There IS a difference between Party and Pokerstars tournaments. - Page 3

bocablkr · #21 10-06-2005, 01:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think the distribution of hands is identical over a large sample size?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it's clearly rigged.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is my POINT - it is not rigged but it is different. Did you ever hear of cards getting blocked. That does not happen with an automated shuffler. It has nothing do with rigging - just affects the distribution of hands.

MicroBob · #22 10-06-2005, 01:56 PM

wait.

so you are also claiming that the cards are 'more random' or 'less random' in live games if it's hand-shuffled vs. auto-shuffler?

just want to make sure here.

BTW - whether there is 'evil intent' or not doesn't really change things.
When one refers to the cards 'not running right' that is generally considered to be in the same camp as 'party is rigged'.

your understanding of some extremely basic concepts is very flawed.

Oh yeah - I have noticed a difference between Stars and Party tournaments though:
NL tourneys on Stars have antes.
NL tourneys on Party do not have antes.
This is a significant difference.

Also - the players in the Party tournaments generally are not as strong imo

benfranklin · #23 10-06-2005, 01:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]

That is my POINT - it is not rigged but it is different. Did you ever hear of cards getting blocked. That does not happen with an automated shuffler.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you are saying that a defective (or at least different) RNG at Stars results in card clumping? [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

2+2 wannabe · #24 10-06-2005, 02:00 PM

it's clear that, since the number of "Stars/Party/PokerRoom/Crypto/Prima/Absolute" is rigged posts is directly proportional to the amount of riggedness exists, that online poker is rigged

ONLINE POKER IS EIGGED!!OMGROFLBBQ!!!!11ONE11!!!

#25 10-06-2005, 02:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Every now and then my favorite will lose but it is certainly much less often than on Pokerstars. Anyone else notice this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I noticed this difference also except when I sit in the seat with the bald guy avatar. Don't EVER sit in that seat.

The bald guy never wins!

bocablkr · #26 10-06-2005, 02:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
wait.

so you are also claiming that the cards are 'more random' or 'less random' in live games if it's hand-shuffled vs. auto-shuffler?

just want to make sure here.

BTW - whether there is 'evil intent' or not doesn't really change things.
When one refers to the cards 'not running right' that is generally considered to be in the same camp as 'party is rigged'.

your understanding of some extremely basic concepts is very flawed.

Oh yeah - I have noticed a difference between Stars and Party tournaments though:
NL tourneys on Stars have antes.
NL tourneys on Party do not have antes.
This is a significant difference.

Also - the players in the Party tournaments generally are not as strong imo

[/ QUOTE ]

Micro,

I respect your posts. Your observation about superior players on pokerstars is correct. The antes usually kick in during the later rounds (and it does make a difference). Question to you - do you think over 10,000 hands that you would get the same distribution of hands with an automated shuffler vs. a dealer. Forget which is correct mathematically speaking.

benfranklin · #27 10-06-2005, 02:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]

so you are also claiming that the cards are 'more random' or 'less random' in live games if it's hand-shuffled vs. auto-shuffler?

[/ QUOTE ]

With a less than ideal manual shuffle in a B&M cardroom, cards that started out in the same relative postion can remain "clumped" together. Some blackjack schemes or systems claim to be able to gain an edge by tracking clumped cards.

Assuming that card clumping happens, and I see no reason to doubt it, it seems hard to believe that it would have a meaningful impact on the randomness of a poker deal.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence of card clumping online. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

bocablkr · #28 10-06-2005, 02:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That is my POINT - it is not rigged but it is different. Did you ever hear of cards getting blocked. That does not happen with an automated shuffler.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you are saying that a defective (or at least different) RNG at Stars results in card clumping? [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Did not say that it is defective just different. They use a different RNG (pokerstars even uses the mouse movement in its algorithm) and therefore the distribution CAN NOT be identical.

benfranklin · #29 10-06-2005, 02:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Did not say that it is defective just different. They use a different RNG (pokerstars even uses the mouse movement in its algorithm) and therefore the distribution CAN NOT be identical.

[/ QUOTE ]

The issue is not whether they are identical, it is whether they are statistically significantly different. And whether either is statistically significantly different from the normal distribution. The answer to both is no, based on empirical analysis of hundreds of thousands of hands done by posters on these forums.

In short, neither you nor anyone else has yet posted any statistically significant evidence that the online distribution of cards varies from the norm.

MicroBob · #30 10-06-2005, 02:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
do you think over 10,000 hands that you would get the same distribution of hands with an automated shuffler vs. a dealer

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that I will get the same distribution of hands over ANY comparable set of 10k hands.
I do think that the chances of getting a 'good run' of cards or a 'bad run' of cards or any other same set of cards are equal regardless of the dealer.

[ QUOTE ]
Forget which is correct mathematically speaking.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have absolutely no idea what this means.