Because just imagining some .02/.05 rigtard going on megamonkeytilt hard enough to pay $50 for an audit of an $8 pot is LOL hilarious and pathetic at the same time. What they are doing is technically perfectly fine. There's obviously nothing morally or ethically wrong with it. It's just that the whole concept of paying $50 to audit a hand is ludicrous. There's really no way around that.

Using the word audit here is meaningless. There is no statistical analysis that can be done on a single hand of poker that is in anyway meaningful.

There is nothing to audit so I don't see how the reputation would be at stake.

I don't think you understand statistics or what it means to audit a game for fairness. There is nothing you can do with a single hand of data that is meaningful. There is no value in such an audit -- whatever audit even means in a case like that. An audit of a game's fairness requires a statistically significant number of hands -- the number of hands required is determined by what it is specifically you are testing for but it is always a lot more than one hand.

That a site offers an audit of single hands tells me that either the people running the site are ******s or that they believe their players are ******s. The hand audit is just complete BS with zero value other than as a marketing gimmick for rigtards.

Henry - here's my understanding of the purpose of the hand audit. First, it is to "prove" to the player that the hand in question was dealt from a genuine random physically shuffled deck and the cards in fact fell according to the shuffle. That's it. The way they state it is that they will prove the hand was the result of random events and therefore dealt properly and honestly. Now, actually proving that given how their system works seems a bit problematic to me.

So the steps the audit would have to show in my opinion are:

1. The video capture of the deck being physically shuffled and scanned, showing the final order of the scanned cards.

2. The details of the specific Sx transformation applied to that deal, and the full order of the resulting deck. Since they aren't willing to publish all their algorithms up front now, this step seems very problematic.

3. Some explanation of how the master deck timestamp matched up to that specific Sx transformation.

4. The cut of the deck as selected by a player in the game, and the resulting deck order.

5. A card-by-card listing of the cards coming off that deck as dealt to the table or burned.

So the idea is that this will show the player that whatever happened in the hand was dealt randomly and honestly. As for whether this actually proves that can be debated, and I see some gaps. But I'm also speculating about the contents of an audit report too.

Personally I don't think they can ever prove it since they have introduced explicit manipulation into the deck with their matrix transformations. If the physical deal was delivered as-is to the table that would be fine, but it isn't.

That is a meaningless audit. It doesn't establish anything of value which is why the whole audit thing is just a gimmick.

Also certain elements of that can't even be verified even for the meaningless audit since the data to be verified is supplied by the site after the fact.

Except, of course, that a rigtard would then say (after giving it considerable thought ), that they cannot prove that the deck they used for the hand was a random one.

A corrupt site using mechanical dealers could simply select decks for a table to get whatever result they wanted.

I completely agree. I've stated previously it's a good marketing gimmick given their target audience, but nothing more.

I don't even think it's that in anything other than the very short term for reasons stated by both you and me, above.

So what do you think the audit results would look like?

We have audited hand 47572038572-548272020 and here are the results. The physical deck was dealt as 7h 4d Ks ..... and you were dealt permutation 477 which takes every third card, which resulted in a deck of 8h 3c As..., which was sent to your table, and was cut by player xxxx at point xx, which resulted in a deck of Jh, 7h, Ac...

or

We have audited hand 47572038572-548272020 and determined that it was fairly dealt. Thank you for playing on RDP.

Indeed there is, although it is a small cult like following they sit around the tables and discuss things like
"It doesn't seem to play like RNG site"
"My hand holds up a lot more often than RNG sites"
"I don't see nearly as many big pair vs big pair here"


Of course they are limited to what they can actually discuss because RDP censors ugly words like rake, pokerstars, Full Tilt etc. They are also likely limited to what the can discuss on an intellectual level as well.

They even have their own board, ran by a guy who claims that he has nothing to do with RDP and the owners of RDP are ot 'affiliated' with the site.
He berates anyone that doesn't worship the system that RDP uses, openly and blatantly on the forums there.

http://www.realdealpokerforums.com/showthread.php?t=552

Yes I read the entire article and I (with a great deal of pain) spent almost 2 hours to listen to what was only 1.5 hours, but being that it was delivered by what sounded like a stammering, slobbering drunkard I had to rewind here and there.

You think linking the web cam of that shuffling machine and asking that is clever? I'm not really sure I get your point here as the 'press release' (lol) clearly stated that time was used to determine a seed. Not only that as has already been pointed out they apparently have some way of warping space and time and getting 2000 unique values from a millisecond.

Plain and simple if RDP specifically took action to prevent the same master deck from being used to deal 2 times to any table then there is no doubt that there is a weakness in the matrix strong enough to warrant this measure being taken.

Except Gioia posts on the site too. In his own named thread.

They say the site is independent only when it is convenient or to avoid embarrassment.

Yes, I know that. But PS, FT and many other sites have their own threads here with user accounts labeled appropriately but they are not really affiliated with 2+2, they could have their own forum and it would be just the same.
The big difference is the site name and the forum name, but if Gene wants that arsehole to be abusing current and potential players on the forums there that's his call.

You're absolutely right. I mean the site would obviously have the hand that was dealt on file. So, all they would need to do is produce a video after the fact and a permutation algorithm to create that hand.

It's not like there's some way they can prove when the video was recorded. So, either way you're trusting the site.

The gimmick has no real value to the players.

Wow it's like walking into a killing field posting something about this site. I think that you have misinterpreted some of information the let me try to explain the way that I understand this system.

Why would this be public information? Would you want to play there if these algorithms where exploited? There are 52^52 of possible combinations that could be used wasn’t it said that if an audit is called for that the algorithm used for that hand would be removed from the matrix. Wouldn’t you want this constantly changing?

This is where things get tricky (not really) the time stamp is apparently broken down into half millisecond intervals (1/2000 of a sec.) which are used to determine the algorithm used. This would be random based on the fact that the event of the deck creation is a random event. How would you predict this event, especially since it is not coming from the same source every time? There is more then one dealing machine remember. Explaining the method of how this relates to the choice of the algorithm used would be a bad security measure I would not expect to see an explanation any time soon.

That’s fairly cut and dry

Personally I would not want the results of my hand exposed to someone who paid for an audit if I fold it’s because I don’t want you to see I what I had. This would be especially true if I was playing in a game with stakes high enough to warrant paying 50 Euros for an audit. I don’t think your cousin Tony would let you see his cards in that game in the basement and I’m sure this would not fly in a casino. On this we would have to trust the accounting firm to be honest and that the data sent to them was factual. This might make you want to put on your tinfoil hat but consider this. The gaming commission in the Isle of Man has condoned the site and given a license based on the conditions that the randomness and integrity of the system was found to be acceptable by iTech labs. Why would this system be any less up to par then the other sites that are licensed by the IOM commission? To suggest this would imply that you do not trust those sites either, so why would you even play online poker? They also do a software based internal audit of every hand played to ensure that what was suppose to take place did. Don’t you think that a check of this system would have been done by iTech labs and under the scrutiny of the gaming commission? The fact they offer any sort of post game check should say something. What do other sites offer as far as this is concerned?

This was from this article

http://www.cigital.com/papers/downlo...r_gambling.php

“Developing a card-shuffling algorithm is a fairly straightforward task. The first thing to realize is that an algorithm capable of producing each of the 52! shuffles is not really required. The reasoning underlying this claim is that only an infinitesimally small percent of the 52! shuffles will ever be used during play. It is important, however, that the shuffles the algorithm produces maintain an even distribution of cards. A good distribution ensures that each position in the shuffle has an approximately equal chance of holding any one particular card. The distribution requirement is relatively easy to achieve and verify. The following pseudo-code gives a simple card-shuffling algorithm that, when paired with the right random number generator, produces decks of cards with an even distribution.”


Is this not basically what’s taking place in this system? The difference is that Instead of being paired to a RNG the random event is taking place in the Dealing machine to provide the seeds for a shuffling algorithm . More effectively the choice of the sequence used is random because the half millisecond that the deal comes out of the machine is an unpredictable event. In the time given that these events take place I do not think that you would have time to process the required data to predicted anything.

Didn't mean anything sorry if you where offend I just wanted to point out some of the similarities of the Dealing machine being used as a seed to feed the matrix this concept is not far off of what is suggested in this article as the as the scramble and shuffle that occur on that link would be a completely random event. I think what was meant was 1/2000 of a second or a half millisecond I don't know why he wouldn't have just said Half millisecond intervals.

The requiring that the information is factual is part of the reason the audit is meaningless. If you trust the site you don't need an audit. If you need an audit you don't trust the site.

No. Thinking the audit process is a gimmick is not the same as thinking the site is unfair or cheating. It just means that the site thinks that players are ******s.

I think you are setting the bar a little low when what you are boosting about is that the people who coded your site are not incompetent. Great. That is a good start but not really anything to be proud of since if you can't manage that then your are really ****ed. The problem I have is that when you start throwing the word audit around as liberally as this site does I expect an actual audit of the fairness of the game not some gimmick that basically audits that your programmers are not incompetent.

Bolded part is wrong.

It is hard to give any of the RDP poker shills a warm reception as every so often they come back posting under a new account name.

If the alogorithms that (re)produced the (master)decks were made public it would in no way affect the integrity of the game if the master deck was only used one time. I can see that you have a hard time wrapping your mind around that.
I'm not saying that this would be easily exploited as is, I'm saying that it CLEARLY has a severe weakness that was ADMITTED by Gene himself when HE HIMSELF STATED that measures were implemented to prevent the same master deck from being used at the same table 2 times. You once again chose to address other things and dodge this fact.

Am I capable of doing it? Not likely. I have enough knowledge to see the hole in it though and stated that more than 1000 (probably might be 800 if you are gonna angle shoot me there) posts ago.

Pokerstars has their shuffling algorithm on the site right out there for all to see. The system they use provides multiple values for a random seed as well as a Hardware RNG that uses thermal readings as well as other values from all clients to ensure enough entropy. By storing these values along with the Hand # a complete audit could be made by any deal generated by them as well. This would be without all the ******ed foolishness of shuffling a real deck running it through a 'randomizing' matrix and dealing the resulting deck.

Initally you (Gene) came out and said that every deal would be from a real deck of cards. Well this is kind of true but not what you led people to believe, and unless you are angle shooting your customers it is without a doubt a 100% complete line of B.S.

1/2 ms intervals is nowhere near a fine enough resolution to be used to do that with the computing power available to desktops today.

Because security through obscurity is no security at all. Strong security algorithms and protocols rely on as few secrets as possible (Kerckhoffs’ principles). In this case, one of the required security properties of this system is dependent on the secrecy of a core part of the algorithm used (which, incidentally, must be disclosed prior to the deal to - at minimum - the "auditor" for a reliable "audit").

Not quite.

This was not said. I asked almost this question and he dodged it.

Yes, but disclosed to the auditor before the hand was dealt. If it's disclosed only after an audit is requested, then it is trivial to say "ummm... Yeah, this is the transformation matrix that was applied", reverse engineering the matrix from the MD and the child deck.


Doubt it. Sounded to me like they just grab time in ms, apply modulo arithmetic to it (time in millis mod 2000) and use that as an index into the table. This value is likely to be biased.

You have failed to convince me that the timing of the mechanical activity of shuffling is random. Hand waving is not a sufficient argumentative technique. I would, in fact, suggest that the duration of a shuffle is likely to be less than random in a machine controlled shuffle.

As described above, security through obscurity is not a good property. How the system works should be explained thoroughly and transparently.

Has an accounting firm been identified? Has the site even claimed that the "audit" will be conducted by a real audit firm?

Which doesn't regulate the "audit" scheme.

As was the same component of the Cereus system. Concerns raised here are likely outside the scope of evaluation by iTech.

RDP makes the extraordinary claim of being safer than those other sites (not "just as good as"). The onus is on them to support this claim.

FT and Pokerstars have described in fairly clear detail the workings of their systems. If their systems work as described, they are operating according to established best practices. RDP deviates from established best practices. Furthermore, RDP's description of their methods raises concerns about the exploitability of their system.

And nowhere is it described what is within the scope of this "audit," how this audit is conducted (what multiple sources of data are used), or any other information that leads us to believe that this is anything other than marketing bunk.

Absolutely not. The scope of review by iTech appears to have exclusively been around assessing the randomness and distribution provided by their shuffling method.

Pseudo-code:

if (true) {
print "Audit successful";
}

Provides the same level of assurance in a "post game check."


And hardware RNGs (and software PRNGs) have been extensively studied by many in the computing industry and academia and their properties, strengths and weaknesses are very well known. This is not the case with the Rube Goldberg contraption being hawked by RDP.

You have provided 0 support for this statement. Moreover, even if we take that as a given, that random input is used (possibly modified by incrementing it) by up to 2000 tables.

Yeah, and people though TCP sequence number prediction would be impossible until Robert Morris brought the net to its knees in 1988.

This isn't exploitable information by itself. It simply tells you how you map ordered cards 1-52 (with unknown values) to a new ordered set of 1-52. You still end up with a random deck if you started with one. It's kind of a moot point anyway because the planned and designed manipulation of the deck through the transformations, makes it impossible to prove after the fact that the random physical deck was the ultimate source of what got dealt.

There are 2000 matrix transformations, that they selected and programmed. There are 52! permutations of a deck, which has nothing to do with it at all.

Jeepster - you are the shilliest shill I've ever seen shill.

Ya, I may go troll their site as a retaliatory measure

Well while it is fun watching him flip out at times he can be very enlightening as well.

It appears that dissent is starting in the ranks

Another gem by Tom
More discontent is spreading it seems this from possibly the 3rd biggest rigtard behind Gene and Tom.

As the author of this particular message, I can shed some light on this.

My issue was - at the time - mainly with the forum managers who had agreed to promote my poker product once I had an affiliate program in place, which I now do.

Tom is a good guy and has a lot of faith in Real Deal Poker. However, that said, I believe Tom's occasional hype and over-exaggerations are sometimes counter-productive to the credibility of Real Deal Poker. I have told him this before. His enthusiasm is great, but reality is what matters.

Real Deal Poker IS better than other sites and plays very much like Casino Poker.

Gene has created a very clever product that guarantees fairness at every online poker table. He should be applauded for that.

I just hope that, in time, membership will significantly increase to make it into the profitable and highly successful poker site it deserves to be, maybe even licensing the Patented technology to other poker sites and casinos later on.

1st after the newest RealDealTard!!!
Who are they supposed to market your product to? Dirty Burger and Volitile? May be a couple of MoD's they have? It's like they have more MoD's than posters.

Welcome to some real forums Pokerina. Watch out, and put a flame ******ant suit on, the kind race car drivers wear with the cloth mask. Then check this place out, improve your game. Then things will become more clear. You did not seem to be the same class of idiot as most of the posters over there.

** also I would change this:
Biography
I am an advanced intermediate poker player and in expert in pre-flop starting hand probabilities, hand groups and hand rankings


You are going to run into people here, who that is an accurate description of. And you will want them to help you figure out some of your questions one day.