You're reframing the question so much it's no longer relevant to the original scenario being discussed ITT.

We don't care about one specific cycle. We don't know exactly what's causing the "bug" to occur. It could be the case that many normal cycles occur, and the abnormalities only happen when, for example, a multi-tabling reg ticks "sit out next bb".

Furthermore, assuming 5 or 6 handed tables, getting dealt more hands in SB/BB does not necessarily mean getting fewer BTN/CO hands. It's just that in this case, the data clearly suggests the extra hands dealt in the blinds are offset by fewer hands in the CO.

Finally, you mention that randomness could have an outcome on the results. That is true, but the amount of variance in total hands dealt to a player for each position should be very minimal compared to e.g. variance in poker. Over large enough samples, the results should converge to each player getting roughly the same amount of hands in every position, within a small margin of error. In this case, we're seeing discrepancies of 12% less hands being dealt in CO. I've never experienced or heard of something similar occurring on any other site, which makes it quite clear the fast fold dealing algorithm on party is broken. Whether that's due to an honest coding error or a result of more nefarious intentions we'll probably never know.

As discussed previously in the thread, if we assume the chances of receiving each position is exactly 1 in 6 then the chances of being off by 10% after 50k hands is really really small.
You don't roll a 6-sided die 60k times and have too much variance from each landing exactly 10k times.
The chances of it randomly happening to multiple people is well into the billions or higher.
Whether this is accidental somehow or intentional or somehow an error in how the data is received is unknown. But it is extremely concerning and pretty darn serious. To have concerns that the randomization has been purposefully "rigged" against some players is completely reasonable at this point. And it is incumbent on Party to explain what is happening and what they intend to do about it.

the people making excuses for party or saying this isn't a problem are probably either party devs or trolls. just ignore them. party has admitted the problem (just not publicly) but is simply refusing to fix it promptly, which I think is wrong.

Can someone please do some multi-tabling, then press the "sit out next BB", and check if they get CO before they sit out? I think the bug is something silly like that and this test should easily verify the assumption or not.

So, now we simplify. Fast fold tables are not the same as regular tables. Which I tried to show in my examples. Your seating arrangement has nothing to do with a regular 6 handed table (whether there are 6, 5, 4, 3, or 2 players).

The seating is random. Period. Now with that caveat, is it truly random to bring us a converged seating algorithm where either the seating is eventually evenly distributed or some folks get preferred seating while other folks do not? The answer is no, because everyone keeps thinking the seating is arranged the same as regular tables.

Again, FAST FOLD IS NOT THE SAME AS REGULAR, AND SEATING IS NOT THE SAME ALGORITHM. Hence the math trial portion of my above explanation (c and other programming experience helps here as well).

You can bend the algorithms, as in my above examples, to exclude the portions of seats that don't produce as much action (aka rake) as other seats. Which is happening on ignition.

ALL fast fold tables are an off shoot of the program from Full Tilt. I believe they went down during the patent pending stage. The problem is, no one can confirm the seating from those days, unless they still have those in their database (which I believe wasn't covered by trackers at the time). I don't have those hands, I did play on full tilt and rush poker.

The most nefarious motive I see here, and would propagate across multiple platforms, is to induce more action, rake. 60,000 hands does NOT equate to 60,000 equal seats. You need to stop thinking of these as regular tables, they never were.

Edit to add for clarification: the way the program works, it could be conceivable that 60k seats receive 60k BUs or 60k BBs. Since that would be boring, it probably never happens. But seats are assigned via a rng, not where you expect to be seated.

I don't know if I'm being slow here, but you're getting me no closer to understanding what you're trying to say.

I'll try again to provide what I think is in an indisputable fact. If you are dealt 60,000 hands, and in every one of those hands there are 6 players dealt in, then there will have been 60,000 small blinds, and 60,000 big blinds, 60,000 buttons, etc. How they are distributed is another matter. Of course it won't be 6 discrete players each with 60,000 hands - there would be a large number of players that would have received some portion of those 300,000 hands (60,000 x 5), so when I said "If some people are getting less than 10,000 in the CO, others must be getting more.", that isn't quite accurate. Maybe a better way to put it is if you didn't receive 10,000 buttons, other players will have received more than "their share".

Do you disagree with this, and if so, why?

Yes. Logic problem here.

Because, the same 5 players could be sat in the same seats for 60k hands. NOW, the RNG doesn't work like that, but you don't get exactly 10k seats for one position.

So, 6 players play 10k hands. All could receive a portion of 2k BB, 2k sb, 1.5k utg, 1.5k mp, 2k CO, and 1k BU. Since there are more than 6 players usually, This pattern could fit all players, with all seats being filled at all times, but positions are never more for some and less for others. They still add up to 10k X6, or 60k hands extrapolated.

That would be 20k bb, 20k sb, 15k utg, 15k mp, 20k CO and 10k bu for 60k hands.

And, the randomness would lead to even weirder patterns. You are still thinking 3 dimensionally, as in a single table format (you can add the 4rth dimension time, get that out of the way). 5th dimensionally, we extrapolate for infinite, and the next would be random outside of the 3 dimensional artifact of a single table.

Edit to add: the pool is not stagnant, allowing this randomness to continue. People jump in and leave all the time.

Huh?

The same players cannot be sat in the same seats for 60k hands...because it is pretty much mathematically impossible. Yes, it is possible to receive the CO on consecutive hands which you can't do at a single "regular" table. Big whoop.
I think you are vastly overestimating the likelihood that somebody can receive the button only 8k times instead of 10k times when playing 60k total hands with 6 players. 9.9k hands would be possible albeit an outlier. 8k hands is virtually impossible. We have numbers here from multiple players that should not be possible.

But I'm with Bobo in that I really don't understand the point you are trying to make or what you are trying to say.

It would be interesting to compare Stars Zoom and other sites. The numbers should be distributed pretty evenly...and we see on Party that they are not.

Regardless, I don't see how it could be at all possible at all that ALL players to receive more BB than BU. It doesn't make sense.

FutureInsights,

Can you post a simple hypothetical example of a zoom pool that would exhibit the phenomenon we seem to be seeing according to your viewpoint?

Maybe the example could be something like 2 6-max tables (T1,T2) with a pool of 10 players (A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J) showing which players are in which position (LJ,HJ,CO,BTN,SB,BB) in each of 10 hands (H1,H2,H3,H4,H5,H6,H7,H8,H9,H10).

Thanks much.

You are either applying some really bad math or logic, or finding a very convoluted way to explain something I think we all understand already.

What matters here are what people are seeing in their hand histories, because that's what at issue - people are seeing anomalies in their databases. If they filter for only hands with 6 people dealt in, which some people have done, then in each hand, one person will be at each position. If they have a database with exactly 60,000 hands, those 60,000 hands will have some player receiving cards at each position 60,000 times. Since it's their own database, 10,000 of those will be themselves, and the other 50,000 will be divided among the player pool. Of course that won't be 5 players each receiving 10,000 hands each. It will be dozens, maybe hundreds, of players. Some will have hundreds (maybe thousands?) of hands, some just a small number. They will all have varying numbers of hands in each position; some may get them distributed evenly, some will not. But what we will find, with absolute 100% certainty, is that when we sum up all of their results in those 60,000 hands and only those 60,000 hands, is that there will be 60,000 big blinds, 60,000 small blinds, 60,000 buttons, etc. It has to be that way, because for it to be any other way would mean individual hands where there were two big blinds and no button, or two COs and no big blind, etc.

So yes, in the end a sample of 60,000 hands in which 6 people were dealt must equal 360,000 seats, evenly distributed amongst the 6 positions. It can be no other way. But of course who is in those seats is not evenly distributed.

I think you are starting to get it, so let me expound again.

The player pool is not static, it is fluid. At a regular table, that is also the case, but you are seated in a certain spot, can wait for big blind, etc.

In the case of the databases you speak of, real ones posted here, it would be a simple matter of also picking a villain, and seeing that he got more than his fair share.

On Ignition, we can't do that, but as from above posts, my lack of spots in certain positions (that is for all stakes, 5nl to to 200nl, though very few 200nl) are consistent. The first two examples were 25nl only. The missing EP and MP positions, along with lower CO or BU, cut across stakes.

Perhaps these guys can pull up villains with more BU CO than theirs.

In this example of non linear tables (since they aren't real think of not 6 players, but inputs and outputs to a system). If you play for an hour single table, you get at least 300 hands, much more than a regular table. During this time, people go bust, leave, enter, etc. The pool in @whosnext query is never just 10 players (I only play when the tables are full, so it would be 12 players, but the players are not static, and sometimes there will be 15 players, 24 players, etc, over the course of an hour).

In our non linear example, we don't go a to b to c to d to e to f, equate 0, and start again. We have multiple nodes in our equation, handled by a controlling rng. That is why its non linear, the player interacts with the system 60k times, inducing 60k nodes. Of course, if we simplify this to an hour play of single table, lets say that is 350 nodes for that player. However, at that given time, we have 100 other players in the pool. To simplify the argument, let us say they are all single tabling. Let us assume some players play faster, some play slower, an average of 200 hands per hour.

The rng hits the second you click fold (or your hand is done). This can be seen on ignition for certain hands, where it takes awhile after hand is done (even with all animations turned off) before transfer, especially after winning big pot. The system generates a table, and populates the table. Most programmers can see this and assume the parameters and equations for that program. 6 players out of 101 show up at the table, but it was all dependent on when they clicked fold, or when their hand ended. It is not dependent on where they are being seated.

In this case of 101 players (here being the 1) we have varying levels of about 101 equations, but all not at the same time. Taking my pool, let's say we have action at 27% (shorter handed, that percentage goes up). Sometimes, they are so nitty it goes down to 21%, slightly nitty 25%, and you want to jump in at 33%, large pots. AT 27%, 73% of the 101 players are initiating fold, while a certain percentage (lets say 8%) are finishing their hands. Some are multi way, some are one on one.

You can see how complex the system would be if you did not program for nodal interaction as opposed to linear action. If 81% are ready to fold at a given time, oh but wait, they don't all fold at the same time. Some use touch screens, some use mice, and we are still all single tabling. Some, like me, get tilted by repeated SB positions, and just snap fold anything (made a few mistakes sometimes). Some think about the action until it gets to them. Some have time banks, some don't.

Some are checking charts, some sit out to watch the hand. So, it isn't easy to create a table at any given specific time, only when some players are ready. And, we have 81 players ready at different times, lets say 1/3 punch the clock at the same moment. That is 27 players ready, but only 4 even 6 handed tables. So that slight delay you see before you get moved, is filling the next table up, but then others are folding or finishing hands at the same time.

In the interim, more players decide to join, while 10 got bust. Let's say they keep us at a 101 players. While the transition, there are a few extra nodes, up to 111. The nodes not only create the seats, for individuals, separate nodes create the tables.

In this non linear fashion, (double the work for two tablers), we need a program that simulates action. Being card dead in fast fold games tends to get boring, and fish will drop out. Where is the action at, defending the blinds, and BU, CO. If we add a behavioral model, then we can pump the action for those players that give action.

However, that is my only nefarious motive inspired by this thread. In the interim, since the tables are never real, there is no real chance of equitable distribution of seats. I would say we converge to equitable at 1million, maybe. There is nothing in the program that provides for A to B to C to D to E to F, even in a non linear fashion. For a given table created, you had 6 nodes interact to create the table, out of a given set of players, which could be 101 players, but with different levels of tables open, could be up to 400 nodes, or 200 nodes.

This is not a closed system. The tables are created, and the rng has no idea where you had been on your previous 10 or 100 cycles (even though you may feel the triple SB slide is on purpose). That is why for an hours play, even though I started with the BU 5 times out of 7, I ended with less BU, more CO (as I recall), and much more BB, SB. If 10 players leave, and 10 players enter, they could conceivably start out the same way, with 5 out of 7 BUs turning into more BB and SB than it should equate to.

That is the point you are missing. None of this is stagnant. So you can have full tables, with a pool that is not stagnant, and tables that are not stagnant, it is all by program design and rng.

I have seen this on streams for GG and Party. I have experienced on Ignition, am sure it is happening on BOL and ACR (gots to pay for the program somehow). Would be interesting if someone from Stars pulled up their database and provided stats over 10k hands, as I did above.

I am doing the best I can to explain a non linear algorithm. Without producing code and posting, I don't know how better to explain.

Open a Zoom table and click sit out next BB, you'll play one hand in the SB then eventually sit out. I've never had 2 SB in one orbit, much less 3
back-to-back like Party.

Actually, commented on a twitch stream where someone got SB 3 times in row on GG. Happens all the time on Ignition.

Generally, I don't click sit out next BB, I click sit out next hand.

Sounds like you are guessing.
But I admittedly still do not understand your posts overall or what your theory entails. I read your last post three times.
I fail to see how or why faster players vs. slower players would make any difference in receiving significantly more blinds than button/CO if the hand distribution is being done randomly. It should converge much much faster than 1M hands.

You're overcomplicating this to the point where it's confusing to understand what you're talking about when it's really very simple. The seating algorithm for fast fold probably took one person like 5 minutes to code.

Yes, the simplest and most likely explanation seems to be that there is a "bias" in the seating algorithm. Something like the blinds are "filled in" first (and continuing until all positions are filled) using some piece of information that leads to the positional imbalance phenomenon.

That sounds like a reasonable theory. Thus players who fold more, and do so faster, would be more likely to receive more blinds, right?
But if that was the cause I would expect the discrepancy to be even higher for some players. Perhaps not. But you could certainly be onto something there. I like the logic.

I assume you mean for any one individual player. Across the player pool, there has to be an even distribution. IE if we take one hour of play across the entire pool, and there were 10,000 hands dealt, all to full tables, there will be 10,000 hands at each position.

I don't know that we were missing anything. It seems to me that you were just using an extremely long and convoluted way of explaining that the system is complex and thus it is impossible to give players an even distribution of positions.

I tried the fast table today, one-tabling (I am folding as fast as anyone can), and during 500 hands, I got 20% more B and CO. Sitting out the next BB, I did that many times, just the last time I got four SBs after the BB and then was sitting out, but nothing unusual the other times and I got 25% less SBs than B and CO.

You are still thinking in relative stable regular table system.

This is not. There is no rhyme nor reason to your next position. There is no array stored, the server resources would be overwhelmed, especially during peak hours. So, it is random. Try to wrap around random seating vs. some players must be here and some players must be there.

None of which changes the fact that if we take one hour of play across the entire pool, and there were 10,000 hands dealt in that hour, all to full tables, there will be 10,000 hands at each position.

Yes, but the pool is not constant. Neither is a table. It is created on the fly, and positions are assigned randomly on the fly.

Nothing is constant, so it is a non linear example. 2+2+rng <> 4. Could be negative or positive equation.

A loop that resets with each fold.

Yes, there will be so many hand at each position, but players aren't going to get linear seating. Ever.

They shouldn't receive more blinds in that case. Just more hands. The order in which positions get assigned shouldn't affect anything. At least not that I can think of.

0 people are arguing that players are going to get "linear seating," or even that any individual player is likely to have a perfectly uniform distribution of positions.

I think the order IS a possibility here. Imagine 18 players in the pool rotating around to 3 tables. New table forms. The guys folding faster are getting to that next table ahead of the guys who are playing more hands or are slower to fold.
If the order of those being seated isn't random...and they always seat the blinds first for every new table that forms then this COULD potentially lead to a more winning player (tighter player) or faster player getting to the next table faster also..and getting to the next table faster would mean more likely to receive blinds IF they are truly given in that order.
That's a lot of ifs and speculation. But it is a relatively reasonable theory to explain this situation.

OK. So, we're back to this:

And I think that's something we all understood already.