Would you stop flood this thread with your long commandment crap please and let people talk about rigged poker site which is the topic of the thread?

Your commandment crap is not funny, not creative, and not even entertaining and no one read it anyway. I understand your feelings hurt that facts have been revealing about poker site criminals, but you have to accept that.

Here are clear evidences appear that PS’s software is not random, not using the RNG module that claimed by PS and PS nothing else than a multibillion dollar fraud.

Please try to familiarize yourself with the reality: PS criminals operate a rigged site.

LOL MindControlaments

You have no idea about software, what kind of data the Intel hardware RNG produces and how it interacts with software ... you are just a broken personality who rants in internet forums about something which you have no knowledge whatsoever.

Here are the facts again: if the software would really rely on the Intel hardware RNG the submitted results could never ever happen. It is clear the Intel hardware RNG is not used by PS, they simply lie about the random software saying “we obtain the required amount of entropy from Intel RNG” as PS's website states.

Classical and simple fraud by the Madoff type of people.

Seriously.
Every time somebody makes a valid point they try to cover it up by spewing nonsense about Lizard People, Commandments, Muppets, ect...

I didn't post that commandment stuff, so I don't understand why you edited the quote to make it look like I did.


Further, the idea that a particular hand is impossible under a random shuffling process is self-evidently false - the whole idea of a random shuffle is that any combination is possible. That's the goal of a random shuffle.

lol, I have yet to see one of these valid points

This is very well said and I agree 100%.
The only answer I can give is nobody has done a thorough statistical analysis of all the variables involved in the game.
Sure heads up All-in EV calculations are done all the time but I would like to see something a little more complete than that.

Because the Intel hardware RNG by design and architecture would not submit such data that results in the submitted hand, as Intel hardware RNG evidently, proven and in fact produces random data.

wat

lol wut

If it did not produce hands like the ones that were posted, then it would not be random.

Wow, WTF am I even doing wasting my time with you?

Sorry for that, I was going to answer for the Monterroy.

From philosophical and logical viewpoint yes, you are quite right about the nature of randomness. Off course anything can happen.

Having said that from the technicality viewpoint you have to accept that hardware engineers see this from not philosophical but practicality point of view, the product needs to pass the QA process and be released to production and during the design process that problem is addresses by designing into the system the logic that makes impossible that such complex data structure like the two hands being repeated, and the Intel hardware RNG by design would not produce that data.
Please refer to the module design documentation to get more detailed information on this topic. You can download Intel hardware RNG drivers and SDK from Intel as well.

I have never said Intel hardware Rng does not produce random data. It does perfectly. PS just not using it as the exclusive card distribution data source.

All I said is that the two submitted deeals are not based on random data nor based on the Intel hardware Rng. The software simply has reused the similar resources. It might due to a synchronization primitive error or algorithms that overwrites the card distribution, but clearly indicates that top on the random module a handler CAN and DOES distribute cards in not random manner.

If you're saying what I think you're saying, then you have no evidence of that. Stuff getting the same hand twice in a row (not that they were the same hand) doesn't happen more than it should.

Show me otherwise.

I forget, was PokErasmus the one who earlier said that the bigger a sample is, the less you can tell it's rigged, or is this now two people who've come up with that awesome theory?
I suck at calculating odds so I'll just assume you're right, which means it's happened about 50 times on Stars.

1 in 500 million seems a bit much, though, although most people probably aren't going to get all in pre with A267 so I guess that might explain it.

How about confidence testing? Take millions of small sample sets (which we are doing) and compare them to the larger sample.

A fair RNG would produce expected results a large percentage (>95%) of the time. Repeated sampling increases the confidence in the hypothesis that the RNG is not rigged.

A rigged RNG would produce expected results less often, thus leading us to believe that the RNG is not fair.

I played NL Holdem today for the first time in about a year, (usually play O8) and I saw about 200 hands.

Twice I hit 2 outers on the river, and once I hit a 3 outer.
The funny thing is it would have been pretty hard to find a fold in any of the 3 hands.

Well, someone had to.

Welcome to the retired rigtard debunking club.

Tea and coffee to your left. Ice cream sammiches to your right.

If you look back over these threads from the past years you'll see quite a few people who've 'burned out'.

There's only so much time any rational person is prepared to spend creating logical arguments or even just taking the p out of these idiots.

Especially when a fresh intake appears just about every week.

I notice the names of the 'tards have pretty much changed since I started my 'holiday'. In a month or so there will be a fresh set. And so it will go on.

Nice work on the commandments list, BTQ.

Is this a new rigtard tactic?

Say something that is completely 100% wrong and even provably so, and hope that no-one can be bothered to check it out?

I think we should reply to every post they make with "You're so right! I lose my ass, too! Rigged 100%"

has anyone ever thought that sites are not actually rigged on purpose? but that they have poor algorithms in use?

this is addressed in the FAQ of this forum. please read it - you are likely to find it interesting.

You continue to criticise peoples understanding of software engineering and may (or may not) be more knowledgeable on this subject than many of the people responding to you. Perhaps you should therefore be willing to accept criticism of your knowledge of statistics and probabilty from people who are carrying out the "multibillion hand samples" and clearly are more knowledgeable on this subject than you.

I am going to put this bit in bold for you as you seem to find it so effective:

Please stop saying that any hands can fall into a multibillion hand sample that appears random while using the existence of those very hands as evidence of rigging.

I just wonn 8 SNG's in a row on AP. Calculate the odds on that.

obv rigged.