Party Poker RND shuffling

[ImpulsiveMe]

I like to know how the good players deal with the RND of Party Poker.

Having played for more than 3 years now on this site and collected over 500k hands. I am able to analyse many , many things.

The thing that I find really interesting is how these stats can be so far off from ´real´ poker stats. The result of a hand is determined by many factors but one thing is for sure, IT IS NOT RANDOM SHUFFLING at the beginning of each hand and the the result of each card on the board is determined by a number of factors.

Just one more thing, I am not asking this because I think Party is rigged. So please no comments in that area.

[CaseS87]

ill bite.
what is an RND? what are real poker stats, and how are these different? what are some of the factors that determine a hand?

if what you say is true, this would mean that party poker is rigged.
this is a pretty stupid thread.

[NL Newbie]

500 000 is enough to prove a random generator to be wrong huh?

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
500 000 is enough to prove a random generator to be wrong huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Easily, if you are interpreting the results correctly.

[Tarheel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
500 000 is enough to prove a random generator to be wrong huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Easily, if you are interpreting the results subjectively.

[/ QUOTE ]

[NL Newbie]

how do you interpret them?

Cant a true RND generator give you AA 1000 times in a row? Unlikly, but thats the beauty of randomisation right?

Not sure how you prove it with 500 000.

Maybe 5 million ? whats the deciding factor, or the required samplesize?

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
500 000 is enough to prove a random generator to be wrong huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Easily, if you are interpreting the results subjectively.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh???? Not sure if you are attacking my post or just mocking the OP.

If I play 500,000 hands, and I get dealt AA exactly x times, I can tell you exactly how confident I am that the results came from a random shuffle* . If I got dealt AA 0 times, I would be pretty confident that the shuffle wasn't random. If I were dealt it 2262 times, I naturally wouldn't have any particular reason to be suspicious. If I were dealt it 2,000 times, I'd have to run the math, but off the top of my head I'm pretty sure that would be suspicious.

I'm not sure why "objective" needs a FYP into "subjective".



*(to be more accurate, I can compare the hypotheses of a specific nonrandom shuffle to a random one)

[ImpulsiveMe]

Before you start flaming, next time try to read what is written.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
Before you start flaming, next time try to read what is written.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read your post several times, and I have the same problems/questions as the other poster. You appear to be saying that the actual results are statistically different from expected probability, but provide no evidence or description of your work. You say that the cards being dealt are determined by a number of factors, but don't give any information of what those factors are, or how you determined this.

In short, you have provided no evidence and no logical argument for your unclear premise. The result is that your post appears to be just another "rigged" post.

[RevAgain]

[ QUOTE ]
Before you start flaming, next time try to read what is written.

[/ QUOTE ]

We did all read it, that's why you're getting flamed.