I would also like to write in Cereus.

Where is AP/UB on the poll? C'mon MAN !!!!

people still play there?

Don't know. But if I were to believe it was rigged they would be on the top of my list.

Had suspicions that stars was rigged until I seen some of the hands that took place at my home game...























Now I believe they are both rigged!

in b4 merge

13st before merge.

my vote is all sites other than UB.

Fifteenth before merge.

if poker site can rigged the game
why did AP have superuser? i'm mean, why choose to see holecards when you can have super account that hit every draw, bust every AA and hit every set by the river.
i think the fact that AP due use superuser mode pretty much prove that it's damn difficult to rigged the online RNG.

merging is so..............



dirty

There is a reason playing live and playing online play totally different. Its not that the RNG is rigged, Its that currently no online poker site can run every single possible combination that a single deck can produce 52(51st power).

What happens is that technology allows a site's RNG to cover less than 1% of all the total combinations of a single deck. Now that seems a bit impossible, however 1% of this 3.28224145 × 10(87th power) is such huge number that you still might not see a hand dealt the same way twice in your lifetime online.

This leads to the progammers cherry picking hands, ie filter programs that use a set of rules to choose 1 hand out of say 10,000 similar combinations, and because of this hands tend to collide into each other a bit more often.

Programmers as online poker has gotten more lucrative and more popular have done their best to maintain certain averages on probability. However, until the technology is available, online will continue to run like a program trying to replicate a 52card deck.

Then I would believe it's hosted in Australia.

best thread

[x] Would read again.
[x] Would recommend to friends

Why do you think this?

It has to do with what a computer processor can handle. 128bit/256bit is incapable of handling 3.28224145 × 10(87th power) combinations on an individual basis. This is not to say that "Poker Stars", whom you work for, is not running the absolute best rng on the market, or that its fixing the numbers, or anything that implies such.

Its just not technically possible at this time.

What a load of unmitigated nonsense!

Starting with the underlined snippet, the actual number of possible deals is nowhere near that large.

Not even close.

I can see your misunderstanding. That's what caused the issues in Planet Poker (linked from the forum FAQ) and is a limitation of the default random number generator function in some operating systems. That's why the leading online poker sites don't use such functions in 2009.

The short version that explains how to overcome the limitation you describe as it applies to PokerStars is available online at http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/room/features/security/

Also, a 52 card deck can be shuffled in 52! ways, which is about 8*10^67, so I don't know where the 3*10^87 figure that you quoted comes from. You can confirm that in MS Excel with the formula =FACT(52). This is the simple stuff.

Let me know if you want a more detailed explanation.

Its actually 52 to the 51st power, but I understand many aspects of the technology available and the various ways that poker sites, including yours attempt to replicate true randomness. However, at this time True AI is not a reality and all programs must follow non random rules.

I did read the planet poker situation but then that was 10 years ago

There are simply not 52 to the 51st power different combinations. That's just wrong.

52^51 = 52x52x52x52 etc.

52! = 52 x 51 x 50 x 49 etc.

Obviously the second one is correct: if the Ace of Spades is the first card selected, then it can't be the second or third etc.

You might benefit from this introduction to poker probability on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker_probability

Then why do you keep saying things that are false about the way various online poker sites shuffle the deck? I don't understand why you keep making these misstatements.
AI = artificial intelligence as far as I know. Why does that have anything to do with randomness?
But the flaw that you described was identified 10 years ago and fixed 10 years ago.

Get a job!

The second one is correct as far as dealing a whole pack, so would be the one to use in Bridge, for example.

For poker you use far fewer cards and the unused ones are irrelevant so, for example, for 6max only 17 cards are used so the number of significant deals is: 52*51*...36.

What an intelligent reply.

That was sarcasm, BTW.

No it isn't.

How can I put this in a way that is simple enough for you to understand?

You are wrong.

That is extremely doubtful.

WTF does AI have to do with it?