fyp.

but yeah that 750$G 10$ 630pm super bounty was fun and usually hit the Guart. and somedays would be 20-30 ppl above the G.

not sure why that got **** canned. they should have kept it and raised the G.

I didn't realize they made that change. Thanks for pointing it out.

So are the rest of the draw games we play at Borg still in "experiment phase"? (badacey deucy triple draw)

I was under the impression that all the draw games + Razz+ Stans stupid split pot holdem (<3 stan if you read this) and maybe stud hi/lo no Q were introduced the same time for the same trial period.

Dont see why badugi is now on the official list but triple draw and the others arent.

also wtf mambo? Isn't that the dance from west side story?

doubt any PP reps read this anymore but....


Re new Double Or Nothings sng's

just noticed that these are being offered.

structure sucks. they give you 8 minutes (huzzah) but then they take out the level for 100-200 (ante). + dont start ante until 400/800 lev.

worst of all they jump from lev 3 50-100 to lev 4 100-200. really dont like when levs double like that. sucks going from 30bbs to 15 bb from one hand to another w out losing a pot.

tldr
add another lev in between 50-100 and 100-200 + add a 100-200(+ante) lev.

until then im not playing anymore D.O.N's

Why is there better structure in these level III satellites then sngs. If you incorporate half the levels in these things into your sngs it would go a long way to fixing them.

Poker room management is now aware of your concerns and we will discuss the matter internally. If/when we're ready to provide an alternative structure, we'll run the changes by the community before releasing.

fantastic news

The pay structure is too flat as well. Too many players get paid.

I suggest you have a third party audit your RNG

cool beans thank you.


+100 (to all sites)
i was just thinking about that the other day... (awful lot of 1-4 outers lately just saying lol rigged). I remember a thread somewhere on 2p2 a couple months ago about 3rd party audit on the RNG on all sites. i guess that never happened?

+1. Although, I'm sure it will never happen.

Prior to being accredited by the DGE there are many checks that each applicant (online casino) has to prove to DGE’s satisfaction. Our RNG has been tested by the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement to provide games that are fair and operate correctly. Kindly specify your precise concern as we look forward to resolving it.

Please bring back MICRO Sit And Go Tournaments. (0.10, 0.20, 0.50)

1. Cash games are offered at 0.01/ 0.02. Based on this cash game level, the least affordable Sit and Go tournament offered is 50 big blinds.
2. Since the micro SnGs were removed, there are noticeably fewer SnGs that run.
3. Even with the SnG leaderboard, there are hardly ever SnGs running.
4. While the new coin-flip SnGs are a good idea, playing all-or-nothing for 50, 100 or 200 BBs is not something micro-stakes players are likely to do.
5. If coin-flips were offered at micro-stakes, more of them would get off.
6. Micro SnGs are also a learning tool, allowing less experienced players a chance to play and learn for a more reasonable investment.
7. If you bring back micro-stakes SnGs, more $1, $2 and higher SnGs will also run. Why? Because some players like to build from those smaller SnGs.

Many players who used to play some higher SnGs ($1, $2, $5, $10) will never play them if there are no micros available. It makes more sense to play a regular small stakes tournament instead, or even cash. And since there are not many of those running, after searching the site those players end up not playing anything.

Please, bring back the Micro SnG tournaments!!! Including PLO if possible, which was never offered for less than $1.

That the system has been tested and is fair, I have no doubt. That the RNG is truly random seems highly unlikely. Truthfully, there may be nothing that can be done about this as the RNG issues are pervasive. And testing an RNG from a mathematical outcome basis may be beyond the scope of what the DGE can verify.

Several of the most common algorithm's used for server based RNGs have been well known for many years to be pseudo-random. That is consistent with some of the rare events observed.

Examples?

1. Current hand histories show a tendency that the dominated hand wins heads up ALL-Ins 85-90% of the time when they should be losing 65-70% of the time.

2. When short stacks are All in (in away mode, meaning they are blinded all in) they are highly likely to be dealt an above average hand and survive.

3. I have seen a high # of "improbable event combinations." In one day, I saw 4 royal flushes and 2 4 to a royals at my tables. The timing of them was very close together. This is probably a 6 sigma event and highly unlikely. It is also inconsistent with the number of hands played out on the site. This does not prove non-randomness but is one of many examples of strange behavior that adds to the evidence for a pseudo-random RNG.

How can you say you have no doubt that the system was tested and "is fair", when the first two alleged examples in your list are of supposed blatant unfairness?

When you are ahead and you lose, that is not necessarily unfair. That is something that is bound to happen a certain percentage of the time. The question is, when that percentage (losing when you were ahead at a given street) is higher than expected, is that the result of the RNG? Is your sample size statistically significant? And there are many other factors.

If all players are subject to the same flawed RNG, then it is fair in that everybody is equally disadvantaged when they are ahead. The RNG presumably impacts all players equally. That is to say, even if it has problems, as long as it is equally applied to all players it is "fair" from a compliance point of view.

And without saying too much about myself, let me tell you that I work in the field and I am intimately involved with the kind of testing that DGE would perform on these systems. So I feel confident in agreeing with PartyPoker that, yes, their system was extensively tested by DGE.

Where the problem lies (and the point I was making) is that the kind of testing that is performed for compliance does not rise to the level that would verify that the outcomes of hands are TRULY random rather than being PSEUDO random. In the second case, the outcome has the appearance of randomness but patterns can emerge over large samples that would allow for certain outcomes to be more predictable than they should be.

This is a complicated issue and for those who have never performed such testing, it may be hard to accept. But DGE simply cannot check programmatic functionality at the code level, much less the RNG. Perhaps that is something they should be able to do (there is definitely a case to be made for that). But everybody has a budget and experts who are capable of testing this are not inexpensive. And time is also a factor when testing to this degree. The research that proved the "non-randomness" of certain popular algorithms was conducted by universities over a period of years and in some cases decades.

This cannot be fully explained in a forum post, and believe me I could write a book on this topic. But I hope I have come close to explaining what I meant.

I honestly think you're clueless.

Did you mention your sample size anywhere.

My sample size is X number of hands. The results of this sample prove that their system is flawed because it is X times outside of standard deviation for this size of a sample.

This would be an intelligent way to present an argument such as yours.

Till then, there's a great place for people like you to continue your rambling.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...dition-255990/

Having just played a rebuy turboment, I again implore you that a 30 second pause for someone to consider rebuying is ridiculous, taking up 10% of a level in a turbo tournament. What's worse is that if the person chooses not to rebuy (or is out of rebuys, or isn't even at the table), there's no feature for them or the system to say "I'm done". 15 seconds should be plenty of time, and there should not be any pause when the player can't rebuy.

Stoopmonkey, this is just the kind of inflamatory ad-hominem attack that is the problem with this forum and the poker world in general.

1. First of all, in the first paragraph I wrote "Is the sample size large enough to be statistically significant."

2. My entire point was not to prove, nor to disprove, whether the RNG was truly random. My point was that those who suggested that an outside "3rd party" be assigned to test such RNG were vastly underestimating what would be required of such a test. If you had taken even a moment to review the prior posts you would know that there was no reason for me to provide a sample size as I have not conducted any scientific test on this issue.

3. As a separate point, I also pointed out that many of those people also probably do not know the extent of testing that DGE has already performed. And I do not think that a true test of the RNG is even possible for the DGE to include within its scope.

4. I provided anecdotal evidence to reply to a specific question that was asked by the PartyPoker representative, namely if there were any "examples" of non-random behavior. Simply because I provided those examples does not mean I conducted any test. I just answered the question that was asked.

5. For those who would want to put these comments into context, I have over 200K hands on the platform for PartyPoker / Borgata.

1. With the amount of technical problems that have come up on the site, I do not agree with changing the re-buy time to 15 seconds vs the current 30 seconds. There are just too many things that can slow somebody down. (once when I was trying to re-buy and it timed me out even at the 30 seconds)

2. Having the ability to select "I do not wish to rebuy" or "I am done" as you suggested is a great idea. +++1

Add some Omaha hi/lo sit-n-gos. Add some omaha hi/lo tourneys to the schedule as well. $2-$10 range...

So you're saying over 200k hands, the folllowing is true:

I dont believe you. I think you're pulling these numbers out of your ass, and fooling yourself into believing they are accurate. This is the problem with this site and poker in general. You're just another clueless riggy.

I'm focusing on just this one point to keep it simple. You can easily filter for these situations and get hundreds of instances from your 200k sample size and prove me wrong. 200k hands is not big enough to prove lots, but it's significant enough to suggest that what you are claiming could be true. If it's anywhere close (it won't be)ill throw in another ~300k hands.

Believe whatever you want. But learn how to read what other people write, and not what you want to see. I put my total number of hands played in my response. I wrote an example in reply to a specific question posted by the Party Rep. I never said I thought the site was rigged. Just because you read that in another forum, doesn't mean you can lump me in that category.

I wasn't even going to dignify this with a reply till you needlessly flamed me in that other thread. Stop trolling. You don't have any evidence to back up the fact that you just don't want to believe what I wrote.

Ok, so you have the data to back up this claim:

But you just don't want to look at it and tell us the results.

I believe you do have the data. But I also believe you decided to pull these stats out of your ass instead of looking at the data you have.

All i'm asking is for is the proof you say you have. Open up pokertracker, or HEM, and look. You will find out how wrong you are.

I don't mean to troll or flame you. But I think this could be a great learning experience for many other players who think they are capable of estimating their results over hundreds of thousands of hands. When in reality, their emotions make all of their calculations extremely inaccurate. You're a human.