Please help--Online shuffling smells fishy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Page 2

MicroBob · #11 03-04-2005, 08:45 PM

weird.

I was debating getting some chinese but decided to make soup and a sandwich instead.

touchfaith · #12 03-04-2005, 09:10 PM

At least there are still only 52 cards in the deck.

I stopped in a local indian casino recently to play, and walking past the blackjack tables, I noticed that about 1/2 the tables had continuous shufflers installed.

Try beating that game

richrf · #13 03-04-2005, 09:38 PM

I play many sites and each have their own "patterns" that you have to "adjust" to. I don't think that off-shore online poker sites are the only businesses that never cheat their customers. All companies do it their own way - and anyone who believes otherwise still hasn't learned the lessons of the dot-com era. Does anyone remember the quiz show scandals of the 50s?

MicroBob · #14 03-04-2005, 09:44 PM

what exactly would these patterns be?

richrf · #15 03-04-2005, 09:53 PM

Each poker site has their own "business model". Just like when I ride a Honda, I have to adjust to its "feel" as compared with a BMW, so must I adjust to the different poker sites. Some play games with "bonuses", others with cashing out, others with the game itself. My basic assumption is that since every company I have ever dealt with finds ways to "take advantage" of its customers, the probablilities are extremely high that offshore, unregulated, poker sites do the same. I remember how "shocked" people were around the globe when the "discovered" (or rather it was revealed) that T.V. quiz shows were all rigged. Shocked, as was Captain Renault, in Casablanca. Of course, anyone who watched the shows with any degree of skepticsm knew that the shows were rigged. That was how Dr. Joyce Brothers got her start in her career. But, I may be dating myself.

BTW, the sites are doing nothing illegal. If you read the T&C they are in complete control of everything and cannot be sued by any player on any grounds. They are on very firm grounds no matter what they do. It is their game however way they wish to structure it. And that is fine with me.

kdog · #16 03-04-2005, 10:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I play many sites and each have their own "patterns" that you have to "adjust" to.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "patterns" that you need to "adjust" to at different sites are player dependent, NOT shuffle dependent. For example, I find Party's games somewhat more aggresive than Paradise's and a lot more aggresive than True's. The percentage of flushes that hit the river is the same at all sites. My adjustments are based on the type of player at each site, not the shuffle.

rich you post some really good stuff here on technical issues. Especially internet security. Why is it that whenever a thread like this pops up you turn into a conspiracy theorist? If you believe what you write, why do you continue to play?

TheMetetron · #17 03-04-2005, 10:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
decided to make soup and a sandwich instead.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I just found dinner. Sounds good...

MicroBob · #18 03-04-2005, 10:21 PM

Thanks for your explanation.

I was really looking for more details and the exact specific differences in the "shuffles" on some of the sites...but that's okay.
Since I have never thought that I could simply 'notice' something different about a random shuffle by just playing at the various sites I have never been able to detect anything after my thousands and thousands of hands online (mostly profitable).
Perhaps I'm just not paying attention.

I played at a B&M a few weeks ago with a guy who blamed the deck and/or the dealer for the fact that too may potential draws were coming and he never hit them.
He requested a deck-change to 'change things up' and was relieved when a new dealer came to the table.
He was heard to say "See....jason knows how to deal. My KK actually held up that time. It's a miracle."

Is this similar to your ideas regarding the different 'shuffles' of the online sites?

I believe that only a couple of the 50's quiz-shows were found to have issues with legitimacy...not all of them. Although I admit I'm not terribly familiar with the scandal.

$64k question and 21 were the big ones weren't they?

tdarko · #19 03-04-2005, 10:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Just like when I ride a Honda, I have to adjust to its "feel" as compared with a BMW

[/ QUOTE ]
haha, yeah that is definately an adjustment [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

richrf · #20 03-04-2005, 11:02 PM

Yes, 21 and $64,000 Question were the biggest shows involved in the scandal - though others were implicated and eventually laws were passed to make it illegal to "fix" quiz shows in the U.S.

Interesting to note that 21 and $64,000 were by far the biggest and most popular shows of the time. Now one might ask why would they jeopardize their success (they were making tons of money) by fixing?

The answer is that they were successful because they were managing the results. What happened was that the programs were boring until the contestants were fed the answers or manipulated in other ways. Once the producers began "managing" the shows, the shows became wildly popular. Note: At the time it was not illegal to do what they did. However, one had to be extremely naive to watch the show and actually believe that what was being televised was not "managed".

http://www.honors.umd.edu/HONR269J/p...s/venanzi.html