The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition - Page 648 - Internet Poker

Two Plus Two Forums Online Poker Sites & Marketplaces Online Poker Sites Discussion of Poker Sites

The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

View Poll Results: Is Online Poker Rigged?

Yes

3,522 34.91%

5,626 55.76%

Undecided

941 9.33%

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 648 of 3729

First

148 448 548 598 628 638 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 658 668 698 748 848 1148 1648

Last

Page 648 of 3729

First

148 448 548 598 628 638 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 658 668 698 748 848 1148 1648

Last

03-07-2010 , 02:14 AM

#16176

Josem

human chemical weapon

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 18,247

Quote:

Originally Posted by pooflinger

is it even a fact that the rng can be 100 percent random?

Yes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by PokerStars Michael J

The PokerStars random shuffle is truly random.

This might be a bit overly detailed, so forgive me if this ends up being a bit long.

You're right that computers are able to do a lot of things well, but one thing they are not good at is being random. They follow instructions; they don't behave unpredictably.

What this means is that in order to produce a truly random shuffle, we need to use outside sources to produce the datastream which shuffles the cards. While one source is sufficient, we have chosen to use two sources, mixed together, so that we're doubly sure that the data being used to shuffle is completely unpredictable. That's the essence of true randomness: unpredictability.

The first source is the Intel Thermal Entropy Chip. What this chip does is it measures miniscule heat generations. Any competent physicist will tell you that these heat generations are completely unprcictable; they're the result of atomic particles bouncing off of each other every which way. You can read a white paper which analyzes this chip here:

http://www.cryptography.com/resource...s/IntelRNG.pdf

The other source involves the mouse clicks and mouse movements of every single poker player, on every computer that is logged into PokerStars, all over the world. As I write this now, that's around 250,000 players. Every one of them is playing poker, and in order to play, they need to move their mouse to a certain location in the game software, and click that spot. How does that work? There is a grid, of thousands of pixels, on a horizontal and a vertical axis. I don't know the exact numbers, but let's say you join a hold'em table, and Seat 4 is open. In order to take that seat, you need to click in that circle. That circle alone might consist of 1,000 pixels -- wherever you click produces a pair of numbers, something like <1485, 7381>. When you click that number, a message is sent to our server, and it interprets <1485, 7381> as meaning "Wants to sit in Seat 4". And it sends back an appropriate message.

Every mouse movement, and every click, on every one of those 150,000+ computers, is transmitted to our servers. It's a *flood* of information. Every Call, Raise, Fold is a sequence of numbers. Every click of the IHH. Every chat. *Everything*, that every player does at the tables, is represented by a pair of numbers.

What our programmers have done is turned that flow of mouse clicks into an immensely huge series of numbers (binary code: just zeroes and ones) that it uses as another random data source. That *one* <1485, 7381> click in binary is <10111001101, 1110011010101> in binary. There are literally hundreds of millions of mouse movements and clicks, every day, all over PokerStars, and those all create this huge, and completely unpredictable, sequence of numbers.

I think you'll agree that our programmers have been pretty inventive in finding truly random sources of information to use in our shuffle.

You're probably asking yourself, however, if it's possible for a particular player to influence the outcome of a hand, via his mouse clicks. While it's true that a different mouse click would produce a different sequence of numbers, there is no way to measure how (or where) that different click would affect the outcome. Not only is that data mixed with the data from the Thermal Entropy Chip, but your clicks are just part of a long series of numbers that is used *somewhere* on the site, not in your game in particular.

The shuffle servers do one thing. They access this information flow, and they produce shuffled decks, which are lined up and ready to go -- we need about 20,000,000 of them every single day. That's over 833,000 decks per hour, more than 13,800 per minute, and 230+ per *second*. When a table needs a new deck, it asks for one from the shuffle server, and the next deck in line is shipped out, and then it's dealt in order. You have no way of knowing which information was used to create that particular deck; it may have been the result of the mouse clicks of 1000 players, in 150 countries, all over the world. There is simply no way to predict or to influence the outcome of any particular game.

I can give you more detailed information on how that binary sequence of numbers is used to shuffle the decks, if you want. But suffice to say, that's what the independent auditors verified -- that it's done in a way that produces a completely random and unpredictable game.

Here's how the above binary sequence of numbers is then converted into random cards:

Quote:

The actual method we use to shuffle is described in
great detail on this page:

PokerStars Software Security - Secure Online Poker

Let's cover that in detail, step by step, from the "Shuffle
Highlights" section:

> We use 249 random bits from both entropy sources (user input and
> thermal noise) to achieve an even and unpredictable statistical
> distribution.

So, to shuffle a hand, we take 249 truly random bits from the thermal
source, and 249 truly random bits from the aggregate mouse movements --
two truly random (not pseudo-random) sources.

> We use the SHA-1 cryptographic hash algorithm to mix the entropy
> gathered from both sources to provide an extra level of security

Thus, we use a mathematical formula to combine these two different 249
bit numbers into a single 498 bit number. Now we have a binary stream
of units and naughts, something like this:

01010111100101100111011010001000101011110101010101 1010101010101011...

It's much longer than that in reality (498 bits), but you get the idea.

The page then says:

> To convert random bit stream to random numbers within a required
> range without bias, we use a simple and reliable algorithm. For
> example, if we need a random number in the range 0-25:
>
> - we take 5 random bits and convert them to a random number 0-31
> - if this number is greater than 25 we just discard all 5 bits
> and repeat the process

Finally, we use that method to do the actual shuffle:

> To perform an actual shuffle, we use another simple and reliable
> algorithm:
>
> - first we draw a random card from the original deck (1 of 52)
> and place it in a new deck - now original deck contains 51
> cards and the new deck contains 1 card
>
> - then we draw another random card from the original deck (1 of
> 51) and place it on top of the new deck - now original deck
> contains 50 cards and the new deck contains 2 cards
>
> - we repeat the process until all cards have moved from the
> original deck to the new deck

So, how does it work? First, we need a number from 0 to 51 to get one
of 52 available cards. To get such a number, we need 6 bits. (I'm
assuming you know at least a little bit about binary numbers here
since you said it was a "technical" discussion). We take the first
six bits of our much larger stream of random bits, and never use them
again:

01010111100101100111011010001000101011110101010101 1010101010101011...
010101 (use these)

11100101100111011010001000101011110101010101101010 1010101011...
(these are what's left)^^^^^^^^^^

If that number is from 52 to 63, we discard it as too large. If it is
between 0 and 51, we use it to choose the card. In this case, 010101
is our six bit number, and it is "21", so we choose card 21 as the
first card.

We continue down the bitstream as needed. We now need 0 to 50 (51
cards left), and the next six bits are 111001, which is 57:

------11100101100111011010001000101011110101010101101010 1010101011...
------111001 (use these)
01100111011010001000101011110101010101101010101010 1011...
(these are what's left)^^^^^^^^^^

We discard that as too large and continue with the next six bits,
011001, or 25. And so on.

Each time the number of cards is reduced, the number of bits we need
can drop, too. Here's a table showing how many bits of data we need
to choose from N remaining cards:

52 = 6 bits needed 35 = 6 bits needed 18 = 5 bits needed
51 = 6 bits needed 34 = 6 bits needed 17 = 5 bits needed
50 = 6 bits needed 33 = 6 bits needed 16 = 4 bits needed
49 = 6 bits needed 32 = 5 bits needed 15 = 4 bits needed
48 = 6 bits needed 31 = 5 bits needed 14 = 4 bits needed
47 = 6 bits needed 30 = 5 bits needed 13 = 4 bits needed
46 = 6 bits needed 29 = 5 bits needed 12 = 4 bits needed
45 = 6 bits needed 28 = 5 bits needed 11 = 4 bits needed
44 = 6 bits needed 27 = 5 bits needed 10 = 4 bits needed
43 = 6 bits needed 26 = 5 bits needed 9 = 4 bits needed
42 = 6 bits needed 25 = 5 bits needed 8 = 3 bits needed
41 = 6 bits needed 24 = 5 bits needed 7 = 3 bits needed
40 = 6 bits needed 23 = 5 bits needed 6 = 3 bits needed
39 = 6 bits needed 22 = 5 bits needed 5 = 3 bits needed
38 = 6 bits needed 21 = 5 bits needed 4 = 2 bits needed
37 = 6 bits needed 20 = 5 bits needed 3 = 2 bits needed
36 = 6 bits needed 19 = 5 bits needed 2 = 1 bit needed
1 = 0 bits needed

If you add up all the bits you get (you guessed it) 249 -- the number
of bits we take from each of our truly random entropy sources.

Since we start with DOUBLE the number of truly random bits needed (249
each from thermal and user inputs), this is enough to ensure that even
if we have to discard every other group of bits as "bigger than the
maximum number we need", we have enough truly random bits to complete
the shuffle.

Thus, there isn't really a "seed". That's a concept that applies only
to pseudo-random generators. When you refer to a "seed" you mean the
first, initial number fed to the pseudo-RNG, from which flows all of
the following numbers in a mathematical progression. If you know the
seed, and know the mathematical formula, you can get the Nth number in
a pseudo-RNG progression by running that formula on the seed, and then
the result, and then that result, N times.

That doesn't happen at all with our method. At PokerStars, NOTHING is
ever pseudo-anything, and nothing is ever "seeded". The next number
doesn't depend on the prior one and there's no mathematical formula
one can use to figure out the next number. Every time we choose
the "next card to go into the randomly shuffled deck", the choice is
truly random and not the result of a pseudo-random number generator.

Once randomized, the order of the deck is
never changed throughout the deal. The cards that come out on any
given round are totally independent of any player action.

Quote

03-07-2010 , 02:15 AM

#16177

Lego05

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,221

Also you never answered this:

Originally Posted by pooflinger View Post
put it this way i wont stop thinking online poker is rigged untill im stacking off to phil ivey

Why? What would that change or what what change would cause that?

Quote

03-07-2010 , 02:16 AM

#16178

Lego05

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,221

Quote:

Originally Posted by dimzrok

in the month of February i wrote down the bad beats i had and about 85% of them were literally a situation were the opponent was drawing to less than 5 cards...

That's pretty much the definition of a bad beat so it's not surprising.

Quote

03-07-2010 , 02:18 AM

#16179

Rake16

grinder

Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 561

Do the people that think it is rigged realize there is no way to even know ever even it was..

You realize percentages and how often you get AA or xx will never be validated in concrete statistics.

Do you know how many numbers there really are? Infinite.

So if there are an infinite number of possibilities, then saying my KK or AA or whatever has lost 100 times in a row still would hold no merit.

I have no idea why I would actually post itt, but I want you guys instead trying to figure out who killed Kennedy or caused 9/11.... <sarcasm>

Quote

03-07-2010 , 02:21 AM

#16180

pooflinger

adept

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 850

as most players do think they are better then they are i know i am better then my bank roll is and the rng wont throw me a friging bone it more or less enjoys bending me over with no lube.So if i had the roll to stack to off to ivey i would think my skill payed off and the rng was legit

Quote

03-07-2010 , 02:39 AM

#16181

Lego05

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,221

Quote:

Originally Posted by pooflinger

So basically you would think the RNG was rigged unless you were winning a ton of money in which case you would think it was fair?

So:

You losing or even winning small = Rigged RNG; and

You winning a **** ton of money = Random and fair RNG

???

P.S.

(You acknowledge most people think they are better than they are and then somehow purport to use that as support for the assertion that you are better than what your bankroll is and the problem is the RNG won't throw you a bone as it enjoys screwing you over ???)

Quote

03-07-2010 , 02:42 AM

#16182

pooflinger

adept

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 850

i used that argument because its very most droolers think they are all that at cards but are unlucky but i know this game beter then most

Quote

03-07-2010 , 02:42 AM

#16183

Lego05

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,221

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lego05

Rake is capped ... usually rake is like 5% with a max of like $3. Say we're playing with $100 stacks at a .5/$1 table. Each player puts in $30 so a pot of $60. 5% of $60 is $3 so $3 is the rake but that's it ... rake is now maxxed out. Each player has $70 left but if each player puts that $70 in the pot no new rake is collected on that $140 ... still just $3 rake.

So pot stays at $60 site collects $3 rake and game continues and more rake is collected ....... players go all-in for last $70 dollars and site collects $3 rake and one player loses all money and game is over and no more rake is collected.

If you were the site which would you prefer?

As you can see for poker sites to maximize their profits they need players to have money and keep playing. For them to maximize profits they want lots of medium sized pots and lots of split pots and would most likely rather err from medium sized pots toward smaller pots rather than larger pots so players don't get wiped out and the games can keep going and they can keep collecting.

Yet for some reason nearly every single rigged theory has the idea that sites give setup hands or cause huge beats or something with the goal toward inflating the size of the pot. In reality making the pots bigger is not what the sites want to do ... it is near the opposite of what they want to do.

If I decided to rig a poker site to increase rake at that site I would rig it to create as many medium sized pots as I could (TPWK hands vs. TPGK or some second pairs) and I would err toward smaller pots ..... I would also rig for a lot of split pots as that is pure gold ..... the site collects all the rake and each player gets their money back (minus the rake of course) and they keep playing with basically the same amount they had before.

.....

Quote

03-07-2010 , 02:44 AM

#16184

Lego05

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,221

Quote:

Originally Posted by pooflinger

i used that argument because its very most droolers think they are all that at cards but are unlucky but i know this game beter then most

I don't think you do.

You sound just like the droolers who think they are exponentially better than they are.

You losing does not equal rigged RNG; and

You winning does not equal fair and random RNG

You seem to think that you are much much much better than you actually are.

Quote

03-07-2010 , 02:58 AM

#16185

pooflinger

adept

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 850

im not saying i am a super star but my results are no reflection of my skill

Quote

03-07-2010 , 03:00 AM

#16186

Lego05

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,221

Quote:

Originally Posted by pooflinger

im not saying i am a super star but my results are no reflection of my skill

You sound delusional.

And as near as I can tell you have not at all participated in strategy forums here.

Quote

03-07-2010 , 03:04 AM

#16187

pooflinger

adept

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 850

I havent said much in there but have lurked through it all

Quote

03-07-2010 , 03:07 AM

#16188

Lego05

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,221

Quote:

Originally Posted by pooflinger

I havent said much in there but have lurked through it all

Well I'm willing to play you HU right now. You seem to have time.

Quote

03-07-2010 , 03:08 AM

#16189

Josem

human chemical weapon

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 18,247

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lego05

As you can see for poker sites to maximize their profits they need players to have money and keep playing. For them to maximize profits they want lots of medium sized pots and lots of split pots and would most likely rather err from medium sized pots toward smaller pots rather than larger pots so players don't get wiped out and the games can keep going and they can keep collecting.

Yet for some reason nearly every single rigged theory has the idea that sites give setup hands or cause huge beats or something with the goal toward inflating the size of the pot. In reality making the pots bigger is not what the sites want to do ... it is near the opposite of what they want to do.

If I decided to rig a poker site to increase rake at that site I would rig it to create as many medium sized pots as I could (TPWK hands vs. TPGK or some second pairs) and I would err toward smaller pots ..... I would also rig for a lot of split pots as that is pure gold ..... the site collects all the rake and each player gets their money back (minus the rake of course) and they keep playing with basically the same amount they had before.

QFT

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ostcount=14061
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ostcount=14924

Quote

03-07-2010 , 03:11 AM

#16190

pooflinger

adept

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 850

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lego05

Well I'm willing to play you HU right now. You seem to have time.

i am currently playing on the cake network and i just crashed while multi tableing cash tables yay i cant log on and will get screwed out of money

Quote

03-07-2010 , 03:14 AM

#16191

pooflinger

adept

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 850

im averge at best hu i play mostly plo 6 max and full ring nl you beating me at hu would prove nothing

Quote

03-07-2010 , 03:17 AM

#16192

Lego05

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,221

Quote:

Originally Posted by pooflinger

im averge at best hu i play mostly plo 6 max and full ring nl you beating me at hu would prove nothing

My goal is not to prove anything. Play?

Quote

03-07-2010 , 03:18 AM

#16193

pooflinger

adept

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 850

sure

Quote

03-07-2010 , 03:20 AM

#16194

Lego05

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,221

Quote:

Originally Posted by pooflinger

sure

Stars or Full Tilt? What level will you play at? How many tables will you play?

Quote

03-07-2010 , 03:21 AM

#16195

pooflinger

adept

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 850

was banned from stars 3 years ago and ftp is rigged my roll is on cake network

Quote

03-07-2010 , 03:24 AM

#16196

LVGambler

banned

Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 4,884

Quote:

Originally Posted by pooflinger

as most players do think they are better then they are i know i am better then my bank roll is and the rng wont throw me a friging bone it more or less enjoys bending me over with no lube.So if i had the roll to stack to off to ivey i would think my skill payed off and the rng was legit

What do you call it when someone gives an inanimate object human-like qualities?

[you don't need to Google it for me] just sayin

Quote

03-07-2010 , 03:26 AM

#16197

Lego05

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,221

Quote:

Originally Posted by pooflinger

was banned from stars 3 years ago and ftp is rigged my roll is on cake network

You only think FTP is rigged because you lose.

I don't have a Cake account. I only have accounts and money at the two biggest sites there are.

If it makes you feel better about playing me at Full Tilt tonight I've had 2 double sevens and sevens, a Smashbury Jack or something (Jack Daniels, cranberry, citrus and some blackberry thing), a Coors Light, 2.5ish glasses of wine, and I have like half a glass of wine left.

Quote

03-07-2010 , 03:27 AM

#16198

Lego05

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,221

Quote:

Originally Posted by LVGambler

What do you call it when someone gives an inanimate object human-like qualities?

[you don't need to Google it for me] just sayin

Personification .... and I also was thinking that when I read that statement of his.

Quote

03-07-2010 , 03:28 AM

#16199

pooflinger

adept

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 850

Quote:

Originally Posted by LVGambler

What do you call it when someone gives an inanimate object human-like qualities?

[you don't need to Google it for me] just sayin

lol

Quote

03-07-2010 , 03:32 AM

#16200

pooflinger

adept

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 850

problem with you guys is your smart i give ya that "book smart" but have you ever heard of street smarts

Quote

Page 648 of 3729

First

148 448 548 598 628 638 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 658 668 698 748 848 1148 1648

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 648 of 3729

First

148 448 548 598 628 638 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 658 668 698 748 848 1148 1648

Last