Mansion Deals Exact Same Hand 3 Minutes Apart (hand histories inc) - Page 6

dguild · #51 08-21-2006, 06:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]

So something that is even a 10-million to 1 shot IS bound to come reasonably frequently actually in this crazy high-volume universe of internet-poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is this is far worse than 10-million to one. It's 33.3million times worse. And I was generous with the 333 Trillion to one odds in that I calculated the odds as if it were a live game and you wouldn't know the order your hole cards were dealt. If you account for the fact those were dealt in the exact same order too, it's 1.33 quadrillion to one.

lotus guardian · #52 08-21-2006, 07:40 PM

Yeah, this is totally ridiculous, that site is obviously rigged or at least suffered some temporary problem as dguild described on previous posts. The fact that they want to compare this to getting quads beat by quads seems total bs to me. I don't know what kind of volume this site has but it's nothing compared to the major sites and there are lots of details that make it pretty certain that this was not some unprobable thing that would eventually happen. The fact was noticed by some guy who obviously wasn't paying attention to suits or order of hole card or probably order of cards on flop, and when you finally get the hh you see that it was all exactly the same? It's too weird even for a skeptic. Nobody will convince me this was normal and I would never play on this site. I think they should give some real explanation to all the users.

Dguild, I don't know if you play frequently with the same players but I think it would be interesting to ask some of them which were their hole cards, especially "nutziwish" and TiredOfBadBeat" since their corresponding hands were shown in the other hh. If one of them match then it's the end of discussion.

nuts · #53 08-21-2006, 07:44 PM

I'd like to see a second account of this, from hh or otherwise, or a long time poster here, before I'll jump to any wild conclusions (site is riggged etc...).

Rhett · #54 08-21-2006, 08:40 PM

Dguild is right. The chance that 9 cards came out in the exact same order as an earlier hand is 43!/52! = 1 in 1.33 Quadrillion.

The site almost certainly is using a poor random number seed. The site is absolutely bogus for not admitting to the fact that almost definately the whole deck was in the same order.

Probably the seed was based on a cpu clock which was reset right before dealing each hand.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So something that is even a 10-million to 1 shot IS bound to come reasonably frequently actually in this crazy high-volume universe of internet-poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is this is far worse than 10-million to one. It's 33.3million times worse. And I was generous with the 333 Trillion to one odds in that I calculated the odds as if it were a live game and you wouldn't know the order your hole cards were dealt. If you account for the fact those were dealt in the exact same order too, it's 1.33 quadrillion to one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Marnixvdb · #55 08-21-2006, 09:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Dguild is right. The chance that 9 cards came out in the exact same order as an earlier hand is 43!/52! = 1 in 1.33 Quadrillion.

The site almost certainly is using a poor random number seed. The site is absolutely bogus for not admitting to the fact that almost definately the whole deck was in the same order.

Probably the seed was based on a cpu clock which was reset right before dealing each hand.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So something that is even a 10-million to 1 shot IS bound to come reasonably frequently actually in this crazy high-volume universe of internet-poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is this is far worse than 10-million to one. It's 33.3million times worse. And I was generous with the 333 Trillion to one odds in that I calculated the odds as if it were a live game and you wouldn't know the order your hole cards were dealt. If you account for the fact those were dealt in the exact same order too, it's 1.33 quadrillion to one.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

there seem to be less players dealt into the first hand, so a poor seed can't really be the cause, can it? And don't almost all pokersite use a continuous shuffling method?

Rhett · #56 08-21-2006, 09:43 PM

Ok, yeah, i didn't look at the original hands that closely. The cards weren't in the exact same deck position as before, so the odds aren't 1 in 1.33 quadrillion.

I have no idea what shuffling method mansion uses, but it doesn't seem as bad as I first thought.

zutmin · #57 08-21-2006, 09:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And don't almost all pokersite use a continuous shuffling method?

[/ QUOTE ]

No...they don't

dguild · #58 08-21-2006, 10:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, yeah, i didn't look at the original hands that closely. The cards weren't in the exact same deck position as before, so the odds aren't 1 in 1.33 quadrillion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually they were Rhett.. Look at the tables from the position of the button. And it appears there is a player sitting out on the 9 player table

lotus guardian · #59 08-22-2006, 12:04 AM

"Flipside" was not dealt cards on the second hand. The order of the two decks was exactly the same.

Marnixvdb · #60 08-22-2006, 03:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And don't almost all pokersite use a continuous shuffling method?

[/ QUOTE ]

No...they don't

[/ QUOTE ]

shouldnt they?

PS i see that indeed in hand 2 flipside was not dealt in (hard to figure from the hh btw) so the deals are exactly the same for the cards that we got to see