I think there's some misunderstanding here about how Stars alleges their RNG works. Lee Jones clearly explains it in this informative video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DkHzOUzDjc

There is user input injected into the "randomness" apparently as one of the sources of random numbers. I think (hope) this is what pk was referring to in terms of key strokes.

Inject a few raisins of conversation into the tasteless dough of existence.

Just caught up on the last couple of pages of nonsense that happened while I was in the air. Is that a fair representation of what the rest of the thread has been like?

He, or the character he is playing on the Internet, has no experience working with pretty much anything he/his character posts about, or any real understanding of the concepts he/his character uses to shape his theories about creating new math, or how RNGs work, or words like "imaginary numbers" or "ostensible". He/his character learns about something and then tries to apply it somewhere that it doesn't work. Ostensible as a noun, physics as math, arrays chosen from by keystrokes as an RNG - he/his character has no clue what he/his character is talking about, on pretty much any subject.

100%. Don't expect to convince OP of anything, as he/his character is always right, even though he/his character is pretty much always very, very, very wrong. But that doesn't mean you might not still find the thread entertaining.

How come the recent thread be Wee_Hoo (which to me appeared to be in good faith) was locked, but this one by an obvious troll is still open? And why was this filth moved to Probability?

The mods deleted a few posts in that other one where the OP started to go Internet Road Rage. In contrast, this one I assume is still found to be amusing in a way, though it seems to be approaching its natural death again, because nobody is really trying to discuss things rationally with the OP any more.

Quoted OP on this one though:

Agree this has run its course.

this is pascal right? and how big casinos make their money with EV?

No, it's gibberish.

Love this thread, even if I understood less than 5% of what was said.

This thread might finally become more than just theory after GG took the lead. Did you notice the amount of least probable outcomes that happen there every couple hands?

Narrator: 'It will not.'

I tried to read this, but the conversation is too long.

Pkdk is trying to say, that in case Pokerstars takes a new randomly shuffled deck for each next game cone (hand), it causes rigging?

Lol, I opened opponent's hands on iPoker, and I made it right after Pokerstars closed its doors for players from Russia...
They just rig the postflop (specifically, the flop cards) to the favor of a losing player.


I mean, this theory of pkdk, which doesn't look reasonable to me, is not something that really matters, because this approach of him is about "fair but non-completely-random" dealing.

While the rooms just use the fact - it's impossible (almost) to prove rigging of the game without opening of the starting hands of your opponents in each game cone played - and deal cards the way to keep weaker players in game.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...ostcount=93654

I mean, there is a pretty concrete logic of rigging the game on Pokerstars, same as on iPoker.