I've never heard of an online site that has separate certification for an RNG and a "card shuffler". Can you provide me with links to some who have? And what is a "card shuffler" on an online poker site?

Serious questions.

No, the quote was in context. You are the one proposing the drawing dead 50/50 deal. I never said anything like that. You interjected all sorts of things in the thread that I never said.

All you have done is taking quotes out of context to try and support your dumb analysis. There are other quotes where he has said the same thing, but you just do not get it. That quote was completely in context to what you were talking about and you were wrong. I was right as I had already told you that.


Take your latest model. Two players. Player 1 (P1) and Player (P2). You can put them heads up in a sweepstakes model and measure the distribution of wins to see if it comes within standards of a true coin flip. You would need to measure this over a large enough range of hands to see if indeed the probability was 50/50.

You could not measure that against the hand probability because the hand probability is not the same throughout the hand. It changes three distinct times. It would never be the same for ever hand.

Now your stupid position is that you only measure who has the higher probability hand as Player A independent of whether it was P1 and P2. You would then count their wins and losses, but again you are only considering one probability per hand when indeed there are three probabilities per hand. So your model only counts the wins and losses for the hands based upon the player with the higher probability (independent of which player it is) and does not at all count the probability of even distribution of wins between two players. Nor does it consider the probabilities of favorable hand holdings among players.

We are attempting to measure the distribution of wins between players given a sweepstakes model of a winner being chosen at random, and your model does nothing to measure that at all. It is only designed to measure wins and losses from a single probability within a multiple probability scenario. You are trying to fit traditional poker into a model for a sweepstakes and it just will not work.

I am not arguing a position of players winning against traditional hand probability. I think that is where you are severely lost, because that is what you are asserting here. I am arguing for a random winner, and none of you modeling fits the test for that. I know how to do it and I know what to do it, but I would like to be able to correlate to hand holdings, and that is not possible right now.

What we do know!

You said your model was easy, profitable and guaranteed. We all know this is not the case.

You said your model would consistently win you the blinds at a highly profitable rate. We are know this is not true. There is no guarantee you would win the blinds.

You said you would always have $0 won/loss from coin flips in a single session. Well this really shows how stupid you are because that was shown multiple times to not be the case at all.

I can go on if you want. Your modeling is just incorrect. You do not have an understanding of it. I remind you that it was you who sought out guidance in your situation. I applaud you for understanding you do not know as much as you think you know so go ask someone for help. That is great on your part. But you are not listening to him at all or as I think you are just not understanding what you are being told

Now you can continue on with your senseless troll of me, but your really are just stupid. There is a real reason to resolve this issue. And me arguing with you about your stupidity is never going to resolve the real issue here, because you are just too stupid to understand.

itech offers four types of certifications and yes they give certifications based upon what they measure. The best example would be to look at the certifications of partypoker who have multiple certifications from iTech.

https://www.partypoker.com/itech.html

I have found many others from various site, but iTech will discuss multiple certifications in a single certification. That is why I need to see the certification to see exactly what was certified.

OK, let's make this simple then:

We are at a table, just the two of us. I am dealt 27o and you are dealt AA. I shove all-in and you call.

What are the odds of each of us winning that hand according to your beliefs. Remember, you are the one who said that the cards dealt do not matter, so in that situation - we each have a 50/50 chance to win the hand.

Forget everything else and answer this direct question on this scenario. What are the odds of each of us winning that hand? If they are not 50/50 then explain why (given your previously posted beliefs).



You tend to like distracting from simple situations, hence I am presenting a very, VERY simple single hand above for you to explain. Go ahead and do so.

I am dealt 27o
You are dealt AA
We both go all-in pre-flop
What are the odds for each of us to win that hand at Global Poker?


Actually, it would take much fewer hands than you would believe, but before we get to that we need to make sure we agree on your theory's basic premise:

I am dealt 27o
You are dealt AA
We both go all-in pre-flop
What are the odds for each of us to win that hand at Global Poker?



Assuming your silly theory applies to all-in hands pre-flop it does not matter what happens in later streets. Thus, I ask once again

I am dealt 27o
You are dealt AA
We both go all-in pre-flop
What are the odds for each of us to win that hand at Global Poker?



It does not matter if each player has a 50/50 chance to win. The key is testing to see if the actual results verify your silly 50/50 belief.

I realize you do not get this, because you do not get a lot of things, but we can ask for confirmation about that later on. For now, answer this simple question:

I am dealt 27o
You are dealt AA
We both go all-in pre-flop
What are the odds for each of us to win that hand at Global Poker?



Not if both players go all-in pre-flop. The odds on later streets are meaningless. If you do not understand why on that, then that does help explain why you do not get a lot of this.

Your model assumes an even distribution of wins between two players, but the best part is so how you define the players does not matter. Take 10 hands

Player 1 gets the favorite hand in 7 of the 10, Player 2 gets the favorite in 3 of them.

Now for my study "Player A" will be player number 1 seven times and player number 2 three times, but the expected number of wins for "Player A" is still 5, because every time that player had a 50% chance to win, based on your theory.

Given that Player A was likely a 60%+ favorite overall, it will be easy to test if the results are as would be expected with a fair poker game, or with your 50/50 model within a short period of time.

This is one of those red herrings you create, like the no way to track the data because they do not save hands nonsense. If you are really that worried about the person with the favorite hand changing then when the two of you sit down you choose one of you to play the favorite hands, and when the other player is dealt a favorite hand you just fold open fold those and only shove when the specific player of your choice has the better hand. That should help you understand why this is a non-issue, but you probably do not get it still.




Actually it does exactly that, but again once you answer the following question I will post my approach in the stats forum and we will see what they say.

I am dealt 27o
You are dealt AA
We both go all-in pre-flop
What are the odds for each of us to win that hand at Global Poker?




Of course you are, in fact that is the whole point of your belief.

Don't be afraid - answer the simple question

I am dealt 27o
You are dealt AA
We both go all-in pre-flop
What are the odds for each of us to win that hand at Global Poker?



I understand the need for people like you to hurl constant personal attacks, as that is one of your many forms of distraction from actual testing. Let's see if you are capable of answering the simple question:

I am dealt 27o
You are dealt AA
We both go all-in pre-flop
What are the odds for each of us to win that hand at Global Poker?


Dumbest rig ever...


All the best.

Cubeia's software employs the Firebase RNG Service and uses the Mersenne Twister algorithm for its shuffler. It isn't VGW's, it is in the software. It has been too enjoyable reading the idiotic comments to have posted this prior, but since you are asking....there ya go.

Fredrik Johansson is the writer/designer of the program. PayPal was the original 'in-app' source of payment that has been written in to the program, but have since added credit/debit cards. There is/was discussion on bringing in more types of games, non poker related, and there is also a built in way to access/sign up for the site via Google+, Yahoo, and Twitter.

I would bet anything that some will still continue with the goal of self-embarrassment and stay the course.

You use the word "facts' and have provided zero facts to back up anything you have claimed. You provide nothing of concrete evidence or even a circumstantial logical argument. The idea of a pre-selected winner is way beyond the line of reason and logic. You have questioned the education and reading comprehension of others. It is pretty clear that you score fairly low on both scales. When the prospectus has a heading or discussion of 'Chumba Casino', you can somehow not comprehend that it actually refers to Chumba Casino and not Global Poker. You are highly skilled in babbling, avoiding questions, and providing no evidence with the occasional straw-man argument as a side dish.

All along you were ranting about the RNG and now it is the shuffler. Stay your course, continue to offer zero proof or evidence, refuse to reach out to the people that would know, and by all means, continue to share your 'wisdom' in the thread. Several people have made ridiculous claims and offered a cumulative quantity of zero evidence.

I know, I know, they just need to show the certification so people can examine it. I'm sure your team will be hard at work when they see it. Over a hundred posts on this topic and yet to offer a shred of proof. I just thought it was amusing to see you use the word facts, otherwise I would pay no attention to you.

Oh yeah,. I forgot that he was the guy with "the team."

Guess "the team" is on a union break and cannot do a simple hand history test.

I have debated a lot of riggies, but no genuine ones have ever latched onto such an easy to prove belief for so long, so this is fun for me to watch.

PTS1, please answer the question Monteroy asked straight up so we can get somewhere and try to understand you.

I am dealt 27o
You are dealt AA
We both go all-in pre-flop
What are the odds for each of us to win that hand at Global Poker?

Lol this thread never ceases to make me laugh....keep up the good work Monteroy

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Monteroy; the answer to your AA hand has been answered many times already. Hand holdings have no bearing on the randomly selected winner. In a sweepstakes, they would both have the opportunity to be selected as the winner

You are making an argument for the player with the higher starting hand probability wining. Because Player A in your model changes between P1 and P2 you are not measuring the randomness between two unique players. You are measuring the randomness between higher probability hands against lower probability hands. That is not at what is at debate here

You keep trying to debate something that I am not even talking about. And equally as bad you keep asserting that I am debating this when I am not. I.e. Like you say I am debating EV of coins flips when I never even brought that up. So you are just creating fictions stuff, saying I said it, creating a debate when there is none, and making models to try and prove something we are not even debating. And to top it off, your models are completely wrong.

I get the fact you are just trolling and trying to get me off track with these nonsense, but bottom line is the certification will provide a lot of answers. We just need for them to post it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Come on, the question was not hard, so give a specific answer. You keep "answering" it with your vaguespeak. Let's get the specific numbers if you dare. No more excuses, no more avoiding, no more unrelated issues. Simple percentages.

If two players go all-in pre-flop on Global Poker, one has AA and the other has 27o

What are the odds that the player with AA wins? State the specific percentage.

What are the odds that the player with 27o wins? State the specific percentage.

Don't worry your little head on those issues for now, we will get to them, and as I pointed out - the test can be done without changing who is the favorite by open folding hands where it is not the case (it will just take longer and serve no purpose, but it solves your silly talking point, much like live streaming solves your "impossible to record the data" argument). For now, answer the very easy and specific questions:

If two players go all-in pre-flop on Global Poker, one has AA and the other has 27o

What are the odds that the player with AA wins? State the specific percentage.

What are the odds that the player with 27o wins? State the specific percentage.



Don't worry your little head on those issues for now, we will get to them. Answer the very easy and specific questions:

If two players go all-in pre-flop on Global Poker, one has AA and the other has 27o

What are the odds that the player with AA wins? State the specific percentage.

What are the odds that the player with 27o wins? State the specific percentage.

The certification will do nothing to change your beliefs, no matter what it has in it, so do not worry your little head about that unrelated issue for now, simply answer the very easy and specific questions:

If two players go all-in pre-flop on Global Poker, one has AA and the other has 27o

What are the odds that the player with AA wins? State the specific percentage.

What are the odds that the player with 27o wins? State the specific percentage.

Dumbest rig ever...


All the best.

Ok everyone we can now all move forward with confidence

ITech has just provided my with the certification for VGW (why VGW did not post this is beyond me)

The card shuffled VGW uses has been certified as random and unpredictable by iTech Labs

ITech Labs is an independent testing company who test many of the systems in use today for online gaming. They are to be trusted!

With this information, we can now all conclude that the games are indeed dealt fairly and randomly. The concept of the virtual currency is what they use to classify the game as a sweepstakes. They still have to meet sweepstakes laws for individual states so check your local laws for compliance

But rest assured that the card shuffler has been certified as random and the game is not a sweepstakes game with a randomly selected winner as I have asserted the game to be

Have fun playing at Global Poker and now play with confidence


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think everyone had pretty strong confidence you were wrong the whole time, with the possible exception of the 100 heads in a row guy, so I guess he is all alone now to carry on with the coin flip nonsense.

Certainly is very convenient timing for this revelation, nice that they sent it to you during non business hours as you were being painted in a specific question corner!

No doubt that your "team" will be very proud of your smooooooooth escape .


Dumbest exit ever...


All the best.

There was no corner that I was backed into....

In a sweepstakes model two people each have a equal opportunity to be randomly selected as a winner. Hand holdings are irrelevant. You want me to equate poker hands to a sweepstakes model and there is no correlation between the two if a sweepstakes model was in use. That is the part that you do not understand

I never contented that this was a rigged poker game. Some individuals have contended it was rigged but I never contended it was rigged. That is where you are wrong because you are saying that I am saying it is rigged.

I asserted this was a sweepstakes game designed to look like a poker game. If it was indeed a sweepstakes game, then hand values are absolutely irrelevant. But for some reason you think they would be

As it relates to the timing, ITech is based in Australia so getting the response at this time did not seem out of the ordinary. I am just thankful for VGW and ITech to get this information to me so we can all play with confidence

Of course this still does not excuse your modeling for being wrong, but nice attempt by you to just move on to something else when you are wrong

Keep in mind, you never addressed a single question asked of you. Never. You dodge every question and just go about with the lies. You fell into my trap on the modeling and got everything wrong. Now you just want to try and start another lie. All you do is lie. But you have been exposed now


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I appreciate you trying to build on your exit routine, one that was pretty much actually predicted earlier in the thread when I said your best approach would be to take a "i was pretending all along" line. Yours is an amusing twist of that, with the difference being you had genuine belief in your misguided theory (which again would be trivially easy to prove all along), so the perfectly timed email to you was your way of ending this in a way like most of your posts - they are all a lot smarter to you in your head than when you post them.

I appreciate arrogance, because I can certainly be arrogant, but you are arrogant without actually knowing what you are talking about, and on top of that you mix in a complete lack of self awareness as a bonus. While that is certainly amusing and harmless personality combination in a forum/thread like this, where you can be comic relief for a while, it is a combination of traits that will put you and "your team" into equally amusing spots over and over, and not all of them will be magically solved with a perfectly timed email. In the end that is your problem.

All the best.

Once again PMS if every hand is 50/50 go clean out everyone in Global. Easiest money you will ever make. I'd quit my job tomorrow if I found out this info and destroy the 10/20 games. Instead of doing so you will go on one of your idiotic rants however so continue on. You keep talking the talk but will not back up your claims. P.s. Can I meet you in real life or at least get a picture of you ?

I have been requesting the certification for quite some time and have been getting denied. I got an email from Geoff at ITech at 8:14 EST with the certification. It should have been obvious to everyone that I was trying hard to get GP to release this information from ITech to me. So once again you are just wrong but you still keep spitting out lies and never address anything directly

I had an objective. Accomplished the objective. And gained valuable information for the poker community about Global Poker. What exactly have you done except be wrong about every statistical model you put out there. What value have you added to the poker community. This was a real issue and you have contributed absolutely nothing

I have a lot of respect for a dead and what he brought to this discussion, but you have done nothing to further this discussion in a positive and quite frankly I have no respect for trolls like you


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So the certification is legitimate then??? I totally understand why you would want to obtain proof of that and am glad you did. However I saw both sides of you guys' discussion...lol for what it's worth i think it just would've been more productive to focus on inquiring about the rng and keep your posts related to that. Regardless it is good to have confirmation that the rng is on the up and up.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Certification is legitimate for sure no question about that

Concerning staying on point. I did try and stay on point but Monteroy starting getting people to believe his lies and unfortunately had to deal with his troll lies. I was ok with it until others started to believe what he was saying was true. That is why this thread went off track, but then again that was the point of his troll

Main thing is players can play with confidence on Global Poker


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks to you both.

I likely got too hung up on PTS1's wording - looking for certification of an RNG AND a card shuffler read to me like two separate randomization processes. I assume instead PTS1 either meant an RNG service when he said RNG, or the software that turns the results of the RNG into actual cards to be dealt when he mentioned card shuffler.

When people ask you for a reference, you must often times give yourself as one. As to what your objective was, you seem to forget that your posting history is here for everyone to read. In fact the very first thing you posted was the following:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...1&postcount=68

You remember, that was based on you and your team's study of 30 poker hands. Was all of your team's hard work at the time wrong, given this new email you got about their RnG?

After that, you continued to assert your opinions as facts:

As much as you want to be treated as a herald to the industry, you started here as someone who stated a series of facts that the RnG was flawed, and that they were not dealing a proper poker game. When various posters pointed out basic flaws in both your logic, general theories, and 30 hand database analysis, you hurled personal attacks and used other standard distraction techniques.

This little disjointed ending you tacked on where a perfectly timed email magically solves all problems is amusing, but it does not change what you said prior to that, nor the approach you took when constantly presenting your uninformed opinions as facts in an arrogant manner.

All the best.

Well, he somehow deemed himself an authority of whether or not it was valid. VGW has done a somewhat weak/poor job of explaining some aspects of the setup with some rationality, too. They cannot state things at the lowest level of understanding that basically rubs it in the face of the lawmakers in the US. There is no secret as to what they are doing if you understand the laws.

Geoff, from iTech Au, was just one of many sources I had posted that could verify various aspects of their business model. They have a prospectus online and that detailed it out, but you have to be able to comprehend it all. You don't even have to look at it from a technical and deep understanding of what their business model is, just apply common sense. What is the logic/rationale behind the idea of some long standing successful executives in the gaming industry opening their books and corporate secrets to regulators if they are doing something wrong? It is/was just common sense that they and teams of legal counsel knew a teensy bit more than some random posters in a forum online.

The inane level of action is brought to you by the recipients of their advertising, non poker players on sites like FB. They win a contest and get $weepsCash then play it on the poker games. Anyone that has been playing online poker for a long time could tell you that all sites were like that once. Players ***** at the lack of action on some sites with everyone sitting with HUDs and/or calculators and some of them will ***** when a site has a lot of action due to the lack of them and a large percentage of non poker players on the table. It is just common sense.

There was never even any attempt by the naysayers to fortify their position with something close to evidence or proof. When asked, if was ignored or a re-direct into a straw-man argument. The reality is, the revelation that iTech was telling the truth, as was VGW, will go lost on some and they will adhere to their belief that it is not real. As Voltaire stated, "Common sense is not so common" and likely a reason why the conversation drifted in so many directions. There was never a shred of proof presented and common sense suggests that it is impossible to provide.

I play with confidence on Global everyday.

Great, please post what they provided you. I mean, you've been on global's case for not posting this as your go-to avoidance tactic for not testing your theory, and then you make a declaration you've seen the certification now as iTech provided it to you and all is right with the RNG, but don't post it yourself? Really makes Monteroy's assessment of "convenient timing" look spot on.

This isn't private info, it's in GP's best interest it be public, so there would be no reason you wouldn't post it once you got it.

Thank you for obtaining this info and getting it verified for everybody.

+1 would be nice to see the information