partypoker not rigged...BUT

[MajorCP]

Most of the above amounts to hair-splitting. Even if the RNG falls slightly short of delivering 100% randomness, the key facts are:

1. It's more random than shuffling a physical deck, and

2. It's random enough where no level of analysis can extract any predictive value that gives any player an advantage.

Or in simple English, "it's close enough."

[bigalt]

[ QUOTE ]

They are also one of the few sites that creates an entire static deck before the deal, UB uses what I call a "continous shuffle" method where the card is not generated until it is needed.


[/ QUOTE ]

man that's a tough choice.

would you rather have them decide all the cards beforehand, where a bunch of nerds could figure the shuffle out or would you rather have them decide at the spur of the moment who's going to catch their card?

[grimel]

all possible shuffles is not required (all combinations are). For the purposes of poker the hole cards being AK and KA are the same. The flop being A73, A37, 73A, 7A3, 37A, and 3A7 are the same. The turn/river pair 45 or 54 is the same.

Boon threw out a number, misidentified it, claims it matters w/ 50k worth of data, and is yet to put any meaningful numbers into the discussion.

Your numbers are much closer to useful.

[grimel]

That follows to the 50/50/90 rule.

The 50/50/90 rule: given the choice between two outcomes w/ 50/50 probability of a postitive outcome there is a 905 chance of selecting the negative outcome.

[Frequitude]

[ QUOTE ]
4) do you know why 52! is a useless number in this whole discussion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Grimel, do YOU know why it is a useless number???

Yes, the OP should have considered the game type, i.e. number of cards dealt, and I tried to fix that in my post above. I don't KNOW that I'm right, it just made sense to me and I'm curious what others think.

If you're going to make a statement like that, back it up with some numbers and how you got there for christ sakes.

And this won't do:

[ QUOTE ]
Try 1300ish 2 card starting hands (169 disregarding suits). Roughly 670,000,000,000 or 6.7x10^11 permutations or 1.3x10^8 combinations.

You've taken your input ('1300ish 2 card starting hands') and stated your output ("6.7x10^11 permutations or 1.3x10^8 combinations"), but you didn't explain how you got there, or why this math is relevant or correct.

[/ QUOTE ]
You've taken your input ('1300ish 2 card starting hands') and stated your output ("6.7x10^11 permutations or 1.3x10^8 combinations"), but you didn't explain how you got there or why these numbers are even remotely relevant or correct.


Grimel, to me it looks like YOU are the biggest moron in this thread...at very least in the way you put your case forward.

[Frequitude]

[ QUOTE ]
all possible shuffles is not required (all combinations are). For the purposes of poker the hole cards being AK and KA are the same. The flop being A73, A37, 73A, 7A3, 37A, and 3A7 are the same. The turn/river pair 45 or 54 is the same.

[/ QUOTE ]


You posted this while I was writing my last one up, so I take my last one back a bit. Thank you, that's a good point. I didn't consider that AK and KA are the same. I'm not to sure how to include this combination effect in my numbers.

Can anyone give the total number of possible hands in a 10 handed holdem game with 3 burn cards (which might have no effect on the result anyways)?

[dogmeat]

Well, I thought you were going to explain it to me. You give no final math numbers, so a doofus like me can't follow you. However, I don't do well at UB, so by this logic, I really suck at poker that is "fair" and can only win on sites with poor RNG's. Damn, I suck. Maybe my wife was right two years ago when she said I might have to get a job.

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[grimel]

He (boon) implied a grasp of stat/prob. Where those numbers orginate should be relatively obvious. BTW, about any poker book give the 1300ish/169 numbers (which I'm too lazy to recal or look up at the moment).

[HopeydaFish]

[ QUOTE ]

man that's a tough choice.

would you rather have them decide all the cards beforehand, where a bunch of nerds could figure the shuffle out or would you rather have them decide at the spur of the moment who's going to catch their card?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, from my vantage point here in the aquarium, I like having the cards generated on the fly. That way if I have a marginal choice to make on any street, and I make the wrong decision, I can tell myself that it didn't matter anyway, the card would have been different had I taken the extra millisecond to press a different button on my screen.

It's a false sense of comfort, but that's all us fish ask for. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[grimel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
all possible shuffles is not required (all combinations are). For the purposes of poker the hole cards being AK and KA are the same. The flop being A73, A37, 73A, 7A3, 37A, and 3A7 are the same. The turn/river pair 45 or 54 is the same.

[/ QUOTE ]


You posted this while I was writing my last one up, so I take my last one back a bit. Thank you, that's a good point. I didn't consider that AK and KA are the same. I'm not to sure how to include this combination effect in my numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was the whole point. He's calling the shuffle the possible hands. He's working with what he "should" know to be a statistically insignificant sample (if as he claims you can't get a MS in Comp Sci without understanding statistics). He hasn't given any meaningful numbers or any meaningful discussion only "waaaaa, you insulted me after I cut on someone who dared point out the obvious".

Off the top of my head: product of possible combinations of hole card, combinations on the flop, and combinations of turn/river cards.