As far as I know, the Random Number Generator of both sites are not the same.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that poker is rigged or something like that.

But I'm jut curious about the differences you can see in the Rankings. If I look up the winners on pokertableratings , sharkscope or officialpokerrrankings it seems to me that most of the winners are playing on stars. Stars may have more players, that that alone wouldn't explain the difference.

Do the differences in the RNG of the sites have an significant impact on winrates and winnings ?

Generating something random will always bring up a bias since you are not able to get to infinity....Maybe the bias at FT is bigger....

What do you guys think about that ? Is there a way to test the 'randomness' of the RNGs ?

How can you say it's not about being rigged, and then pull some bs bias ooya indicting this is the reason why there are more winners on that site?

Also, Stars had their RNG tested a long time ago, and it was certified random.

Having a bias doesn't mean it's rigged. Statistically you will never be able to have a true RNG that is really 100 % random. You will always have a bias... The question is, if this bias might make any significance ?

So if this is not the case....why are there more winners on one site and less on the other ?

PS allows unlimited SNGs and IMO offers a better tournament schedule, as well as higher guarantees usually due to there being more players. FTP lets you play only 16 maximum and has a slightly smaller player base. Perhaps this is why there are bigger winners at Stars?

Also this is slightly relevant and might interest you.

PS uses a preshuffled deck at the start of each hand.
FTP uses a continuous shuffle based on all sorts of nonsense things.

One might say that this makes FT more 'random' than Stars...but FTP using some nonsense variables doesn't make it a better random generator I guess.

I econonometrics when you do a regression analysis there might be omitted variable bias. Variables that might have an inmpact on the OLS results are not part of the analsysis and so you get a bias.
From this, I would conclude that you also have a bias if you put on variables that have nothing to do with the process you are looking for. The more of them you put in, the bigger is the bias.

Are you sure there are more winners? From what I can see, PTR only shows the top 50 winners for all sites for a particular game. Using that data to surmise there must be more winners overall on that site is not a reliable method. It just means there are bigger winners on Stars. The vip program, where people have to grind loads of hands, is one factor why since ptr ranks by cumulative wins only for each player.

Actually, it pretty much would (and does). And the other aspects on Stars help too. Getting to play 24 tables (or unlimited SNG's) on Stars while only getting to play a maximum of 16 tables on FT makes a big difference to how much a player can potentially win too obviously.

To so definitively determine that the biggest winners would not be affected by the size of the site and number of tables you can play when obviously they can is stupid.

On one site a certain player at 0.5bb/100 can get in 100k hands on FT in the same time they could get in about 150k hands on Stars. Yeah, that would account for a pretty significant difference in total winning assuming they kept the same win-rate across both sites.



No. To think otherwise is ******ed.



Any small changes in the RNG don't magically make the cards feel different or for flushes to hit more often or anything stupid like that. The difference you are talking about in the method of the randomness doesn't change anything. It's like wondering if a live game changes if one dealer does 7 shuffles of the cards vs. another dealer who does 6 shuffles. It doesn't matter how you go about mixing up the cards. The cards get mixed up randomly so you're fine.

If you are losing at one site or another it's not the site ganging up against you with a skewed deal. It's you not being as good as you think you are at the game of poker.

Why did I open this thread?

Juk

I don't think one might say that at all.

Is it then right to assume, that someone who plays the same amount of tables in the same circumstances on both sites over a significant number of hands would need to have the same winrate in terms is ptbb/100 ?

No, of course not. Different competition means different winrates.

Oh dear lord.... random is random people. There are a million variables that affect the play on each site. The RNG is not one of them. Buy in levels, # of tables allowed, overall skill, available # of tables to choose from.... all of these things can affect your winrate one way or another. It amazes me how people try to narrow it down to one thing (particularly one that clearly has ZERO influence) over the games and ignore all the other relevant stuff.

one might also be called a '******'

Besides being able to play 24 cash game tables and unlimited SNGs, another reason for having more winners at Pstars could be the absence of a "bet pot" button.

It's a lot easier for fish on stars to bet random amounts and give away bet-sizing tells given that they have to move the slider or type in their bet. Whereas it's quite common on full tilt to see weaker players become lazy and just hit the pot button no matter what they have and making it more difficult to do stuff like pot-control and peel for draws more cheaply.

The word random is like the word dead. It is an absolute. You cannot be more dead than someone else. It's either random or it isn't.

Why?

lol.

Quick! Post some random crap with a couple of big words thrown in to help dig yourself out of your "F*ck me, I'm stupid" hole....

Nice recovery.

prolly for the same reason I did. To have a laugh at whatever nonsense was going to be in the OP.

I for one wasnt disappointed

Seems everyone has to be ****** who asks a question that doesn't fit into ones small brain...

I'm not trying to dig me out of something, since the post was for the purpose of beeing a question or some kind of discussion and not an absolute thesis of mine....

It's always easy to narrow down an answer to 'you are stupid'....

ahlee, the RNG's are either random or rigged. For the rigtards there is a huge thread to moan about how you lose. For the rest of us we accept the randomness. We even accept that the RNG of AP and UB was random at the time of the scandal.

Give the man a break, trolls!
He did put a quote.

so did i!

And here I thought we were going to discuss the benefits of fixed shuffle vs continuous shuffle. *sigh*

the continuous shuffle is more work for the shufflers and i do not think the shufflers get paid enough as it is

You got the response that is fairly typical to your approach at being a riggie. If you read that huge rigged thread you will see that plenty of others have gone with exactly the same approach as the following:

- I am not saying it is rigged (to try to distance yourself from the wacko paranoid crowd)

- I am just asking some questions about possible randomness issues (which is basically a way of saying "is it rigged?")

- People make fun of you for being a riggie who is trying to pretend he is not a riggie


Not sure what else you want, some people gave legitimate answers to your "concerns" as to why the win rates would be different at the sites. How do you expect them to react if you still think it might be some mystical RnG differences that target players.

Feel free to explain all the details behind how and why it may be different and then realize what you say has been said many many times before by other riggies.

That's why you are getting what you get. Stop being a crybaby about it.

All the best.