Well I figured out my own math because I was curious. It's actually not hard to do. Any ways the 3 90% chance hands is 1 in 1000. Losing the other hands which I was ethir 50/50 or 35/65 - adding those in makes it .0001625 or 1 in 6553.5~ Pretty sick indeed!

Are you some sort of math wizard?

I've never seen such advanced calculation in my life.

It's not that advanced - to find out your odds of losing a 10% hand you just multiply it by another 10% hand. So to lose 2 in a row is 1/100 and 3 in a row is 1/1000

than you mutlply that by .5 and .5 and .65 or .35 depending if you're the favorite. It will give you a number and you multiply that number by what ever to get it closest to 1.

Lol, oh boy. Need mo popcorn.

Sorry could you explain that in a different way? I don't get it. I'm not used to this kind of complicated mathematical analysis...

Anyone have proof that Global's RNG is not random?

I have played less than 1000 SnGs and tournaments, and have had two royal flushes as well as several straight flushes. It does appear that when I'm in a dominating spot(AK vs Ax, Pair vs smaller pair, ect..) I lose at a higher rate than expected but not kept track. Maybe it just seems that way because I'm running bad. Either way 2 royals and several straight flushes vs the number of hands played is odd.

I too would like to know how stats work, are there courses for this kind of knowledge?

Not going to be possible to get proof with out being able to save hand historys and compare them with millions of other hands to see if anything is out of the norm.

I have my suspicions - and hard for me to trust the site with a lot of money as i've seen some pretty strange things over and over again. But than again I am up on the site so hard to complain as well.

The certification from hitech Labs has been posted in thia thread several times. There was also someone that was banned for using a custom HUD and had tons of hands downloaded. He answered a bunch of questions people had and also said the HH showed no deviation from expected results.

I just can't believe that someone could have a TEN buy-in downswing on an unrigged site. I'm withdrawing my funds at once.

Sent from my moto e5 cruise using Tapatalk

Never suspected them of being off(I had a good drunk rant on why bad beats happen more on Global on this thread) and it is good to have voices of reason occasionally on this thread.

As online play spike with the lockdown, there will be more rigtards crying over something.

I have checked out a few YouTube videos of people complaining about Global and if anything it shows they are idiots and there is nothing abnormal about Global's RNG or anything else.

nevermind what i said global seems fine at 50nl and above, at low limits seems off to me maybe cuz im not used to lower than 100 and 200nl

Is there like a link or something to whoever verified their RNG as legitimate. It's just too much for me, i really truly in my heart of hearts believe there is something going on with the RNG. It's truly unbelievable. And i don't say this stuff lightly. Especially that huds aren't allowed. There is no way for players to verify this.

I've posted it ten times or more in this thread. I found it via a Google search. You can use the search bar for the thread: iTech Labs or Google it as I did.

Thanks. Sorry rage posted this should have searched first.

Lol, all good. Been there done that.

this site is jut CRAZY most hands are bad beats its so wild

i just lost all in on turn with a boat and lost to river bigger boat, then i get all in with KK ahaisnt aa and i river quads

i remember my first beer

Never let a crisis go to waste. Juice up the boards to build big pots and rake it in. It's about the same as price gouging.

lmfao. I second the "I remember my first beer" post. My god

I never been a big fan of their rng they use Mersenne Twister. Its very old out dated rng from 1997. Not rigged or anything (variance is sick in poker) but doesn't hurt to upgrade to a more secure one that works faster. Here is a list of disadvantages and better alternatives if they do ever want to update it.

Disadvantages
Relatively large state buffer, of 2.5 kib, unless the TinyMT variant (discussed below) is used.
Mediocre throughput by modern standards,[39] unless the SFMT variant (discussed below) is used.
Exhibits two clear failures (linear complexity) in both Crush and BigCrush in the TestU01 suite. There are a number of other generators that do pass all the tests (and numerous generators that fail badly).
Multiple instances that differ only in seed value (but not other parameters) are not generally appropriate for Monte-Carlo simulations that require independent random number generators, though there exists a method for choosing multiple sets of parameter values.
Can take a long time to start generating output that passes random tests if the initial state is highly non-random—particularly if the initial state has many zeros. A consequence of this is that two instances of the generator, started with initial states that are almost the same, will usually output nearly the same sequence for many iterations, before eventually diverging. The 2002 update to the MT algorithm has improved initialization, so that beginning with such a state is very unlikely.
Is not cryptographically secure , unless the CryptMT variant (discussed below) is used. The reason is that observing a sufficient number of iterations (624 in the case of MT19937, since this is the size of the state vector from which future iterations are produced) allows one to predict all future iterations.

An alternative generator, WELL ("Well Equidistributed Long-period Linear"), offers quicker recovery, and equal randomness, and nearly equal speed.
Marsaglia's xorshift generators and variants are the fastest in this class.
64-bit MELGs ("64-bit Maximally Equidistributed F2-Linear Generators with Mersenne Prime Period") are completely optimized in terms of the k-distribution properties.
The ACORN family (published 1989) is another k-distributed PRNG, which shows similar computational speed to MT, and better statistical properties as it satisfies all the current (2019) TestU01 criteria; when used with appropriate choices of parameters, ACORN can have arbitrarily long period and precision.

It doesn't matter where you play online, live etc. Antonios Esfandari post flop all in situation who plays mostly live "It can never be easy. Always has to be a sweat." Just watch daniel negreanu lose his mind on high stakes poker flopping the nuts losing over and over again losing if you think online poker is rigged. he even gets so mad he punches the table. Poker is just a sick game. They can upgrade the rng but your still gonna see a lot of sick stuff happen when you play. I play on iggy a ton i get bad beat 20 to 30 times a day sometimes where i have people dominated. Its pretty standard.

Speaking of saying things that I've said at least nine million times in the past:

If you don't trust a site's RNG, then don't play on said site.

You're welcome.

"Building big pots" on its own would make the operator less rake, not more.

Bigger pots than standard result in the sweeps moving from the long-term losing players to the long-term winning players faster. This is bad for the losing players (they will not stick around if they lose too quick), and bad for the operator (as once the sweeps hit the long-term winner they are not likely to be raked more).