| Author |
Message |
Jobe Gilchrist
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 3446
Location: "the most commonly-uttered phrase by vampire bats is 'it's not as cool as it sounds'"
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:48 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Oh my god, turn your sarcasm detector on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
craigo6x
Mr. Met
Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Posts: 4145
Location: Cursing the relievers in the bullpen
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thx bunny-I made that point earlier about my playing on the same "flawed" system as others, but Cain just kept on calling me a cheater. Then I looked up his sharkscope stats and realized why he's so angry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jobe Gilchrist
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 3446
Location: "the most commonly-uttered phrase by vampire bats is 'it's not as cool as it sounds'"
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| He's been screwing with you ever since he adopted that "cheater" thing. Is there anything you do understand? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
griffinlord
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: The Great Plains of South Dakota
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| craigo6x wrote: |
Lord knows a computer program can't be flawed. What makes what you say gospel? Because you read it somewhere?
The fact is nobody knows if these RNG's are flawed or not. |
Go back and read my post again...the science of random number generation is very well advanced these days. The only way for the RNG to be flawed is if a multi-billion dollar industry decided to go cheap on the most important piece of their business plan.
Not saying it couldn't happen. But if they cheaped out on the RNG how do you know that you are actually holding the cards that the computer displays. Sure the graphic looks like the AK of clubs, but what does the computer "think" it is--2-7o?
To argue that the RNG could be flawed is about as logical as claiming that the link between the cards you are delt and the ones that are displayed doesn't work right. Only a relatively incompetent programmer (or a cheat) would have a flawed RNG running the online poker software.
So, you are either saying that the billion dollar industry:
1. has incompetent programmers
2. cheats
Because those are the only two ways for the RNG to be flawed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
griffinlord
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: The Great Plains of South Dakota
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| craigo6x wrote: |
Uh, maybe there is a flaw. I don't play billions or trillions of iterations. I play two hundred a night. The fact is the randomness of those trillions of iterations should manifest itself in the small sampling I observe. |
False. You failed to read, or perhaps understand, my discussion of long-term versus short-term. If the distribution of cards was perfect over 200-300 hands you would have excellent cause to suspect something fishy....I sure would.
There are 1326 starting hands in holdem. If you ignore specific suits, lumping together all 6 pairs of TT and all 12 T8o and all 4 T8s as single instances the number of starting hands is reduced to ..... I forget, but around 200. If ten digits will not display proper theoretical frequencies over 60 trials, how in the world can you expect 1326 (or 200) events to have their proper theoretical frequency over a mere 200-300 trials?
It quite simply is not mathematically feasible or physically possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jobe Gilchrist
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 3446
Location: "the most commonly-uttered phrase by vampire bats is 'it's not as cool as it sounds'"
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That's exactly what I said, but I don't have a female avatar so he flipped out on me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flying_Kiwi
Bird of Mystery
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 8240
Location: Eating an apple on the golf course in the sunshine
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jobe Gilchrist wrote: |
| That's exactly what I said, but I don't have a female avatar so he flipped out on me. |
He flipped out because it is NINJA DAY! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jobe Gilchrist
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 3446
Location: "the most commonly-uttered phrase by vampire bats is 'it's not as cool as it sounds'"
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hah, I'm lucky I didn't get my head cut off! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
griffinlord
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: The Great Plains of South Dakota
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kardsh4rk wrote: |
Wow ... here's some really impressive statistics: 165 people (at time of this posting) have read this post, 16 people replied and not one flame. Zero, zilch, nada! Thanks  |
And sadly it degenerated almost immediately after you posted this...sigh. It was nice while it lasted.
| Kardsh4rk wrote: |
| To respond to a few posters, I do know our brains look for patterns. I do know that sometimes patterns we seek (and think we find) are just our brain smashing snippets into a pattern for us. And yes, I'm remembering ALL the hands - not just the good ones or the bad ones. As I said, on Day X, I'll catch good cards as much as bad ones ... on day Y, it's mostly rags. I'm not selectively choosing hands over the other ... i'm scrolling through my HH's and stating what is smack-dab obvious to me ... when the HH says 'crap, crap, crap, crap, A10suited, crap, crap, crap, crap etc. ... I don't really think I'm being selective) |
Unless you actually take the time to record your findings you are relying on memory and with a few notable exceptions no one's memory is that good. No one's. Go ask any legitimate memory expert and they will tell you the same.
Words like "confirmation bias" and "false memory" might come up in the converstation. (Did you know that it is relatively easy to implant false childhood memories?)
| Kardsh4rk wrote: |
| My question is: How random is it really? To say 'completely random' isn't good enough. You have 52 cards in a deck. 9 Players at a table. All players receive 2 cards (18 dealt) and providing it is played to the river, 5 more show, for a total of 23 cards showing. Shuffled up, what are the odds of the same person catching the exact same cards again? (I'm asking ... because I don't know). Repeat the whole process, and the same player catches the same cards again. What are the odds of that now? |
There are really a whole host of questions embedded in your question, I'll tackle exactly 1 of them.
Back-to-back identical hands?
If I have Th8d this hand the probability that I get exactly Th8d on the next hand is 1 in 1326, assuming true randomness.
If I have Th8d my probability of getting T8o on the next hand is 12 in 1326 or 2 in 221 or just a bit less than 1 in 100.
This same probability holds for ANY unpaired unsuited starting hand (32o, ATo, etc).
For pocket pairs the probabilty of getting say AA on your next hand if you have AA on this hand is 6 in 1326 or 1 in 221--around once every 200 times you are delt AA.
The probability that your next hand will be a non-ace PP given that you have AA this hand is 36 in 1326 or about 1 in 37.
Reviewing: if you are delt AA you can expect that once every 221 times you get AA you will get AA on the very next hand, okay? The important thing is that you could get AA followed by AA on time 2, 17 and 153 and then not see back-to-back pocket aces for another 600 or so times that you have AA.
| Quote: |
| If someone is a math genius (I'm not) .. could you enlighten us? Because, if the odds are like 1/100 ... fine. If the odds are 1/100,000,000,000 ... then, I gotta ask ... how random is it really - when this seems to happen to more than a couple of players? |
The odds will change depending on your starting point. If I pull a fair coin out of my pocket and ask for the odds of 8 heads in a row on the first 8 tosses of the coin (assuming randomness) the correct answer is 1 in 256. But if I have flipped the coin 7 times and obtained 7 heads the odds of 8 heads in a row is now 1 in 2.
If you have AA this hand and ask what is the probability that you will get AA on the next hand I answer 1 in 221. If your first card is an ace and you ask then I answer 3 in 53 or about 1 in 18. If you tell me that you will be playing 221,000 hands of poker and you ask me what the odds of your getting AA followed by AA at some point in those 221,000 hand I answer.....let me get out the calculator for a minute...
.....
.....
It is about 99% certain to happen at least once. I'm too tired to do all the computations for it happening more than once, but I think 99.3% that it happens once or more in 221,000 hands is pretty safe.
Does this help? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gypsydc
Moderator
Joined: 03 Nov 2005
Posts: 4861
Location: California
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Griff...you give me warm fuzzies everytime you post!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CitizenCain
Three Pair
Joined: 23 Oct 2006
Posts: 2474
Location: Behind a huge stack of chips.
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jobe Gilchrist wrote: |
| I never understood how one side can be so much worse than the other. Explain to me how a guy who knows 90+% of accused criminals are guilty can be easily worse than a guy who knows that, and tries to help them. |
I dunno how, but I've dealt with defense attorneys and I've dealt with prosecutors. Even the bad defense attorneys are better than the least douchenozzly of prosecutors.
| Jobe Gilchrist wrote: |
| He's been screwing with you ever since he adopted that "cheater" thing. Is there anything you do understand? |
Yeah, I don't know why I keep assuming that the person I'm talking to has a brain between his ears. It backfires almost every time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kardsh4rk
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 1279
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| griffinlord wrote: |
To argue that the RNG could be flawed is about as logical as claiming that the link between the cards you are delt and the ones that are displayed doesn't work right. Only a relatively incompetent programmer (or a cheat) would have a flawed RNG running the online poker software.
So, you are either saying that the billion dollar industry:
1. has incompetent programmers
2. cheats
Because those are the only two ways for the RNG to be flawed. |
Griff ... thanks for your lengthy x-plain-ation of the stats. I really do appreciate it.
To reply to this quoted comment above ... Just because it's a billion dollar industry, doesn't mean there isn't corruption or incompetence. Enron, Worldcom, Tyco are only 3 examples of many corrupt companies. In the 80s ... it was savings and loans companies. The thing about greed is that you can never quench it's thirst. I am not an overly paranoid person, but I am a realist and view most things skeptically. I know that if someone who wants to make money can think of a way to squeeze more out ... they will.
There has always been card cheats. In a live game, you might be able to catch someone dealing off the bottom of the deck. Online, you can't. It doesn't mean it doesn't happen though.
Here is some food for thought: I invest in an online poker site and get it up and running (prettty skins and all). Let's say (for argument and example only) that it costs me $1 million to get it up and going.
Over the course of one year - the rake and take nets me $10 million, leaving me up $9 million. It's then discovered that 'my code' is skewed to maximize my rake and people leave by the thousands. My site dies. 
The next day, I start a new site with a new name and do it all over again. You can't really sue me, because I'm licensed and operating out of a less-than-sue-friendly country (say, Costa Rica or the Cayman Islands). Wait ... this gives me an idea (j/k)
It's risk vs reward, plain and simple. 99% of people won't do it because it's dishonest, but 1% will (if they think they can get away with it). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kardsh4rk
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 1279
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| To add to my post above ... how many of you would sign up for my new online poker site - www.riggedpoker.com? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
craigo6x
Mr. Met
Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Posts: 4145
Location: Cursing the relievers in the bullpen
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kardsh4rk wrote: |
| griffinlord wrote: |
To argue that the RNG could be flawed is about as logical as claiming that the link between the cards you are delt and the ones that are displayed doesn't work right. Only a relatively incompetent programmer (or a cheat) would have a flawed RNG running the online poker software.
So, you are either saying that the billion dollar industry:
1. has incompetent programmers
2. cheats
Because those are the only two ways for the RNG to be flawed. |
Griff ... thanks for your lengthy x-plain-ation of the stats. I really do appreciate it.
To reply to this quoted comment above ... Just because it's a billion dollar industry, doesn't mean there isn't corruption or incompetence. Enron, Worldcom, Tyco are only 3 examples of many corrupt companies. In the 80s ... it was savings and loans companies. The thing about greed is that you can never quench it's thirst. I am not an overly paranoid person, but I am a realist and view most things skeptically. I know that if someone who wants to make money can think of a way to squeeze more out ... they will.
There has always been card cheats. In a live game, you might be able to catch someone dealing off the bottom of the deck. Online, you can't. It doesn't mean it doesn't happen though.
Here is some food for thought: I invest in an online poker site and get it up and running (prettty skins and all). Let's say (for argument and example only) that it costs me $1 million to get it up and going.
Over the course of one year - the rake and take nets me $10 million, leaving me up $9 million. It's then discovered that 'my code' is skewed to maximize my rake and people leave by the thousands. My site dies.
The next day, I start a new site with a new name and do it all over again. You can't really sue me, because I'm licensed and operating out of a less-than-sue-friendly country (say, Costa Rica or the Cayman Islands). Wait ... this gives me an idea (j/k)
It's risk vs reward, plain and simple. 99% of people won't do it because it's dishonest, but 1% will (if they think they can get away with it). |
Makes you wonder because we all know the strict enforcement standards employed in the online gaming industry. I mean this site does have the Kewanashakee seal of approval.
And Cain, I may not have a brain, but at least I don't suck. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ambitious207
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 2130
Location: Maine
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I thought we agreed to stop posting people's sharkscope information. First of all, all it does is pick up SNG information. I'm sorry, but if you only determine how somebody plays poker by how they do in SNG's, than I wouldn't be surprised if you thought that online poker was "flawed". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB Copyright 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
