I was a bit taken aback, when Alex mentioned this would be the case with Badugi. At a 6 handed game, reshuffles almost never happen. At a 8 or 9 seat table, they are all too common. There are certainly (rare) times when you may want your round 1 discard back on round 3.

+1 for leave it the same as B&M.

Two very simple questions. Here are two comments from PokerStars rep Alex regarding software changes(source):

1. Does the 'modified' deal method offer superior performance and reliability compared to just dealing what card would normally have been dealt?

2. How did you decide that the modified deal would be something that alot of players would want?

You are totally distorting the matter.

What Stars has actually done is slightly changed the rules of triple draw. This is approximately the 563093275th time in the history of poker that someone has changed the rules of a poker game. The new rule apparently is:

I don't think this is a very good rule change, but the effect is slight and it's no big deal.

The new form of poker created by the rule change is still perfectly fair because the same rules apply to everyone. The dealing software is simply implementing the rules, no more and no less. It is in no way rigged.

I don't think this is a big deal in terms of the effect on the game, but the fact that someone in management at Stars would approve this is kind of scary. Like zero upside for them and obviously, based on the reactions here (which, logical or not are easily anticipated), a downside exists. Really dumb choice.

Of course the 'new rule' needs to be posted in the game info page on Stars.

this sounds like it was a bad idea and they should change the rules back to the "normal" way of dealing the game. I don't agree that it is a harbinger of other kinds of manipulation by Stars though.

i think the point was that stars had said a UB type superuser couldn't exist cause in stars software all hand info is private until hand is over, so no way it could happen.

with rng and dealt cards people assumed it was the same way i guess, now we are being told , hey it's no big deal to reprogram the deal to be non-random.

personally i'm not really worried but i see the point.

No, you are wrong. You are confusing "rules of the game" with "RNG." Try again.

what are you superwordparserman? most people thought there's no way you influence cards (who gets what cards), and now we see, yeah, pretty easy to influence who gets what cards.

contrast this to superuser see holecards. on UB security and other UB staff can/could see hole cards in real time. on pokerstars that is impossible holecards can be seen only after the hand.

so it's not, is the stars hole card monitor being hacked so that someone can be a superuser and see my hole cards?, the ? doesn't need to be asked because stars doesn't have a realtime monitor.

the contrasting parallel is real time cards coming off the deck, which by the way needs access to your hole cards. is the stars deck manipulation based on your hole cards being hacked somehow so someone can cheat me? this, in contrast to the above, is a valid question since it is allowed by the software.

actually now that i've written the above it is easy to see there may be a security flaw because now the "deck" must communicate with your "hand", which is totally unnecessary. it's like having a realtime holecard monitor. it's unnecessary. it might not be a security problem with the right checks and balances (talking bout holecard realtime), but then again it might (UB). pokerstars got it right and said, why take a chance? with the holecard realtime, but seems to have said, well it's a small chance with the deck manipulation. that's the argument imo.

I'm not surprised to hear that the Stars server software keeps track of which cards it has dealt to each player. I suspect this information is really useful at the end of the hand when it is time to award the pot . This is all the information needed to avoid giving a player the same card twice in one deal.

The dealing algorithm for triple draw also needs to know all the discards in order to do the standard reshuffle.

It's obviously impossible to write a working triple draw program that doesn't already know everything needed to implement their special rule. This thread provides no new insight whatsoever into Stars security.

I agree that it is still random and fair PROVIDING every player is aware of the new rules and this is the part I don't like. It is unreasonable to expect every player to read a whole set of rules in case there is a difference to what is "standard". Seriously, who joins a new site and reads the nlhe rules? a site may decide that it would be better if no aces could be dealt on a board if someone has KK as their hole cards (daft example but you should get my drift). Now you could say that as long as they publish this in their rules everybody still has an even playing field but this is not the case - some people will have a slight edge if they know a rule that others do not. I think if Stars want to put in games with odd rules then they should give the game a different name. Everybody would then have to read the rules before playing.

This is the most ridiculous tweaking of a rule and I am amazed that Stars thinks it is a good idea.

I was getting a bit worried when this thread went so long without people coming in to call me names. Good to know it's still 2+2.

I'm using "rigged" in this thread in the same way that people use it when they come in here to claim that Stars is setting up the deck to make draws more likely to come in on the river -- because that's exactly what this "rule change" does. I think it's best to come down hard on that when it's in an incredibly rare situation in a game very few people play, rather than justifying it and letting them keep thinking this way until it results in a truly large mistake.

Reminds me of this:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/20...551-post13547/

Considering how rare actually that two paired hands went to showdown in razz, I think that the AP incident was comparable to now. Pretty amazed how drastic the reactions differed though.

The two cases are actually completely different. In the Absolute "bug", the software was doing something that not only deviated from the established rules of the game, but also violated the site's own published rules and did so without the software team at the site realizing it was doing it. That's why that thread about a $2 pot lives on, because it was a clue that the software team there has their heads up their asses before the whole superuser scandal broke. I see no indication that the team at Stars is in a similar contortion.

I'm probably an idiot too, but I think tapir's question is legitimate....for the most part. I'd ask it slightly differently though:

...once Stars has demonstrated willingness to deal from different decks in one situation, why should the fish trust them not to do it in others?

As with bots, this is a situation of perception of integrity. Most bots (if not all) are beatable, but they scare the fish away. I don't believe that PS has set out to "rig" the games, but if the fish perceive it that way, it gives them another reason to stay away.

Bad choice stars.

You are incorrect here. The server has zero reason to keep track of who discarded what. It only needs to know what has been discarded. The only remotely reasonable justification would be hand histories. There's also no reason that 'dealt' cards should be being intercepted and analyzed before actually being dealt.

They made a decision about the redeal that they thought was an improvement. If enough people don't like it, I am sure they will consider changing it. I think Mark Gritter provides a good example as to why one might want a card that they had previously discarded. I think an implication that the game is rigged or not on the level is just silly. Stars is forthcoming with the info, something that wouldn't happen if they weren't legit.

In the few live Deuce-to-Seven Triple Draw Low games I've played, the re-shuffle was pretty common, often coming up multiple times per rotation in a mixed game.


Eh, over-reaction I think. The bigger issue is...

You get the lovely red car with a radio.


As long as they call it "Stars Drawy Drawy Drawy Deucey Seveny" or something similar to reflect a pointless annoying minor rule change, fine... whatever.


In conclusion, I +1 the idea that a small rules change isn't unfair or a harbinger of the tinfoil hat poker apocalypse, but it is annoying. Stars, if you're going to call it "2-7TDL," play it by the rules that we all know. If you're going to offer something that looks like a variant of a game I know, but isn't actually the game I know, it's much less likely I'm going to sit down and learn new rules. If I'm playing a game where I think I know the rules and find out I don't, I'm going to be super-pissed. You then decide what the best course of action is.

If you're not re-shuffling, you're not practicing good game selection.

jmo

Bump this one if you want.

I have no problem with the reshuffle method they use as far as potential manipulation implications based on that reading of the policy.

The remaining deck has to be remanipulated (reshuffled) based on a current game/hand anyhow. As long as it's a fair shuffle I don't care that they tag cards you cannot receive back. I'd assume If you get dealt a card you were already dealt it goes back and you get the next card (based on their no continuous shuffle). Although I'm not sure this is how they do it I assume a reshuffle where this specific issue is addressed is the only time they have an ability to track/swap an individual card, that it's limited to cards you have already held and discarded (which you have actually told the software to replace).

When Stars says there's no ability to know hole cards while a game is running I think it's a much different thing than a disclosed policy that likely only applies to cards actually discarded (essentially instructing the software to not include this card in your hand) Both can be true.

In a live game I'd imagine you get what you get. Online there's another option and Stars uses it.

edit: and I remember and fully understand Tapirboy's points from that other thread. I'm only talking about it from a manipulation and wider implications angle.

THIS tells you the ability of the server to know your holecards is there? I'd say the fact that the server chose your hole cards would indicate to me that the server knows your hole cards. And I'd want them to remain known actually, since if you just trusted the client to reveal the hole cards at the end, then some of the scam software (turn your hand into aces!) might actually work.

that other thread says you get the next card. from a stars rep...

"at the point at which you are dealt new cards, if you are going to receive a card that you have already discarded, that card is simply skipped and you get the next one instead."

all that matters wrt to hole cards being seen/known is whether a person has access to this information in game. Stars has repeatedly said there is no such mechanism that allows any employee to view this in game.

you can complain this reshuffle changes the odds of the game from what one would expect at a home game or whatever but if it's a disclosed policy it's not inherently unfair or problematic.

OK, how do you think your hole cards are determined? Your client just makes them up? Or do you think the server tells you what your cards are?

And it's a HUGE, HUGE security hole to have that done client side. Maybe there's a way to exploit it, maybe there isn't (without detection), but that would NOT be a can of worms I'd like to see opened up.

Edit: here's a simple proof the server knows your hole cards--if it didn't, how could it avoid putting someone's hole cards up as a board card (in board games) or having hole cards duplicated between hands?

And that is what I am saying is wrong. What you're trying to argue is that the server can never verify the client's claims as to what his holdings are. That seems like a huge security hole to me, to allow the client to pick what he wants to have as his holdings.

Further, as I have already pointed out, if the server never knows the cards, how can there never be duplication of your cards with another player's cards? That shows your bolded claim is *obviously* false.

Exercise for you: Try to design a shuffle that doesn't duplicate cards without knowing what cards you've already dealt. If you can do that, we can talk further. But please think about what I've asked you to do. That way, you'll realize why your bolded claim MUST be wrong.

cite please.

And explain how that works, rather than just assert that you're correct. I did ask for your explanation of how the deal worked, not just one step in the deal. Obviously you can make any individual step look OK by shifting the problem somewhere else.

BTW, the fail in your system can be answered by the fact that you say the cards are encrypted on the server. To encrypt something you start from something that's unencrypted.