Why not?

The question of whether or not the cards are shuffled randomly is an issue of fact. All facts are provable (by definition).

The information I posted proves it beyond all reasonable doubt.

He should also consider the http://www.pokerscout.com/ comments section... Seems to be plenty of like minded souls soul there.

Juk

This was posted by Bobo on another forum but it seems so appropriate here:

This is a circular argument.

If the definition of fact is 'something that is provable', then the 'question of whether cards are shuffled randomly' is only a fact if it is provable, which has not yet been shown. At present you are just assuming the conclusion.

I will take the opposite stance. I do not think that it is possible to prove that some given output is random*, the best we can do is state that it passes various tests for randomness, such as the diehard tests. The links show that for certain factors we do not reject the hypothesis 'this data is random', but there is a world of difference statistically between not rejecting a hypothesis and accepting it as true.

In case some brainless rigtard seizes my argument, note that whether or not it is possible to prove it is not rigged does not increase the probability that it is rigged. Passing various statistical tests for randomness increases the chance of it being random.

* - obviously the person who wrote the source code or sees it in operation knows for sure that it is not rigged, but you cannot determine this solely from the output.

This is true from a strict mathematical or philosophical point of view but for the purposes of this discussion: "Proved it passes the toughest available tests of randomness" is pretty much good enough to prove the RNG is random beyond all reasonable doubt.

What is more of a problem is that proving that the RNG is random does not necessarily imply that the deal is random. And proving that the deal does not display any of the myriad possible forms of manipulation is why it's not really ever going to be possible to prove absolutely that the deal is not rigged.

All we can do is show persuasive evidence that is easily good enough for anyone who does not have some particular axe to grind and who is prepared to view the problem with a rational mind.

But we can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Exactly.

Unfortunately, the riggies are effectively 'playing the system' by pedantically sticking to their 'can't absolutely prove it' refrain.

They may be correct in some very abstract and pedantic sense but not in any way that is practically relevant to intelligent, rational, observers.

I think we can give boost2boob some credit for actually putting together some actual stats. This should be encouraged, not chidded. Maybe some of the stats guys can provide some review of his work.

If proving something beyond a reasonable doubt is a good enough standard of proof to send someone to prison for life, or sentence them to death, you'd think it would be good enough for the riggies.

Yes, I know, convictions don't actually = guilt.

Really, though, the basic scientific test isn't proving something conclusively (you pretty much never can, since many scientific proofs involve predicting something would "always" happen, and you can't run a test an infinite number of times), but consistently proving it while never finding convincing evidence to disprove it.

Really, riggies have the easier time of it. It would only take one scientifically and statistically valid HH analysis in order to disprove the randomness of the deal. So...anyone have one of those? And note that I said "scientifically and statistically valid". The two times online you happened to observe AA vs KK vs QQ, or that one time you saw the same person get dealt AA three times in a row, does not constitute a valid sample. Nor do your "feelings".

Everyone has the right to believe in their feelings, of course, and choose not to play online poker because they "feel" it is rigged. Just so long as you realize that feelings do not actually constitute proof.

I didn't understand what the 95% confidence interval in this link:

http://imageshack.us/f/546/fivem******

was talking about. Also when I look at this link:

http://imageshack.us/f/190/damnu******

I see that OP actually won $4083, but then when I look at the normal graph for that site:

http://imageshack.us/f/864/damnormal******

The red area does not have any relation to the $4083 that was actually won, nor does the peak of the normal distribution have any relation to the 'equity adjusted' value.

This graph:

http://imageshack.us/f/193/boostnormal******

doesn't make much sense as there are only 40 all-ins so you would not expect the distribution of results to look particularly normal unless all the all-ins were very close in size. Note that the graph goes from -90 to +40 when the preceding picture:

http://imageshack.us/f/135/boostn******

Seems to imply that a 95% CI goes from $21.79 to $158.32

Since I couldn't figure out what either of the graphs were supposed to represent, I gave up.

You manage to pick one of the silliest posts of the day to say 'correct' to.

Was that random?

Nice avatar, though.

Damn, you're right.

I picked the wrong post to criticise in #33981 above.

I saw Bobo's post elsewhere and thought it was so funny it needed more exposure and went for the first long riggie post I saw.

Sorry, boost2boob.

Your 5 "reasons" prove absolutely nothing. But you already know that, so thats why you keep using them. Your "evidence" is worthless.

And again, these things prove nothing. The deal is manipulated beyond a shadow of a doubt.

They are not 'reasons'. Taken together they constitute a single reason for taking a particular view.

And they don't prove anything. But to a reasonable, rational, person they are persuasive evidence that there is nothing serious amiss.

I don't know why you can't ... oh, wait ...

Talking of proof, Mears/Blatantly******ed/TheTruth5 etc. have proved beyond reasonable doubt that posting brief responses not actually answering questions but making vague statements unsupported by facts is an incredibly effective trolling strategy.

I don't put people on ignore, but I think its time to just ignore this guy. He's clearly a troll.

OK, show us how you came to that conclusion. I'm sure everyone here is fair minded and will look at what you've got.

I'm never convinced that putting idiots on ignore is a good idea.

That way they have free rein to say whatever they want without anyone putting up a balancing point of view.

He was saying "correct" to probably the only truthful post in the last 10 pages.

You, sir, are a genius.

Really?

Really?

Because you have made a lot of posts in the last ten pages.

Manipulated:

Pseudo RNGs generate random numbers by using mathematical formulae or precalculated lists.The cards may appear random but are determined.They are also periodic and you will see the sequence repeat itself.

d(fτ(x),fτ(y)) > exp(aτ)d(x,y). chaotic or quantum both still have determinists,
The most meaningful definition of randomness is that which cannot be predicted by humans.
If you knew the code and had access to this you could predict the cards this is not random.

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING. Ive done it before and have been gang shilled. So many shills, so little time.

Ha-ha. The expression "hoist by his own petard" springs to mind.