Quote:
Not totally clear on what you're saying here, but now I guess you're going with AA winning more often than it should, when your previous argument was that people could get dealt AA 12 times in a row and it would still be "random".
I have never stated that a malicious software module should or would break the randomness of the card distribution.
All I said is that the winning cards can be distributed to designated accounts by compromising system integrity and placing a malicious (not audited, not verified) module in the system.
Actually I am amazed not mainly by your naivety and lack of imagination, but from how much you capable to overcomplicate simple solutions to simple problems. In the financial software World where I work we deal with simple minded software criminals who deliver their tricks very efficiently and in the meantime usually in a simple manner. So here is what an average, simple minded software criminal that I have the privilege to see on daily bases in the financial software field would design into a software system in order to get a small but steadily flowing percentage of tournament moneys:
Game # 1:
Account A (legitimate user account): hand AKs
Account B (bot software account): hand 77
Action: if all in
Flop, turn, river: 2,3,4,5,6
Account B won
Game # 2:
Account A (legitimate user account): hand 77
Account B (bot software account): hand AKs
Action: if all in
Flop, turn, river: 2,3,4,5,A
Account B won
So tell me please ...
how on the earth the above very simplified theoretical games would break the expected statistical results, not comply with expected poker odds and modify the outcome of the so called and claimed multibillion hands analysis that spadebidder and other are working on? It simply wouldn’t. The very-very simple process of designated card distribution demonstrated above that delivers winning hand to designated bot software accounts is feasible – and take my word: if a software component does make sense from financial gain viewpoint, if it is feasible and doable than that component is/will be implemented.
[I think precisely that’s what we can see for example at FT, where it seems the operator deploys bot accounts which life time is never more than one day. During the one day period of operation the account produces an amazingly effective and constantly winning hyper multi table play at SNGs being frequently on the final table and successfully keep some cash for the operator. Next day the previous day account is gone already and new accounts appear with similarly high winning percentage. Go to FT and you will see this s...t with your own eyes. A set of bot accounts that you have never seen before plays there each of them on 4-5 tables, continuously winning for 8 hours, next day a new set of accounts produce this remarkable successful poker game and the following day new accounts will come. Truly discussing].