This guy has been obsessed with this irrelevant belief for years, and posted it frequently in forums that do not get trolling (beginners and poker theory).
This guy is not a troll, he is just a tad preoccupied with thinking he discovered a new way to add 1 and 1. Kind of reminds me of the logic used by posters in the probability forum when they try really hard to have multiple -EV plays somehow be +EV along with a sprinkle of the crazy Nash dude.
Anyway, it was kind of refreshing to see an old school math debate here, albeit for a pretty bizarre reason/theory.
wow i just came back from a long break on stars and in just under half an hour i witnessed 3 crazy setups. even if i would be paid to deny the riggness of stars i could not bring myself to do it because it is so obvious. guys be careful dont give all your money to these crooks.
please cut through the clutter (teaching us your math is not helpful) and in a short, concise paragraph please define exactly what your theory is about online poker.
please cut through the clutter (teaching us your math is not helpful) and in a short, concise paragraph please define exactly what your theory is about online poker.
Is it rigged and if so, why.
Online poker is flawed compared to live poker. The subtle differences making a functional change in the game of texas holdem.
By using a system of multiple decks, this produces more repeat values in the online game. Thus making it almost impossible to get a correct read on a player and to have a consistent game .
It is not rigged, the function used now is ostensible, it appears to work but does not work .
For reasons already stated and shown .
By using a system of multiple decks, this produces more repeat values in the online game. Thus making it almost impossible to get a correct read on a player and to have a consistent game .
WAIT!
This would actually make it EASIER to get a correct read on villain.
By using a system of multiple decks, this produces more repeat values in the online game.
How?
There are 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975 ,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000 possible decks but somehow by using more than one you cause repeat values?
You realize that a casino also uses multiple decks if they use a shuffler machine?
Not a problem as long the decks are dependent to a single table and are played in order one after each other.
Casinos generally only use two decks maximum as well, the subtle change in this is negligible.
There are 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975 ,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000 possible decks but somehow by using more than one you cause repeat values?
Yes it easy to show. Below I will put some random sets
I have been trying to figure out, but this ****** is saying that when you use multiple deck the chances of getting a specific card changes when you're getting the first card dealt?
Not a problem as long the decks are dependent to a single table and are played in order one after each other.
Being dependent to a table does not change the fact that all decks are randomly shuffled.
Quote (FROM STARS YOU QUOTED EARLIER): Instead, there are servers that do nothing but shuffle decks of cards. They have no idea how those cards will be used, they just shuffle decks and line them up. When your table needs a deck, it pings the server, and the next deck in line is delivered to that table. The cards are then dealt in order. There is no such thing as a "cool deck"; every deck is shuffled randomly, so it is a fair deck. It cannot *possibly* favor any particular player.
NOTHING is ever done to alter the decks -- they are simply dealt in order, fairly.
"They just shuffle the decks and line them up, creating a bi-probability array." This statement from you is incorrect. There is no dependent array.
I have been trying to figure out, but this ****** is saying that when you use multiple deck the chances of getting a specific card changes when you're getting the first card dealt?
There is nothing ******ed about it sir, there is no need for insults. I am showing you all why it is broken, I am showing you ostensible content.
Understand the word ostensible sir please.
Being dependent to a table does not change the fact that all decks are randomly shuffled.
Quote (FROM STARS YOU QUOTED EARLIER): Instead, there are servers that do nothing but shuffle decks of cards. They have no idea how those cards will be used, they just shuffle decks and line them up. When your table needs a deck, it pings the server, and the next deck in line is delivered to that table. The cards are then dealt in order. There is no such thing as a "cool deck"; every deck is shuffled randomly, so it is a fair deck. It cannot *possibly* favor any particular player.
NOTHING is ever done to alter the decks -- they are simply dealt in order, fairly.
"They just shuffle the decks and line them up, creating a bi-probability array." This statement from you is incorrect. There is no dependent array.
The decks are all lined up for all the tables in play. There could be 10,000 decks between the deck at your table and the next deck you get. All these 10,000 decks going to other tables.
This happens every deal.
IN example
123
123
321
321
231
231
Now if you were to have top to bottom in order , you first get 1, but if you were to random choose your value could change.
I have been trying to figure out, but this ****** is saying that when you use multiple deck the chances of getting a specific card changes when you're getting the first card dealt?
Fairly certain he believes that using multiple decks is the root of all evil.
Even though each deal is an independent event. Two decks are not used in a deal to one table. Ten decks are not used in one deal to a table. But pkdk is trying to link two or more decks to an individual deal.
Now if you were to have top to bottom in order , you first get 1, but if you were to random choose your value could change.
the juncture of math and poker do not work this way.
A deal from a randomized deck utilizes only the 52 "cards" from the ONE deck.
where you start veering off into the use of a second deck...whether left/right or up/down.......you lose credibility.
Your math may prove to you of the correctness of your premise..... and there is no convincing you apparently that Your math is impossible as it relates to online poker and the current RNGs
The total number of cards doesn't have to match the denominator in the probability fraction. You can make the denominator any number as long as you adjust the numerator accordingly. People tend to set the numerator at 1 and then adjust the denominator accordingly to make it easier to visualize.
But if you want the denominator to match the total number of cards, then in that situation it is (rounded): 0.192/10 or written as a percentage, roughly a 1.92% chance.
70.37037037% to be a little more exact.
I got 1.92% earlier in the thread, but that is ostensible content .
The answer is ? always as it becomes a multi-function probability.
The left aligned column could have all the same values,
There is nothing ******ed about it sir, there is no need for insults. I am showing you all why it is broken, I am showing you ostensible content.
Understand the word ostensible sir please.
adjective
1.
characterized by a slowness or limitation in intellectual understanding and awareness, emotional development, academic progress, etc.
Is it still an insult when the definition is spot on?
the juncture of math and poker do not work this way.
A deal from a randomized deck utilizes only the 52 "cards" from the ONE deck.
where you start veering off into the use of a second deck...whether left/right or up/down.......you lose credibility.
Your math may prove to you of the correctness of your premise..... and there is no convincing you apparently that Your math is impossible as it relates to online poker and the current RNGs
I understand it is difficult for you sir to ''see'' the ostensible content involved. Relatively speaking you would have no way of knowing it was not true. However , science, dimensional analysis, vector analysis and common sense, shows us the facts. Facts are not made up sir and using arrays shows us the facts.
P (a)/y = ?
1/52X is because we know the 1 exists in the 52 somewhere, where with 1/52y we cannot be certain our 1 exists in the y-axis so therefore ?/52 is the answer for y.
