Global Poker - RNG Discussion - Page 174 - Global Poker -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

Two Plus Two Forums Online Poker Sites & Marketplaces Online Poker Sites Global Poker

Global Poker - RNG Discussion

...

Page 174 of 188

First

74 124 154 164 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 184

Last

Page 174 of 188

First

74 124 154 164 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 184

Last

04-13-2020 , 04:58 PM

#4326

loliwin34

centurion

Join Date: Oct 2017 Posts: 100

Actually , naw I am withdrawling my whole 2k roll from this site, something is totally scammy about the runouts, ever since i made my first 500 dollar withdrawl the **** has gone totally haywire. I cant win a hand doesnt matter what it is, certain players call down with ACE high and make str8s on the river with no ****ing draws and totally offsuit hands when theres a flush draw out and they even bet for value in the WEIRDEST spots, they are either house player bots or computers that know the results, or its true its a lottery and a random person is gonna win, because the runouts are the only possible way people can be this bad and win, and a player like me whos a 16 year pro can be baffled over and over and over, by the ridiculous crazy ****. anyone who claims to be a pro and wins on this site must see that the **** is crazy on this site, i dont usually get on and talk about sites and *****, but global is a total random lottery / superuser site. today so many ****ed up hands happened at 50nl i lost like 300 dollars in 45 minutes in spectacular fashion. it doesnt matter waht you do, they make you lose, its not a NORMAL TYPE OF VARIANCE, i should have made recordings of my play to show it, but no ones gonna believe it anyway, so im just gonna go play on the chinese app sites peace people . if you value your sanity DO NOT PLAY ON GLOBAL, i even made 1500 in a few weeks but i still dont trust the site, thats how crazy it is. you literraly have to bluff your way to victory, cuz your value hands arent gonna win by the river. i even put people ALL IN ON THe TURN and they hit there draws like 90 percent of the time, if this wasnt a lottery i wouldnt be losing so much, you learn over the years what NORMAL RNG's feel like, and what play money LOTTERY SYSTEM feels like, its in your veins you just know it, somethings up, im telling you this dude is right. im pulling out before it lotteries everything else, because AFTER i made a withdrawl I cant win ANY HANDS, 4 AA all in lose to KK JT QQ 22 . and many of the same players over and over, makes u wonder oesnt it? THE SAME BIG STACKED PLAYERS PLAYING HORRIBLY, you dont see them lose any pots, this pearson dude, i flopped 3 sets on him and got each all in deep stacked on turn and he calls and hits runner runner 3 x??? this **** is nuts DONT PLAY HERE

04-13-2020 , 08:43 PM

#4327

Jay S

old hand

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,460

Quote:

Originally Posted by loliwin34

Is there a Pulitzer category for this?

04-13-2020 , 08:58 PM

#4328

Monteroy

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 16,729

That guy is a beginner at poker and manifestos. Try these in comparison

Quote:

Originally Posted by GabryRox

Many interesting points here, but certainly a lot of conjecture based on assumptions or feelings, which in itself, doesn’t prove anything. Also, there are many things that would constitute being rigged, so I will address them all separately. However, first I will start with some background… I’ve been playing about 6-7 years online, specializing in Omaha Hi-Lo (at least 95% of my games). I used to play extensively on PS and FTP before both were removed from the US market. Usually I was multi-tabling low-mid stakes O8 cash games (.10/.25 PL & NL, up to $3/$6 FL). Didn’t play many tourney on PS but starting getting into O8 MTT’s on FTP. Overall, did pretty well in cash games, but even better in MTT’s, running about 50% ROI. Since those 2 sites got shut down for US players, I’ve mostly been playing on the Merge network. All of this has added up to me playing somewhere north of 10 million hands of O8, so while I certainly don’t claim to be one of the biggest winners, I have seen quite enough to make a fair assessment on this issue. OK, now to the fun stuff…Shills (someone who works for or with the site in order to increase the site’s profits, or reduce their losses) – this one is probably the hardest to prove because without actually getting first-hand info from someone involved in this and being able to confirm it. The two big problems here? Why would either party ever admit to this? But, that said, this is what I have observed to make me believe it is very highly likely this is prevalent. I’ve observed countless idiots playing O8 MTT’s on both FTP & Merge. Especially the rebuy variations of these bring out seemingly every clueless moron on the site. When you look up the vast majority of these guys on SharkScope, they are huge losers with negative ROI’s that make you wonder how they can afford to lose that kind of money. However, every once in a while, I look up a horrible player and they come back with some ridiculous ROI… like over 100%. I usually mark these guys to watch to make sure they are just not on tilt or something. Sure enough, they almost always continue to play like a moron… and I’m talking about PFR max every hand, going all in with low pair and no low draw, completely clueless kind of donkeys here… a player who in reality would stand no chance of even breaking even, much less pulling a 100% ROI. I’ve seen first-hand, these idiots continually hit suckout after suckout to stay alive and a good portion of the time end up winning the MTT. Now certainly, even the biggest idiot on the planet can get lucky enough to win 1 or 2 of these but not to the extent that these guys do… not even close! So, the only logical conclusion is that they have an agreement with the site to play, be artificially awarded victories and high place finishes, but have to split the winnings with the site. Because oh, btw, this usually happens when the guaranteed payout pool is not met by the total buy-inns, meaning the site would lose money on the tourney. Both parties win here… the donkey get some money that he would have otherwise not even sniffed, and the site covers what they would have lost due to the shortfall of buy-inns.
Bots – I know for a fact that these exist, although I haven’t noticed any lately. Have contacted the site a couple of times about them with no apparent action, but to be honest, most of them were totally exploitable and easier to beat than your average player once you figure out what their parameters, so I stopped reporting them because I didn’t feel they were hurting my ROI.Super-users & colluders – this doesn’t seem to be a huge issue, at least in O8, but collusion almost certainly exists at the higher stakes, which is one big reason I won’t play at that level. I mean let’s face it, for anyone with any kind of tech savvy, it’s easy to get around the “protections” built in by the site and even be sitting in the same room with your friend(s) playing the same ring game against unsuspecting other players.Rigged RNG’s – OK, so this is the big one, right? I’ve read several posts stating how people have selective memory; forget when they sucked out, etc, etc. And, while there is certainly some validity to this argument, it does not account for what is obvious manipulation of the RNGs on all 4-5 sites that I have played on. Look, why wouldn’t the sites do this? When a simple tweak that would go un-noticed and be unprovable by most resulted in millions extra in revenue for your site… and oh btw, there’s essentially zero chance of getting caught (or at least of having it publicized)… how could they pass up that money? For those that don’t quite understand the incentive here, I will explain it. First, you’ve got to realize that donkeys/maniacs/plain old clueless morons drive a TON of profits for these sites. Just talking about ring games alone, which are based on rake to make profits, how much $ do you think the sites would get with a bunch of super-tight players who only play premium hands? So, based on this knowledge, how can you best take care of the donkeys to ensure they play as much as possible? Why, provide them with artificial winnings of course! This is the crux of this entire issue and it absolutely occurs… at least on all of the sites that I have played so far. When I first started noticing this, I began doing some modest tracking (aside from collecting every hand in poker tracker). Essentially, every time someone needed a 4 outer or worse to beat me in a hand, I would note it. In Omaha-8, if you flop needing a 4-outer to win, you have about a 16-17% chance of hitting. Well, after about 3-4 months of tracking this, it turned out that people were hitting 4 outers against me at a clip of about 20-21%. That might not seem like much but in reality, it means they are hitting miracle suckouts 25% more of the time than they should. Now sure, I know what you doubters are gonna say… your sample size was too low or you forgot to track certain hands… ok, I might agree somewhat on the sample size, but this led me to perform a much larger analysis. This time, I used a sample of over 7 million hands from my own personal poker tracker records. I started by isolating every hand where I flopped top hand then broke down further by number of outs the opponent had to beat me. My lowest tolerance was 1 out (obviously) and highest was 11 (didn’t see much point in going higher than that as 11 outs equates to ~44% chance of hitting after flop, so many more than that and it’s a race). What I found was astonishing but confirmed my suspicions beyond any sense of doubt. In every single category, from 1 out to 11, the hit rate was higher than it should be based solely on real odds. In a couple of cases (high end like 10 or 11 outs) it was closer to even but still over what it should be. From here, I drilled down into individual outs categories for further clarification of what was going on. Again, the results were disturbing but quite uniform. I was specifically looking at quality of player in this split. I eliminated all players with too low of a sample size and then categorized as either good player or bad player. I eliminated anyone with a -15 to +15% ROI since I considered those players to be middle-ground and therefore not truly classifiable as either good or bad. When looking at the good player pool, they hit suckouts against me very close to true odds… sure, some were slightly lower, some a bit higher but overall it was within acceptable tolerances. However, when I plotted the bad players this way, there suckout rate exceeded real odds excessively… ranging between ~25% more on the low suckout end to around 15% more on the high end. Truly astounding results and I’ll be honest, even worse than I expected based on unbiased observation. Since then, I’ve only did 1 other analysis… on MTT’s since that’s mostly what I play now. While I only had about 2 million HH to deal with this time, the results mirrored the those of the first analysis to a great extent. This literally proves 2 things… yes, these sites are most certainly tweaking their RNG’s AND, they are doing so to favor the worst players on the sites! Now I don’t think they really have to capability of deciphering between just bad players and bad players who are also maniacs and drive more profits for them because that would involve too many variables. But certainly it remains in their best interest to keep these players funded as long as possible so they will keep driving those profit margins.I think the REAL question here is… how does the site’s favoring of donkeys truly affect your long-term winnings capability? On the surface, you would certainly think that it hurts it right? In my case, I run about 70% ROI on O8 MTT’s. I did a quick calculation that showed that I would be in the 90%+ range if other players only hit suckouts at a rate of true odds, not the ones created by these site’s tweaked RNG’s. However, what this doesn’t account for is the likelihood that at least a portion of these donkeys would go broke if not for the preferential treatment, and therefore would not be throwing their money into the prize pool, leading to at least a slight reduction in winnings. So, given that there is no way to tell how many of these donkeys would stop playing if not for their artificial gift winnings from the sites, it’s impossible to really tell what impact this has on a decent player’s ROI. My opinion is that only a relatively small % of them would stop playing… many of them have already lost multiple thousands and most likely just have money to burn… so I would say that this aspect of site cheating may take 5-10% off your run-of-the-mill good to very good player.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dacy

Yep, the casino always wins, but do you think this is good enough to survive and keep the client base? I do not think so, they want it ALL and they want it FAST. They do not want you to withdraw money and go to another side; they do not want you to withdraw money and spend it in any way, withdrawing money is absolutely bad for the business. So once you deposit, your money is pretty much gone, kiss it goodbye before you do so.Yes, swings, variance - part of the game; not to the extent many posters here wants us to believe. You do not lose like 10 big pots in a row EVERY TIME you are far from a deposit. There is no variance here. It happens every time after you are far from a deposit. It happens for a reason. It happens due to manipulation, and the manipulated one is you.They do not have to rig the random generator, the random generator works as it is supposed to - chooses random numbers. The software is rigged and there is no way to check what kind of crap they are running at their servers at every particular moment. The software can tell the random generator: Choose a random pair of cards, just not from the range of all pairs, but only from a certain subset of the set of all pairs. Same goes for the development after the initial cards are dealt. Not unless their entire business is audited by a team including skillful programmers at random times. There are so many ways to rig software; these differ in details, but the idea is the same - profiling. You are aware that every business does some kind of profiling - in poker that would be your depositing habits. An easy function takes this data into account and decides when to throw you a bone (immediately after a deposit - as a reward for making the deposit) and when to skin you completely (some time after a deposit or after some number of hands, probably randomly chosen within a range specified by the software).The rest is a simple network theory. A site is a network, with nodes (players) and money traffic (flow). In a non-rigged state this network will function in some random manner. Some nodes will collect more of the flow (winning players; these might withdraw money from time to time), others will be depleted and deposit more and more (losing players). In a rigged network, all the depositing players are losers in the long run, or SOURCES, in network terminology. What are the SINKS then, in network terminology; what are the accounts that drain all the cash? Well, these are accounts associated with the site, site employees, fictitious accounts, props/shills, bots; there are many ways to create these "collecting" accounts, with the feel that we are seeing a normally functioning site. So, in short, the depositing players are the sources, the winners (or sinks) are the site accounts. You, as a depositing player, you have a zero chance to be a long term winner. Your graph will be just like mine and like any other losing account: Deposit, slightly up (the "throw bone" mode); then down to zero ("doomswitch on" mode, "skin you up" mode, whatever). Simple Pavlov's dog theory in action. Come again for some more beating; you liked the feeling of going up initially, did not you?I mean this can be seen in any player pattern, any player that I know of. If you are winning player, feel free to come to my place and demonstrate it; you will be playing on my account though. I am yet to see long term winning happening. I am an awfully stubborn depositor, probably lost a thousand+ of those at 888 and PP and PS and FT; the pattern is the same everywhere; they picked on that somewhere around 2006 and online poker has never been different since... My reasons for depositing is - well, I can afford it, I consider it entertainment, albeit very expensive for the value I am getting, which is basically beating the sht out of me every time I deposit. I have extensive statistics, mathematics, and computer science background; read the books, played over 30 years, and am successful live cash player; like 9/10 winning sessions live, including Vegas, and many major rooms all over the globe. If I cannot beat online, what are your chances?Online poker sites has been abusing my intelligence for over 10 years already. Are they kidding us? I mean, here is what is happening; I am sure, you have seen it and felt it yourself (if you are as stubborn depositor as I am): The pattern I am talking about is: I will round the numbers here to make it easier to follow: Deposit $1000 after some absence, play a day or two, go up a thousand or two, then steeply down to $0, no matter how you play, how good your cards are etc. The pattern occurs with striking regularity, I mean REALLY striking, 100%, to be more precise, no variation thrown here and there to make it less obvious. What is the probability of this pattern repeating 1000 times? What is the probability of losing 10 coin flips in a row on showdown to get to $0? It is 1/1024; let us round it to 1/1000. Because that is what is happening in order to get me broke after the initial short good streak. Now what is the probability of this happening 1000 times over the ten years I played online? The probability is (1/1000) to power 1000. Kind of small, right? It is like 0.00...01, where the number of zeros is 2999. This is the probability of impossibility, and so is a number much bigger than that, like 0.00...01 with just 60 zeros, say; which corresponds to "only" 20 losing sessions in a row. Then, what is the probability of the same thing happening to all other non-site accounts? To use the term I just introduced, it would be like "probability of impossibility" to the power of 100,000. You can do the math, and count zeros until dizzy. Anyway, you will probably say something about variance at this point, and hope someone believes you; or you will say that variance kills my bankroll; I have heard it all. How would variance kill my bankroll, if I deposit continuously, no interruption; it is not like I am playing with $1000 and quit; it is the same as having a $1,000,000, and play with it. Or something you are about to say - like why would a publicly traded company do that? Well, there are many explanations why - like why not? Big industries, banks, financial services have become rogue for much less than the hundreds of millions online poker makes... The list is quite long. Why would they let their marks withdraw some money and go elsewhere, for example? They just want it all. And there are easily programmable ways to do so; I am sure, their highly qualified programmers can do it and do it. I know pretty well how it can be done - worked in areas such as optimization and network flow - just introduce a function based on the player's profile and history, and distribute the cards accordingly, drain the excess cash in site's accounts (props, bots, whatever works, I cannot be very precise here - there are many ways to rig the software against all marks' accounts). I am not saying RNG is rigged - there is no need to rig it, so please save the explanation that the RNG is checked. I unconditionally believe it:-) The SOFTWARE is never checked; not in the way it should be, namely open to public scrutiny at ANY time, exactly the copy they run at the moment. The question is what in that software is - how the RNG is used by the software. The RNG can pick cards out of 52, but it can also pick randomly from a smaller selection, if programmed to do so; same with combinations of cards. The result as one can easily predict is: There are no winning recreational players. The only winning players are the ones who work for the site - real players, like prop players (or fictitious accounts); they get the enhanced cards all the time (as opposed to the marks who get good cards and can win at showdown only after a fresh deposit), so the money gets drained by the rake and also into the accounts that belong to the site. I see this all the time - some accounts just do not lose, no matter what cards they are playing, at the showdown, they have the goods. Some accounts just do not have the ups and downs according to the pattern I described; they just have the ups, every day. Do not tell me these accounts are just lucky players. For example, at PS, I rarely (I mean only after a fresh deposit) win a pot against accounts like TraderYao, Gay_On_Tse, abtklo420, vladfromUA, KRCNO, em949, LuckyTwin10, NinoPino, MetballsPls, I_Mr_U_Bean, book1225, Superpokemon, Inexorable, kisgali, 0BadbeatsPlz, LOLZOROFLMAO, j240585, falco_lucky7, puska_zg, Sh0rtGamma, MrM!zz1, KIsuKe_7, Grapedrink07, Mr.Andersen5, and others. My hands history shows a dismal bias toward these players, they are winning every coin flip, sitting there with many thousands of $ on a 200 or 500 buy-in table, every day. I usually play PLO, at the stated limits. Every all in goes their direction. The ending of sessions some time after a deposit or a series of deposits is absolutely the same every time I play; same group of "paid killers" ends up with the money every time. You want me to believe that the site has nothing to do with the situation, pure luck and variance? I do not consider myself to be an idiot; well, perhaps I am - for playing online for so many years, definitely; but not otherwise. I know math and stat and know when I am cheated. I might be off on small details here and there, there are many way to rig the software, keep some randomness to make it less obvious, but the idea is clear. Their way of operation is visible in my own losing pattern, but it is absolutely the same with the players I know. There is no ounce of doubt in my mind that I am cheated, 100%. Very simple: My aces hold, my flushes come, my sets hold nicely - only after a deposit. Several hours and a couple of hundreds hands later everything gets switched - aces and sets never hold, flushes and straights rarely happen, and if they do it is on a small pot. If all the money goes in the pot, their boys, those on the above list and more, they collect pot after a pot; always getting the goods on the flop or later; painful, boring and predictable. I have to really dig deep to find a pot played against one of their boys, where they went all in with a flush draw and did not get it, for example. This is not entertainment, not a fair game, they are providing destruction and nightmarish experience. Losing is never pleasant, no matter how much money people have; unless one is some kind of twisted masochistic type, I guess.So my advice is: there is a countless number of posts focusing on things like RNG, on how outrageous is to assume that a site is rigged given the fact that they collect rake, on variance, etc. The defenders of non-rigged have their well-oiled machinery, their own set of arguments that they will generously throw at any attempt to expose rigging. My advice to those who are looking into nailing one of those online robbers: Look at your hand history, but in the light of your deposits; add the times of your deposit to your graph and you will be amazed by the correlation.

04-19-2020 , 07:01 PM

#4329

iburydoscocaroaches

old hand

Join Date: Dec 2016 Posts: 1,235

I put money on global yesterday. I am testing rng for you guys the rest of the year. I will test it and I should have well over 1 million hands in when the year is over for cash games only. No donkaments sorry. You guys seem to be complaining about the variance going against you. So anytime I am a 60% fav or dog up to 98% it will count as theoretical dollars. So if i bad beat someone it will be - dollars for me. If they bad beat me it will be + dollars added to the total. So at the year the total be close to 0 if the variance goes both ways so you guys can see the variance evens out over time. I will not count flips or any 55 45 situations where its AK vs TT wheres its almost a flip. This will 100% prove the rng is legit or not. No itech labs a real poker player doing this and i will put in well over 1 million hand sample. I can't keep track of how many hands I play but it will a big volume. I will do this by buyins and playing only texas holdem. No plo so the equities don't run to close. I will only focus on the equity when all in situation pre flop or post flop. Just simple math. Yesterday results

I started yesterday a few sessions
4/18/20- 14 buyins was total in theoretical dollars I should of won but didn't.

04-20-2020 , 01:03 AM

#4330

iburydoscocaroaches

old hand

Join Date: Dec 2016 Posts: 1,235

Quote:

Originally Posted by iburydoscocaroaches

4/19/20 11.75 buys was total in theoretical dollars I should of won but didn't.

These are swings so my totat buyins losing in these situations is half of that. I am just gona update this once a week ( even though heavy volume daily) so with more volume you guys can see the variance even out over bigger volume. I think you guys tend to forget all the bad beats you get on your side. You guys will see weeks where I sun run and bad beat everyone. So every sunday night I will update it. The variance will even out over time. Either way I will do this in a honest way so you guys can see for yourself.

04-20-2020 , 05:07 AM

#4331

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by iburydoscocaroaches

Looking forward to your updates!

04-23-2020 , 03:28 AM

#4332

iburydoscocaroaches

old hand

Join Date: Dec 2016 Posts: 1,235

I did have 11.5 buyins swing my way the last few days of me bad bad beating my opponents. So the variance like i said goes both ways. But problem is i have money missing out of cashier again. I thought this was fixed and its obviously not. So i wont be testing the rng rest of the year. You guys should worry more about the cashier then the rng. Trust me the rng is fine. But their cashier still not fixed? I heard it was but I see thats nonsense.

04-24-2020 , 04:02 PM

#4333

Rutledge Smitty

old hand

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 1,416

Quote:

Originally Posted by iburydoscocaroaches

why do you seem to be the only person that consistently has this issue? record and show some proof as it happens to you ALL the time.

05-15-2020 , 10:10 AM

#4334

nohalfmeasure

stranger

Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 3

Hey guys, is there any way to track global poker cash game stats legally?

05-15-2020 , 03:42 PM

#4335

CuseNation

journeyman

Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 372

Quote:

Originally Posted by nohalfmeasure

Hey guys, is there any way to track global poker cash game stats legally?

Pen and paper or an excel spreadsheet

06-08-2020 , 11:02 AM

#4336

BigCityNights

enthusiast

Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 83

RNG still appears to be perfectly normal...

06-08-2020 , 12:19 PM

#4337

pokerman64

journeyman

Join Date: Dec 2014 Posts: 230

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigCityNights

RNG still appears to be perfectly normal...

man you had me laughing hard with that one.

06-08-2020 , 12:21 PM

#4338

pokerman64

journeyman

Join Date: Dec 2014 Posts: 230

there's more to them not allowing tracking software than just, we don't want players using HUDs, nice excuse....a complete BS one but nice try

06-08-2020 , 01:19 PM

#4339

pokergal72

centurion

Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 157

I agree that no HUDS is a good thing. Recreational and fun players don't like them. That's one of the things that makes Global different. And better than the other sites where you're playing a bunch of wizards with stats on every move you've made.

06-14-2020 , 09:22 PM

#4340

Bawsten

journeyman

Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 283

I tried out Global for the past 3 months during the pandemic and couple things.

Softest site ever, its like 180 mans from 2008 on stars. Even the best regs on here are pretty soft.

They give A LOT of money away for free through a lot of different methods.

They arent growing.

For the first 2 months it felt very clean and normal, then a switch was flipped and havent won a hand since. Roommate experiencing same thing same timing. Friends and people in past in this thread have mentioned same sequence.

Last edited by Bawsten; 06-14-2020 at 09:37 PM.

06-15-2020 , 09:57 AM

#4341

cardriverx

centurion

Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 144

I also agree no HUDs, but maybe one player could gather loads of hands?

06-17-2020 , 10:21 AM

#4342

Buyins

newbie

Join Date: Jan 2019 Posts: 31

The thing with poker is that the vast majority of people end up losing. But almost ALL of the players think they SHOULD be winning.

06-17-2020 , 12:17 PM

#4343

threebanger

grinder

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 616

I guess I don't know for certain, but I feel confident that I've been doomswitched.

Sharkscope me if you must, as a rec I've been very profitable at low/mid stakes on GP. Cashed out consistently through March & April.

The beats since then have been unreal. I won't bore you with the stories but I simply can't beat the runouts. It doesn't matter how far I'm ahead.

I enjoyed GP a lot but simply don't trust it anymore. If and when I get sweepstakes credits I'll just play slots, better odds.

06-17-2020 , 12:38 PM

#4344

dhubermex

old hand

Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,672

Not sure if this is the correct thread for this. Just noticed the Twitter thread now and am cross-posting here.

06-17-2020 , 12:49 PM

#4345

threebanger

grinder

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 616

So it appears to be exactly what many have said for years now. It is not an RNG in any way, it is designed for action and runouts matched to the cards in play. Case pretty much closed.

06-17-2020 , 12:54 PM

#4346

threebanger

grinder

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 616

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhubermex

Not sure if this is the correct thread for this. Just noticed the Twitter thread now and am cross-posting here.

David Lyons is deflecting. Nobody really cares about that question. The question is, does GP run an un-manipulated poker game. The answer is clearly no.

06-17-2020 , 02:24 PM

#4347

Floki.onGP

banned

Join Date: Aug 2018 Posts: 269

Idk what to think of those patents. I copied and blew up the pics and read them over. Seems like it's mostly designed for slots, vid poker etc but could also be applied to and is worded in a way that poker could fit in. I didn't see the word "poker" anywhere. I would think that if a site were to utilize the skill based equity distribution rng model that it'd make a lot more sense to keep it to themselves as opposed to file for patents of said rig and then also provide a supposedly certified RNG cert. That's fraud 101 and only a matter of time before some sees the patents and figures out the rig.

06-17-2020 , 05:12 PM

#4348

glogga

grinder

Join Date: Jun 2020 Posts: 404

There are 6 patents in that twitter post. Only one is owned by VGW. The other five are patents held by US companies. Two of them cited by the VGW patent. The other three are cited by those patents. Those are the ones that talk about rigging games to even out differences in player skill.

The reason one patent cites another patent is because the patent advances some of the technology covered in the patent cited. The key word is some. And they are going down two levels of citation to find something about rigging games by skill. The example they give is more headwind and longer distance for a golf shot. Hardly sounds anything like rigging a poker RNG.

That certainly doesn't mean its not rigged but it doesn't mean it is either. Thing is I don't know how a poker site could thrive by trying to handicap poorly skilled players. They have make a rake, so overall the player pool and thus average player have to be net losers. If you want poor players to lose less the good players will make less. When those good players find they are making more grinding on other sites they will leave. And then you have nothing but the poor players and you still need to collect your rake. Evening out the play would essentially cause less players to beat the rake. Rigging for action to generate more rake could make some sense but rigging to handicap poor players makes no sense at all because the good ones would leave. The patents don't say anything about rigging for action to get more rake which is what I thought the conspiracy theorists believe.

06-17-2020 , 05:28 PM

#4349

Floki.onGP

banned

Join Date: Aug 2018 Posts: 269

Quote:

Originally Posted by glogga

Thanks for the patent info, I didn't know that and I'm sure I'm not the only one. In relation to the potential benefits to sites to employ the skill based equity distribution model, if they were all doing it then it's zero sum game I agree with what you said. But for "the only" regulated real $ site facing US customers the games would be/are soft enough for the better players to be able to make more than they would on the other sites playing the same games due to the player pool skill level or lack of. Winning players who have and do study are also more stubborn and will play longer in an attempt to get their fair share of the variance cycle and profit also making the site more rake if it takes players longer or they keep going longer than they would or should IMO.

Last edited by Floki.onGP; 06-17-2020 at 05:38 PM.

06-17-2020 , 11:16 PM

#4350

Bawsten

journeyman

Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 283

Im one of the top winningest regs on global and it feels like the site is evening out the skill some times. Go on extended streaks of losing with top top toppp of my range to whatever for like 2 weeks at a time then itll cool off, and win it back keep grinding but it seems like the site never lets you see the light completely, in relation to how bad the pool plays overall.

If it were true that they have a model that evens out results based off of skill I would believe that with confidence from my own experience on the site. would love to hear David Lyons respond and absolutely clarify the facts here.

Page 174 of 188

First

74 124 154 164 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 184

Last

...

Page 174 of 188

First

74 124 154 164 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 184

Last