sure, but with poker, you'll sometimes need a whole deck (eg, 8 player stud) so you might as well build a system that can handle it.

Live dealers are worse at randomizing than online. I've never seen them shuffle 3.28224145 × 10(87th power) times.

Oh that's right. Your fulltime job is "pulling the tales of rigtards". It pays pretty good huh? Maybe you could tell us who pays you so we could get on that gravy train too.

look late night.. 52*51*50 etc yes thats what I meant I forgot it was listed as 52!.

As far as total randomness thats EXACTLY what true AI would be.

If ANYONE can come up with a truly random program, with a truly random RNG then you would have the birth of AI.

It is unequivically impossible at this time with this technology.



P.S. QPW if the only way you have of trying to win an arguement is to try and undermine someone by insulting them then you are not someone I will respond to again.

If I am wrong about soemthing as everyone is capable of including you then point that out. However you dont know me, you dont know what I know or dont know, and to attempt to in a condesending way, is immature and not condusive to any sort of discussion.

If you have nothing to add but sceptical opinions attempting to be little someone then I suggest you dont post. Unless ofcourse you want to start sounding like the rigtards who think thats its HIGHLY DOUBTFUL that online poker is fair based on a few observations.

To re iterate, I never suggested online poker is not fair. A Truly random number generator however is beyond the capacity of our technology.

I am not going to be drawn into that sexy debate about factorials, however, your last point is a fairly interesting one, which shows you are not a conventional riggedologist (which I think qpw's reaction is assuming).

Even if we assume by a dry clinical term the deal is not perfectly "random" in a mathematical sense, the reality is that nobody is able to determine any valuable information from this, and thus for all intents and purposes for the game itself it is random. We don't need the RnG to be HAL for the game to be fair.

I realize riggedologist left and right see all sorts of doomswitches, boomswitches, action flops, non action flops, big stacks winning too much, small stacks winning too much and all sorts of other conflicting patterns that will appear to emerge based on selective memory and the innate bias of that riggedologist (I'm still annoyed straight draws have not gotten their followers yet). However, if any of these were actually valid they could be used to make a ton of money which to date no riggedologist has bothered to accomplish.

With all of that said, your posts do all sort of have a Cliff Clavin feel to them.

With regard to this poll, an option for the tiny sites that appear and disappear within weeks/months would be the choice I would make if forced to choose a type of room, though generally they just close shop and take deposits which is much simpler and logical in terms of crime.

Yes, indeed, I'm afraid I had HE blinkers on.

Um, OK...enlighten us.

Even if pstar's rng isnt capable of being fully random, that doesnt mean it gives an advantage to any player. The idea that all players are dealt by the same rng makes it level.

AI has absolutely nothing to do with 'true randomness'.

No you would not.

This is rubbish.

'True' randomness will forever remain impossible within any deterministic system (which is what a computer running a program without external stimulus is). AI will not change that.

It wasn't the only way. I also pointed out one of the ways in which you were talking rubbish.

That's exactly what I did.

Sometimes people (myself included) post things that contain the odd error.

You posted something that was nothing more than a series of errors.

You got completely the wrong method of calculation the number of possible hands and you were spouting such complete nonsense about AI that it's pretty clear you have no real understanding of the nature of randomness or what AI is.

We have the technology to create numbers that are in no way measurably different to random numbers.

Whether or not there is any such thing as 'true' randomness is a matter of philosophical opinion rather than simple fact.

It will always be impossible to generate truly random numbers using a computer program, regardless of technology. That's why they don't do it that way, and why those programs are called pseudo-RNGs. Major poker sites use hardware RNGs that generate a stream of random bits based on quantum entropy effects, they don't use software RNGs. When a card is needed, the last X bits of that random stream are grabbed and converted to a card value.

Here's the info on the two hardware RNGs that are in use at major poker sites:

http://www.intel.com/technology/itj/...c-features.htm
"...contains a true random number generator (TRNG) hardware device"

http://www.via.com.tw/en/initiatives...atures.jsp#rng
"integrates twin quantum based random number generators that produce truly random numbers"

These are as random as any random process that exists in nature, and are by definition truly random, i.e. impossible to predict.

BTW, AI has nothing whatsoever to do with an RNG.

The reason that i reduced my play is that i dont make enough money / hour.
I am sure that people beat poker rigged or not rigged, but i am also relative sure that a good rigged deck improve the profit from the site.

For me its good possible that the deck is rigged, poker is not a regulated market and nearly in any business you find " rigged " activities.

Cheating from players is proofed since years, the RNG is more a believe or i dont believe...so far i dont see a study that show all sites are random.

My prefered theory is that they increase the rake, to analyse this you need the whole cards. Winning and loosing will be the same but you create the games in a way that give you instead 4 times 25 cent rake 1 times 3 $ 1 time s 50 cent and 1 time 5 cent.

10 -15 % optimized games would result over all in 6-8 % more inco0me for the sites.

I never serious played the game i only abused bonus offers in the good days, but here and there i play a few hands.

Standard rigtard theory.

You are just repeating, without any evidence, the same libel that so many other rigtards have uttered during the course of this thread.

agree, but rigged or not rigged. For me the reason to play alot is done anyway ..miss sometimes 2002-2006

Howabout a not so standard theory:

The idea would be to artificially cultivate new players who can talk to their friends and represent the site positively in the public eye and to weed out whiners, trouble makers and other types who could hurt the sites image. An online site could help push up certain players who are either good for the sites image or connected to friends and family.

This preferential treatment could be used in a very specific way to enhance the sites bottom line without leaving much trace in the way of numbers for the math heads to figure out that something is not right with the million hand sample that they datamined. What I am saying here is that image is everything. If your image is good, you might resort to taking measures to protect it from being tarnished in ways that in your mind are ethical, but in reality are unethical or even illegal. The human mind and spirit can be swayed by creative profiling and internal marketing to the staff. History has proven that this can happen in the work place right in front of good people. So if a player is seen as not good for the online image, doomswitching him could look like you are just protecting the players and the companys bottom line. An undesireable is just that. Outside of just closing their account, you could get more creative so that you dont call attention to your selective practices.

I am not saying that this is happening, but I am saying that it could be happening and could explain why some players are so sure they are NOT getting manipulated and why some players believe they are. This would also explain why there is no conclusive evidence of this going on because this would not show up conclusively in the hand histories. It would be explained away by variance and would only be happening to a minority of players. So they are crazy and the other players doing well can prove it with their own sucess further supporting the online sites position of innocence.

I know people are asking for an AP and UB option, but please note that AP and UB has never been proven to have rigged RNGs. They had players who were cheating. It's two different things.

Also, I think it's really funny that people continue to just spout riggedness when Monteroy said it best:

Basically, if you think it's rigged you're either an idiot for continuing to play with your hard-earned money in an unfair game or too stupid to exploit the RNG's flaws to win more. lol just look at the voting, they can't all be rigged! More likely, none of them are (my vote).

They had people cheating who worked for the sites. Big difference than a hacker breaking the code. That's why they're the most likely.

See now your trying to "coin" something. "Rigged" doesn't have to be about RNG. Rigged, Fixed, Scam, Hoax, Set up...on and on....

Why do you and others, feel that the only way to rig a site would be w/ Random Number Generators....?

Read the poll

Ya I did, my bad, I first read this thread last night a few minutes after it was made, the poll title has since been changed.

Random means unpredictable. If we were to break down the source code of any of these programs we could then predict the outcome of all future hands by following the rules set by the program. If we can then do that then its not truly random.

Now when a program does something truly unpredictable, that is beyond the realm of its programing, then you will have AI. That would be truly random.

How much longer are you going to come on here spouting nonsense and making a fool of yourself?

False.

I'd suggest that you contact the sites that you believe this happens at and ask them for a detailed explanation of their shuffling technique.