"Everyone" says online shuffles are rigged, but...

...could it not be that since they shuffle the deck "way better" than you ever could at a B&M that a "normal flow" you might normally see from the cards is not going to be different or none existent (hence more "strange flops" & hands etc)? I have often wondered this, but am not sure how correct an idea this is.... I know that people are worse players online and tend to take more risks (as it can get really boring to sit at the monitor for hours if you don't have something else to do) and I think that this plus the above gives the strangeness people see....


Anyone think that this could be a good combined explanation?

Played at paradise some hours, couldnt win a pot all night... here is an example : happends all the way with me... im no off from paradise,but dont think pokerstars is so much better ?


Table "Tanimbar" (real money) -- Seat 8 is the button

Seat 1: BAMBAM32 ($433.50 in chips)

Seat 3: getrichsoon ($197 in chips)

Seat 4: Mr.Lucky ($83 in chips)

Seat 5: jey_69 ($131 in chips)

Seat 8: bcman ($202 in chips)

Seat 9: EdNangle ($243.50 in chips)

EdNangle: Post Small Blind ($1)

BAMBAM32: Post Big Blind ($3)

Dealing...

Dealt to BAMBAM32 [ Js ]

Dealt to BAMBAM32 [ Ah ]

getrichsoon: Fold

Mr.Lucky: Fold

jey_69 : Fold

bcman : Fold

EdNangle: Call ($2)

BAMBAM32: Check

*** FLOP *** : [ Ad Jd 8s ]

EdNangle: Bet ($3)

BAMBAM32: Call ($3)

*** TURN *** : [ Ad Jd 8s ] [ Qs ]

EdNangle: Bet ($6)

BAMBAM32: Call ($6)

*** RIVER *** : [ Ad Jd 8s Qs ] [ 4h ]

EdNangle: Bet ($6)

BAMBAM32: Call ($6)

*** SUMMARY ***

Pot: $35 | Rake: $1

Board: [ Ad Jd 8s Qs 4h ]

BAMBAM32 lost $18 (showed hand) [ Js Ah ] (two pair, aces and jacks)

getrichsoon didn't bet (folded)

Mr.Lucky didn't bet (folded)

jey_69 didn't bet (folded)

PTCer didn't bet

bcman didn't bet (folded)

EdNangle bet $18, collected $35, net +$17 (showed hand) [ Ks Th ] (a straight, ten to ace)

That hand was just terribly played. You definelty should have raised either the turn or river, wherever you prefer to (i like the turn). Also i prorably raise preflop as well. Don't worry about the bad beat as much as you should worry about the way you played the hand.

Studies have shown that the effect of even very poor shuffles of real cards disappears after a few shuffles for the game of BLACKJACK. That is, the statistical results match that of computer shuffling. I'm not aware of any similar studies for poker.

It takes about an hour to get the cards to a playable state for Blackjack. It's still not very random, but it is the point at which the odds come down. The time goes up with the number of decks.


Not sure what you've been reading or experienced live. I don't have the books at my disposal. I had about 4 different blackjack books as well as about 800 hours of live blackjack experience. Per hour, I was terrible. But I was positive, and the game provided much entertainment. And, as soon as new cards come out, I'm gone. The optimal is about 3 hours of shuffling.

....yesterday at paradise in the 50 max no limit game I saw 4 of a kind(I had 4, 8's) and a straight flush in BACK TO BACK hands(wasn't involve in the str8 flush hand).


I've only played at paradise for about 40 hours and have already seen about 10, 4 of a kinds.


Also, I know the flop is only suppose to come down all the same suit 5% of the time and Ive also seen this rather frequently, it sure seems alot more than 5%.


Even though Im not losing it still smells fishy.

Several studies have shown that to completely randomize a deck takes 1.5 * log-base-2(N) riffles, where N is the number of cards in the deck.


This is a deck assuming N distinct cards, but in blackjack, so many cards are interchangible (any card of the same rank, and any face card) that I'm quite certain that it takes a lot less than three hours. Simple superstition.


M.

I had quad aces, three hands later someone else had quad fives, and an hour later someone made a straight flush to the nine. That's three monsters in an hour. I left for dinner, came back, and saw someone take down a monster pot by flopping quad 4s.


Rest assured that computer shuffling methods are far more random than hand shuffling, which themelves are almost adequate (1.5 * log-base-2[N] riffles required to randomize a deck with N distinct cards, so that should be 7 for a 52 card deck)


M.

I don't, for the life of me, understand how people can use "I saw quads twice in the evening" or "...there was quads and a straight flush back to back" as examples of non-randomness.


I played 16 hours at Bellagio last week; I saw quads twice in that period of time. A few months ago I saw quads at my Bellagio table three times in 30 minutes.


During my recent Bellagio trip I was dealt 96o five times. One time I got them back to back.


So?


So nothing. Human beings have a hard time comprehending "randomness" since we spend most of our lives trying to impose order on real randomness.


Regards,


Troy

Or the fact that we have selective memory. For example when we get dealt AKo, then AKo again the next hand, we remember that. But when we are dealt 49o, then TJo, we don't rememeber that. But the odds of both happening are the same.


That's what makes it hard for a human using memory only to tell "randonmess".


- Tony

Well, I don't have much to add but I bought a cheap shuffle machine for my home game. I have a couple "edgy" players that come over to play and have suspected them of bottom dealing aces, however they are consistently big losers in the game overall so I let them come over. I have arranged the deck in the order right out of the box and ran it through the shuffler and after 3 times is pretty well "random." I have dealt 7-handed games over and over and could not see any kind of pattern to speak of. It means nothing, but the only two who have complained about it are the guys I suspect cheating (go figure).


My point is this: with the shuffle machine I see plenty of boards that would make you wonder. I read a post about flush beating flush a few days ago and it happened twice to me just in a week with that damn thing ( J ). I lost with my jack high and my queen high flush with the ace on the board – both of us flopped the flush and I lost a bunch money. The one thing that I have never really seen much IRL that I see more often online are the [888] and [444] boards.


Not much in this post, but I do not suspect that the deals are kinked. I do however, suspect collusion more often and hope that it will get tougher or more dangerous to try it (like providing the full name, address, and phone numbers of all convicted and banned players).

Ok, thanks for advice... i only had lost every hand ive played and u tell me to loose more? i know it was weak play but that isnt my point... i just knew i wouldnt win a hand and try dont loose to much at my good hands..

First you're assuming the shuffle in black jack is done to randomize the cards. It is not, because a random "set" of cards reduces the odds for the house.


Black jack deck/mutliple decks are shuffled in a manner which preserves the original order of the cards. There's a couple of techniques, one is called card-stripping. That's where the deck is cut in half, and a bunch of cards are pulled from one of the halves (the order is preserved). The two halves are put together and with the stripped cards and they are shuffled. This preserves the original order. The other technique is how the complete deck is split apart for shuffling. Again, this is done so the original decks of cards stay together.


You can have a formula. Much like having a lock, and someone being able to walk in the back door. The Casinos have studied black jack, and shuffling. And, they're going to squeeze every percentage they can on the odds.


You don't have to believe me, just pick up any book on Black Jack gambling. They all point out this phenomenon on the shuffling of cards. It's not my opinion I'm citing. I just don't have the books at my disposal. Haven't needed to bring them out of my boxes in the basement as I've been able to remeber what I need to know on Black Jack. And, I'm a postitive Black Jack player -- not hugely but enough to make it fun.

Most blackjack books are garbage. Any book which talks about the effects of the non-random shuffle are garbage, and you should stay away from these books as they usually contain other serious errors. The books which discuss this are not the respected works in their field. Of the 9 legitimate books which I own, none support any non-random shuffle theories. The only book I own which does is "Winning Blackjack" by Jerry Patterson. He is now a joke in the blackjack community due to ideas like this, as is John Patrick. They are simply repeating old wives tales for which there is no supported research. To base blackjack theory on experience is of absolutely no value.


If you want to see the real research on this, go to rge21.com. BJ21.com is also an excellent site with many professional players and authorities, none of which believe in any non-random shuffle theories as far as I know.