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!
IS IT REALLY RANDOM??????
i have been playing on sky for a while now and it seems the hands are not very random anymore......when in tournaments and you are with a smaller stack on the table, whatever you do, withever what hand you have, if you go all in 99% of the time you will lose to the larger stack. This is happening more and more, tonight, twice i went all in, once with AA, someone covered my bet with a 10,2 off suit!!!!!!!!!!!guess what he won with 3 tens.............
In the same tourno, another person went all in with AK suited, was called with 53 off, guess what pair 5's won....
it just seems that this site DOES NOT now have a random software, it seems it wants to reduce the numbers when it feels like.....
ANYONE else feel the same or is it just me?
In the same tourno, another person went all in with AK suited, was called with 53 off, guess what pair 5's won....
it just seems that this site DOES NOT now have a random software, it seems it wants to reduce the numbers when it feels like.....
ANYONE else feel the same or is it just me?
Comments
By that I mean that when you're short-stacked, players who are deeper can and will call you with weak hands. This will happen to you far more often than it happens to them. If you allow yourself to get short-stacked, you will have to survive far more all-ins than deeper players.
The fact is that everyone loses in tournament play apart from the eventual winner. Some of the players in that tournament run deep but still only ever get their chips in with the best hand. These players are almost always playing badly. They usually do not understand pot odds and complain when their short-stacked shove is called by a player who does understand pot odds. If a player doesn't get their money in with the worst hand sometimes, they need to look at their game.
Bad beats happen to all players. Bad beats happen to tight players far more often than they happen to loose players.
Sometimes players complain because they're knocked out by inexperienced players making poor calls. Good players know that this happens sometimes and they're happy to see these weak players win occassionally. If the best player always won, there would be no money in the game.
However, if you're asking if the random number generator that Sky uses is sufficiently random, then the answer is yes. Sky gain nothing by cheating their customers.
I can oly +1 to Borin's post m8.
I was a maths teacher and to put it mildly your sample size is a little small. Why don't you record the +ve and -ve variance when you go all-in but you will need over 100,000 results and even they will be skewed because you may be waiting until you have say 5BB's before going all-in. The big stacks can then call with a wider range and probably have two live cards which may then mean 60:40 equity in your favour but still a good chance for him. There are quite a few factors if you were to try to test if the RNG was fixed but a large sample would be needed. Would you believe that you would then need a sample of samples to further test the RNG as one sample wouldn't be statistically acceptable. And so it goes on..........
You'd be better off just saying its not fixed as what would SKY gain?
How do I know that Sky gain nothing from cheating their customers?
Since Sky Poker takes all it's revenue from rake and tournament fees, it would seem obvious that they don't profit financially from arranging for one player to beat another. Also, to do so would put Sky Poker and it's parent company in a very sticky situation if such a scheme were ever uncovered. Unlike other sites, the Sky name is attached to far more than just Poker and undermining confidence in the brand would be extremely detrimental to Sky's commercial interests. Risking the brand image of a multi-billion pound corporation merely to gain a few extra coppers for a particular poker player would obviously be horrendously stupid.
How do I know that the random number generator is sufficiently random?
As stated above, Sky would have no motive for it to be otherwise. I also know that Sky's software is independently audited and has been approved by the Alderney Gambling Control Commission.
While it is theoretically possible that this is all an ellaborate conspiracy to defraud a few poor, gullible poker players, I have to ask what the motive would be and how could they keep it under wraps for so long...
Mind you, some of that footage of the Apollo missions does look a bit dodgy.
You're right to say that this is my opinion but it's an opinion based upon a reasoned, logical analysis of the available evidence. When people say "it's only your opinion" they generally are inferring that alternative opinions are equally valid. That is not true unless those opinions can be backed up by equally reasoned, logical analysis of the available evidence.
So unless someone would like to offer such an alternative or point out flaws in my argument, my opinion on this matter - which I know is shared by many, many others - is the only credible one. That's exactly the process by which all scientific knowledge is "discovered".
(In a few years, after the "Sky Poker RNG swindle" has been uncovered, I'm going to feel pretty silly. lol)
I respectfully suggest that the enboldened part is probably an exaggaration.
For example if you rolled a fair dice 6 million times you would roll each of the numbers 1 to 6 of the very close to 1 million times each, guaranteed. However within that series of 6 million rolls there would be all sorts of seemingly unlikely streaks. For example rolling the same number 5 times in a row is a 1/1296 chance, so you could expect that to happen around 4600 times during the 6 million sequence. Anybody who is around for all 6 million rolls would be satisfied that the dice is random, however someone who just witnesssed a small sample and saw the number 6 get rolled 5 times in a row might think the dice is rigged to roll a 6 most of the time, someone else who came at different time might think it is rigged to roll number 1 most of the time, etc, etc. You only witness a very small sample of the hands dealt on Sky Poker.
Your memory, and everybody elses, quickly forgets all the times the fool with T3o loses to the pocket AA. However when you see the T3 outdraw your AA (which will happen 1 in every 7.5 times) closely followed by some other seemingly unlikely results you can easily be tricked into thinking results aren't random. In fact the opposite is the case; the existance of these unlikely sequences are what we would expect when the results are random.
I've played many tens of thousands of hands each on Sky and most of the other well-known poker sites. I've seen all sorts of crazy stuff on all of them, I can assure you that what I see on Sky is no different to what I see elsewhere.
I suspect the OP who said he gets outdrawn by the big stack "99% of the time" was exaggarating, but it may be that he is just using inadequate sample size. Being outdrawn 10 times in a row is perfectly normal. 99 times out of a 100, much less likely.
I didnt want to accuse anyone or anything, i apologise for my wording......
It just seemd that I have been having a bad time and frustration got the better of me.
Thank you for your views and explanations
Who recommended Orford is what I'd like to know!!!!!
A bit like the Financial Standards Authority which is suppose to police the banking industry in the UK - provides about the same level of confidence as a teapot made out of Cadbury's milk.
does this open yet anther can of worms?
to answer your question- no its not truly random, it cant be. however it is deamed random enough to satisfy Alderney criteria ( read the small print in sky pokers t&cs).
no program/software can produce truly random results of cards, numbers etc its impossible. the rng can only work with the information it is given, which obviously comes from the programmer.
so could sky fix the outcome? if they wanted to yes, it would be easy
would they want to fix the outcome? not a chance, to much risk for such a small gain ( inf act i don't think they would gain anything ).
I played very tight hoping that I would be dealt a half decent hand……. And along it came AA - All-in for me. I was called (surprise, surprise) by the chip leader with 7-9.
Got to be mine surely! Flop: 677 - turn? Can’t remember (still in shock) - but the river was a 9.
Now, I have no doubt that it was all completely random - and what a great player the chip leader was playing those top cards at exactly the right time!.
Excellent site - as straight as a f.corkscrew.
P.s - to be fair it only happens frequently.
The full lineup can be found here: http://www.gamblinglicenses.com/licensesDatabase.cfm
As a an adjunct, the UK Gambling Commission does provide licensing for remote only operators based in the UK, but most choose to "register" their operations with bodies based in places most people have never heard of.