I believe this a fair and accurate description of myself.

However, whilst I certainly do not claim to be the foremost expert in pre-flop starting hand probabilities, and I am sure there are some who know more than I do, it is an area I have done considerable research and study in. Indeed, it was the primary basis for the development of my poker product.

I also firmly believe my Hand Grouping and Ranking system for No Limit Texas Hold' Em Poker is far superior to Sklansky's (which is so often misused for No Limit Poker,) but I understand that not all players would immediately agree. Time will tell I guess.

My knowledge and research, coupled with my own skill and experience, has certainly taken my own game to a new level in recent weeks (two 1st places on two consecutive nights so far in the new Poker Stars Poker School Online Skill League, for example.)

I just saw your edit. I'll just sit back and watch this one.
I tried to warn ya

I believe this a fair and accurate description of myself.

However, whilst I certainly do not claim to be the foremost expert in pre-flop starting hand probabilities, and I am sure there are some who know more than I do, it is an area I have done considerable research and study in. Indeed, it was the primary basis for the development of my poker product.

I also firmly believe my Hand Grouping and Ranking system for No Limit Texas Hold' Em Poker is far superior to Sklansky's (which is so often misused for No Limit Poker,) but I understand that not all players would immediately agree. Time will tell I guess.

My knowledge and research, coupled with my own skill and experience, has certainly taken my own game to a new level in recent weeks (two 1st places on two consecutive nights (UK time!) in the Poker Stars Poker School Online Skill League, for example.)

I have no problem with others giving their opinions and/or critiquing my Hand Groups and Rankings. I believe they stand up extremely well against Sklansky's which, as you will probably know, where created for Fixed Limit Texas Hold' Em Poker, not No Limit Texas Hold 'Em Poker.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you are just referring to procedures such as cut and burn, and not to outcome distributions. Most of the posters on the RDP forum actually mean the latter when they say this, which is why they are called rigtards. It won't be long before some players gather some stats at RDP and find out that nothing changed, and then one of two things will happen. They will start shouting "rigged" about that site too, or they will realize that they really just don't understand randomness and variance at all. I'll let you guess which is more likely.

He does it for NL in NLHETAP, and also makes it very clear there that a purely formulaic preflop strategy isn't practical or optimal in NL (except possibly when the Ms get very low in a tourney endgame). That's why he puts them into "four broad and flexible categories" for NL.

Preflop hand rankings in NL are a good tool for beginners. As you progress in NL they should become very fluid and a chart or grouping becomes almost useless.

The owner of Real Deal Poker, Gene Gioia, has never once - to my knowledge - claimed that all or any of the other poker sites are "rigged," so 'Rigtards' is a very unfair label to use. Others may claim this, but Gene does not. The original question and the primary reason for the development of Gene's invention centred around precisely how fair and random, or not, most RNGs are. On top of this, Gene has added Burn Cards and a Dealer Cut Option to give players' more control over the hands they are dealt.

That's complete and utter BS. I've followed his idea since he first posted on here about 2 years ago. Nobody in their right mind questions that virtually any RNG is random enough for a fair poker game, even sloppy 1980s pseudo-RNGs. Any periodicity is so large, or any bias so slight, to not make a whit of difference to a poker game. Gene's idea was totally 100% based on creating a game where players would trust that the deal is not rigged by the operator. It has absolutely nothing to do with improving on the randomness of an RNG. And even though they have toned it down, all the early guerrilla marketing was about how rigged the major sites are.

Please can you kindly provide a link to the book or article you are referring to.

As an advanced intermediate TAG through LAG player, I appreciate and understand what you are basically saying. I agree that Hand Groupings and Rankings are of particular benefit to newer players. However, Hand Groupings and Rankings are still important at any level of NLHE Poker and certainly not "almost useless" for anyone buy beginners.

I will leave that one for Gene to respond to.

Your reading comprehension is not very good since at no point did anyone imply Gene claimed other sites were rigged. Only that the target customer for RDP is rigtards.

How random a RNG is something that is easy to verify with data and a second year undergrad familiarity with statistics. There is no question about the fairness of RNG used at the major sites.

Explain how this is not just a gimmick that actually accomplished nothing except giving an illusion of control to stupid people?

Stuff like this is where RDP starts to come off as lol ******ed. You either know that this **** does nothing but you think it is good marketing to attract rigtards or you actually think this is meaningful in which case you are ******ed and that makes playing on the site scary.

You are making a very big assumption that RDP's target audience are what you call 'Rigtards.' Doubtless some players will feel that many poker sites are rigged, but I believe many simply doubt the fairness and randomness of many poker sites RNG systems and have witnessed too many bad beats and highly unlikely flops within a fairly short period of time.

I am actually pretty Neutral on this. I like the Dealer Cut Option, but otherwise I have seen little or no difference in the results to date. I therefore await a fuller study.

To be honest, referring to people as "stupid" and "******ed" is pretty uneducated and immature and does nothing more than illustrate your own prejudice and bias.

http://www.twoplustwostore.com/twopl...&productID=116

Those people are called rigtards. Anyone who doubts the fairness and randomness of poker site RNGs can test them and discover for themselves. This has been done many times and can be done as many times as people want. Anyone who questions the fairness and randomness of the RNG system is a rigtard since statistics done properly do not lie.

There is world of difference between something that is "rigged" and something that is unintentionally inherently flawed (i.e, not as "random" as it should be.)

At least be fair and call some of them "Randomtards" or something like that!

It's worth reposting this, from Gene's recent webcast:




"A Perfect Example and The Reason Why We Created Real Deal Poker"

(this is Gene's example of playing with an RNG)




Feel that Burn! You silly RNG players.
(my comment, not his)

You do realize that it is easy to test randomness in data?

If you don't I find it grossly negligent that you apparently market some form of poker instructional material.

Wasn't the whole reason Gene designed this mess due to him just knowing something wasn't right when he played online versus live?

Yes, of course I do. However, it is my understanding that most RNGs are only tested by checking the first four or five cards dealt over many hands. Personally, I think the randomness of all cards dealt right up to the River should be checked. With modern computers this would certainly not be impossible.

http://www.realdealpokerforums.com/s...ull=1#post2811

Care to elaborate on the first 4 cards?
Those posts may work ok for you over there, over here we are pretty good at smelling someone that is tossing BS around.

RNGs don't generate poker hands. They generate random streams of 1s and 0s. Those are tested using things like diehard tests and NIST tests for randomness. Poker software takes an RNG stream and converts it to poker hands.

Yes it was, it was stated in his videos iirc I know he has posted it in text form.

I have an official e-mail from senior support at the Everleaf Poker Network that states only the first four cards are checked for randomness in their external RNG tests.

Funny you should bring that up.

Now spadebidder obliged you please be so kind as to do the same.

Of course... I will post locate it and post it as soon as I am back from shopping and unpacking.