General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

yeah fair enough, there's still 0.0001% chance in my mind that the rngs aren't random. regarding potripper, he was a superuser, it doesn't matter if the rng is perfect or totally broken if you can see the opponent's hand.

This is a good point about Potripper, but the truth is we don't know what happened there. We are assuming that he could only see the hole cards but how do we know he couldn't see the flop, turn and river before they even came out as well, i.e. preflop. Here, he could call with an underpair only when he knew that it would hold up and when you analyzed the data, it would appear as if the rng weren't random.

This is a good point about Potripper, but the truth is we don't know what happened there. We are assuming that he could only see the hole cards but how do we know he couldn't see the flop, turn and river before they even came out as well, i.e. preflop. Here, he could call with an underpair only when he knew that it would hold up and when you analyzed the data, it would appear as if the rng weren't random.

this still has nothing to do with the RNG. the cards would still be randomly generated at the start of the hand.

I could be completely wrong, I hope that I am because I love to play online poker at fulltilt. I really do, but I am going to find out one way or the other.

this still has nothing to do with the RNG. the cards would still be randomly generated at the start of the hand.

Statistically, it would appear as if the RNG were broken.

I play on Poker Stars and I love it. I trust them. It has been in Microstakes FullTilt.com where things haven't seemed right. That is why I wanted to talk to that guy who made this post, he said that he played microstakes, fulltilt and that he was a rakeback member.

If I would ever think for a second that FTP is rigged, I would stop playing at it. Thats it. What you are saying totally fit the cause/consequence rule claiming that I play well and I got sucked few times in a row so I conclude that the poker platform is rigged. This is so wrong imo

And the funny thing is, if the RNG were rigged, they would want to keep it a secret, so they probably woundn't rig the AK vs QQ outcomes!

Statistically, it would appear as if the RNG were broken.

i don't follow your logic

i don't follow your logic

First, there is no reasonable logic.

second, past 85k hands ive ran below ev. For part timer like me that's quite a bit of hands. It happens.

Third, isn't there a rigtard thread on 2p2 where all the rigtards gather and discuss why the site doomswitched their accounts?

Third, isn't there a <deleted derogatory term> thread on 2p2 where all the <deleted> gather and discuss why the site doomswitched there accounts?

Yes, I have directed him to it at least three times.

i don't follow your logic

If I had AKo and moved all in preflop and you had QQ and you knew not just what I was holding but what the flop, turn and river would bring, you would know when to fold and when to call. To me, I would never know that you folded QQ, I would only see that you called me 13 times and I lost all 13 of them. From my perspective, it would appear that the cards were not random, because I am more than 4 SD's from the expectation.

I want to clarify that I am not claiming that Potripper had this knowledge, only that we don't know.

past 85k hands ive ran below ev.

anecdotal evidence! How many SD's are you from the norm?

Third, isn't there a rigtard thread on 2p2 where all the rigtards gather and discuss why the site doomswitched there accounts?

Is it nescessary to insult me? I want to have a discussion on here and if I am violating the terms then I apologize and will stop immediately, but you aren't a mod and I am waiting for a mod to tell me to cease.

And the funny thing is, if the RNG were rigged, they would want to keep it a secret, so they probably woundn't rig the AK vs QQ outcomes!

If you are correct, then I should never run more than 5 SD's away from the norm. I want to clarify that I have yet to run more than 3 SD's away from the norm but I just started making the dataset.

If you are correct, then I should never run more than 5 SD's away from the norm.

Since when is the improbable impossible?

Since when is the improbable impossible?

Well, we convict people for life on DNA evidence so I will just say that the odds would be of the same order of magnitude that most DNA evidence is. So it would be about as compelling as that.

If you are correct, then I should never run more than 5 SD's away from the norm. I want to clarify that I have yet to run more than 3 SD's away from the norm but I just started making the dataset.

you have a sample size of 13..any conclusions you draw from this are totally irrelevant. the odds of losing 11 coinflips in a row are small, yes, about 5/10000 or 2000-1. guess what though, the odds of getting dealt any one exact poker hand are 1325-1. in a full ring game, the odds of observing two players flop set-over-set assuming ppl would play all pocket pairs is around 4400-1.

the point is that there are tons of unlikely things that happen in poker; focusing on just one small tiny aspect of the game is not likely to say much about how you are running overall, nor are your results at all abnormal.

i've already posted simulations showing that its incredibly easy to run bad. i'm not sure what else you want, and im pretty sure this thread just hasn't been locked b/c a mod hasn't seen it yet.