Party Poker Cracked

[crownjules]

Wasn't sure if this should be posted here or in the books section (as it is an e-book), but had this spammed to me while I was sitting at a table on Empire tonight.

Party Poker Cracked

I'm more interested in the credibility of its accusations, such as "after reading this, you'll understand why pocket aces lose 90% on PP in 'certain' situations." My first reaction to this was well sure, I'm sure I could setup a situation where AA loses 90% of the time as well. And of course there's the bold statement at the top about the random card generation is not so random. This is somewhat true I know as any computer RNG (random number generator) can never be 100% random. I forget the reasons, but I remember learning that in computer science class a few years ago.

Anyway...thoughts or opinions?

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
The moderator has already been notified about this post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn it!

[IggyWH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The moderator has already been notified about this post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn it!

[/ QUOTE ]

In the guys defense, if you look at his previous posts, he's just a n00b. I don't think he was trying to spam... I just think he's stupid enough to believe some of what he read though.

[crownjules]

Hey, whatever. If I committed some offense because I posted asking about my suspicions, then I guess I'm guilty.

And no, I'm not "stupid enough" to fall for it. I was more interested in 2+2ers reactions to it and what it said. Guess I got it.

So sorry for my apparently grevious error. I'll make sure never to bring subjects of interest to light, no matter how significant or not they may be. I figured something that said "Party Poker Cracked", legitimate or not, would garner some good conversation.

[BradleyT]

Well, use some common sense. "Party poker cracked" but we're selling it for $20.....

Anyway the full PDF has been posted on here before.

[MicroBob]

I don't believe he was trying to spam the product...but just expressed iffy judgement by including the link in the post.

I believe that it is true about what he says about computers and randomness (from what I remember reading).
I'm not sure though. I think it's something like: Party can APPROXIMATE randomness to within such a minute difference of TRUE randomness that the overall difference in results would be less than negligible.
In other words, there is really no contradiction by Party when they say that their deal is TRULY random....but, evidently, it might only be 99.999999% correct.

Somebody who knows more about this feel free to chime in as I don't even remember where I read this previously.

[EliteNinja]

I'd say it's an excellent product.
Well written and concise.

An excellent product as the guy has sold $5k worth, and is educating the fish on how to play worse (good for sharks).

[daryn]

to even discuss something like this is a waste of humanity.

[Mr. Graff]

I want some too.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that it is true about what he says about computers and randomness (from what I remember reading).
I'm not sure though. I think it's something like: Party can APPROXIMATE randomness to within such a minute difference of TRUE randomness that the overall difference in results would be less than negligible.
In other words, there is really no contradiction by Party when they say that their deal is TRULY random....but, evidently, it might only be 99.999999% correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only events that are truly random are quantum events. Thermal noise or radioactive decay are great sources of true randomness. So if they choose PartyPoker can have a truly random shuffle, while a professional Vegas dealer never can have a truly random shuffle.

Not that it matters really, the totally non-random shuffle of a good Vegas dealer is good enough for our purposes. (Getting a deck where no human can predict the next card.)