Sky but yeah I get your point on the potential technicalities.