Like a 10 year old. No wonder you can't win at poker.

Juicytit - you are arrogant, obnoxious, you barely make any sense, you ignore what people say, you hold irrational beliefs and you nauseate people by your mere presence.

Have you thought about running for president?

FAKE NEWS !!!

I did actually get a laugh out of that

See, even he gets a laugh once in a while, and that aint really his power play. Still trying to get a mild chuckle out of something you post, so let's try another routine that has been done many times before. I will answer your question directly then watch you evade/deflect from you answering your own question as explanation.

The specific answer is - Zero difference at all.

Is that right or wrong in your exceedingly dull version of the riggieverse? Meh, who cares, but now that I have officially "answered" your question you can say if it is right or wrong, and if it is "wrong," you now have to describe in detail how it was wrong. If you fail to explain in detail why - then by default my answer is correct and everything I posted above related to it is agreed to be correct by you. Yadda yadda, been here done this over and over before with other run of the mill riggies.

I mean, I am really squeezing this trying to get you to be interesting for the first time, but you make it pretty hard. You have already established that you will never ask actual experts (which have been linked often) any of your concerns in their area of expertise, so hoping at least you can create a sliver of fun being afraid to even answer your own question in a new and fun way as well. Your hiostory shows not to expect much, but I always go with the "you never know" approach, even with really weak riggies.

Unfortunately, while this is even a routine that other riggies have done many, many times before you (like all your stuff), and in theory that should help someone like you do better than them, the problem is that you will likely continue to be so boring and predictable, but - hey, last chance to try to make you mildly amusing before you literally fade away (even if you choose to remain). d2 made you laugh in this thread, which is the correct play - let's see if you are even capable of 10% of that.

All the best.

It's wrong. The RNG only generates random numbers. The clue is in the name, the Random Number Generator. Basically, you use it to pick from cards 1..52 when creating a virtually shuffled deck. A good RNG ensures that each card has an equal chance of appearing in each position. So card 52 is just as likely to appear at the "top of the deck", as card 51, etc down to card 1. With that in place, you can be sure of a well shuffled deck to start the hand (assuming the shuffling algorithm is ok).

So the RNG is used to shuffle the cards. It is not used during dealing. You could have a perfectly shuffled deck and still rig the deal or vice versa. You could deal the perfectly shuffled cards for as long as you want in the hand e.g. the hole cards and then manipulate the others. The deal can do whatever it wants. It is not tied to the RNG.

EDIT - therefore there is little debate that the RNGs are good. There is little to suggest that the hole cards are not well distributed. As for the deal, that's anyone's guess.

35c.

I don't believe you. Post one single screenshot from your database showing any one of your opponents making more than 5bb/100 over 350k hands. (You can black out half of his SN if you wish.)

I assume you will now make up some other feeble excuse not to post a SS?

Nah. You are wrong. Prove your belief above with much more detail and examples of code to show the difference. Use some coding from 2020 as well that you can provide. I will even accept you posting this in the appropriate programming threads and have a discussion with people there (also the math forum) and see what they say.

Gee, never never done this reverse boring roles with riggies in the past before... Such a yawnfest with you, but hell, let's see how you will deflect the your style request to your posted information.

Also, you have a prop bet from Mike to deal with, and if you want to know how to offer prop bets and then run away from them simply look at the posting history of I think his user name is jungmit or jungmat. He did that all the time, but as usual in a way that was more fun that you would do (he said he needed to use postal service for his lawyer for escrow and such, since he had no idea what e-banking was etc.). Feel free to prove me wrong my assumption that you are not a $200+ buy-in reg (real money, not play money or freerolls like that other riggie)

All the best.

I could just leave it there and tell you to believe me. That's what the sites do after all and you have no issue with them. Correct? You just accept what you're being told.

I could create a screenshot and DM you the link, if you'd come back here and tell everyone how wrong you were about this. That seems fair. Would you agree?

You've picked an interesting hill to die on.

See, juicy, you got him so bored he's trolling me now. Better step up your game, son.

It's just funny that the person who has been criticizing riggies all these years didn't actually know what he was talking about. But do carry on.

The thing with Mike will take care of itself.

Jesus - how do you literally manage to make everything so utterly boring in a thread like this. Post your whatever screenshot (be sure to show the buy in level), take his 35 cents, rub it on your titties and make a joke about how odd numbers are rigged when choosing how to split the funds among your titties. At least that would show some element of humor!


As for my answer and your lack of proof of your explanation (as expected) - we now will confirm that you were wrong all along as I said, due to your expected evasion. If you believe you are right, then prove it as requested (in the style you ask others to do that). You will not do that, you will evade again, blah blah, been there done that with so many riggies. So.... boring.... You literally ooze boredom. I will from now on call you the Boredom Riggie, because literally that is as charismatic as one can make you with your qualities.

All the best.

It will be along the lines of:

I'm beginning to think he is a troll and not here to debate, at all.

Since you're such an expert on the ones and zeroes and all, can you explain why we'd need an RNG if we were going to rig the deal anyway?

I call.

Hole card distributions would be the main reason. Gotta get those right. Certified RNGs will fool most people, so that's worth doing. See Monty for proof. I'm sure there's others but I don't really care enough.

I could do that. Or, better, you could post a SS here and everyone would see that my belief that you are lying was wrong, if it was.

I assume you will now make up some other feeble excuse not to post a SS?

So your theoryjuice is that we deal random hole cards and then set up the stub? lol

Lots of riggies in the past have made cases that all one needs to do is deal random hole cards and rigs would not be detected. Was discussed a lot (by actual math guys) in the good era and was part of the motivation for spadebidder to show that is not how it would work.



Well, he is trying full troll mode, but he is pretty bad at it, and safe to say I might have some experience in that area over the years in assessing talent .

He has literally no new or interesting material. He fizzled that by about his 10-20th post so it has been semi-troll then troll since, but I cannot even get him to be better at that, even with softballs like this prop bet stuff.

A simple look at his BBV thread he started shows him in his more normal form, and that is someone that is very limited in what they can do on the internet in this format, but as you know - I do enjoy the challenge once in a while, and I have made some past meh riggies better as a result. Can't with this guy. I mean look at this stuff

Good thing spadebidder did a billion hand study on flops that were dealt, and others do extensive studies on flop and post flop play as well. They gotta get that stuff right as well and make it act exactly random on every street all the time of all the cards being dealt including hole cards, flop, turns, rivers!

So boring... Sad!

All the best.

Shame. Guess it's just not your power play.

Getting really weak riggies to be good riggies is nobody's power play, but that is what makes that challenge fun - when it happens and you can see a riggie grow up to be a better riggie/troll/whiner whatever it fills one with a sense of pride.

I admit I had a lot more fun doing that when there were more humorless math guys in the thread as supporting riggies as they debated them on actual math was pretty fun, but those riggies needed a lot of help with how they delivered their stuff. Not everyone is ?/3

By the way, do not be upset that your posts are not really that funny, as that is certainly not needed quality in posts elsewhere (like Politics or the math forums). Your posts can be clever at times. Often they are a bit overly emotional and overdone, but this thread is about having fun and being funny, so consider it good practice for that, and your line to the Boring riggie was solid snark in that regard. Well played.

Oh ConspiracyTheoryJuice, how utterly clueless you are. In addition to your refusal to substantiate a single claim, post a screenshot, explain anything in detail, etc...(list too long to type out)

You are also ignorant of the fact that poker networks use a shuffle algorithm, the most popular is probably Fischer-Yates. Most RNGs are also continuous. I did not want to say that upfront because I knew you'd have some blah blah about nothing. Now, you spoken often about both, happy to announce them to you, even dacy. Fun fact, Mersenne Twister was the go to RNG.

No, I will not type the example I gave you of a shuffler into the search bar and then copy paste it for you. It is way entertaining to watch you exert supreme arrogance while displaying your ignorance.

If only you checked some of what was given to you.

Also, there are many many threads on 2+2 showing the HH analysis. The people that do it go very very deep, dozens of stats are looked at and compared. One massive difference between us is I listen to those with tremendous credibility and knowledge to explain why or why not something is off. You tell everyone that you could easily tweak it, show no data, and then segue way into emulating monteroy with a vapid shillie theory list. Even that was not good.

Enjoy deflecting from Fischer-Yates, you got this!

Bah, I like giving riggies verifiable links that they will not analyze!

Mersenne Twister

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_Twister


Fischer-Yates

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher...3Yates_shuffle


Continuous random number generator test

https://www.cryptosys.net/pki/manpki/pki_rngtest.html

You've ruined it

Twas so looking forward to the demand for a link.

Don't tell him about provably fair or ginar, we can keep that a secret.

Provably Fair

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

I hate to break this to both of you but you've just proved my point. There are shuffle and deal algorithms.

You've picked out a couple of shuffle algorithms. Well done. It still guarantees nothing about the card which actually gets dealt. That's the bit which has been up for debate.

And what you meant Dud, is that many sites use continuous shuffle, not continuous RNG.