Pokerstars RNG (not a rigged post)

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
That sh*t is uncalled for. Don't say things on forums you wouldn't say in person you little b*tch

[/ QUOTE ]

Excuse me? If the OP were here, I'd say it to his face.

[jackaaron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Simply saying that this is not a rigged post and that you don't think its rigged, won't allow you to escape from the inevitable flamings.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, even though I think it's not rigged, and I say I don't think it's rigged not only in the header, but even in my post that I don't think they're rigged, you still think that I think it's rigged?

...lol. Amazing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You just don't get it, do you? You claim to not think that it's rigged, but the very issue you describe dances around the idea that there is something rigged about Stars, even though you don't use those exact words.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you just said is completely hilarious. You even admit that I'm saying it's not rigged, yet you STILL say that what I'm talking about means it's rigged (even though I say it's not). What the f**k sense does that make...lol.

As an aside: PokerStars isn't rigged.

The issue I describe DOESN'T dance around anything. I said it's not rigged in the header just so you would know I don't think it's freaking rigged. And, if it's screwed up, that's just error in the way they do things. That's not being rigged. That's like saying McDonalds is rigged because their hamburgers give you the sh*ts. What a loon.

[jackaaron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Wow, you are devoid of a sense of humor.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't particularly find humor about battered women funny either, but that's not the point.

The OP put "(not a rigged post)" in the topic header. He didn't put "(I don't think it's rigged)", but he talked about his friends thinking that it's rigged because of the number of 2 or 3 outers. The OP is on crack. 'Nuff said. That's why he's getting flames for putting a rigged post in a topic where he claims it's not a rigged post. So while he might not think it's rigged, it's still a damn rigged post.

[/ QUOTE ]

There you go again. Look at the first post. Even my freaking friends don't think it's rigged. OMG, you people. I don't think it's rigged, and neither do my friends. Why would you say my friends think it is when I clearly state that they don't think it's rigged!!

As an aside: Pokerstars isn't rigged.

[MicroBob]

please stop.


and consider reading my post in the other thread that you posted about this.


Lots of people are actually trying to help you even with all the flaming...and you would be wise to try to listen.

[jackaaron]

[ QUOTE ]
please stop.


and consider reading my post in the other thread that you posted about this.


Lots of people are actually trying to help you even with all the flaming...and you would be wise to try to listen.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of thought went into this:

I didn't think I was actually saying it was rigged. I was trying to say it wasn't rigged.

But you are all seemingly telling me that even unintentionally messing up the cards is the same as intentionally doing so?

I know I'm new around here and I'm interested in learning more about this. I'm willing to accept the possibility that my limited short-term observations about this are way off-base and that my friends who claim the 'cards run funny there' are just frustrated losers who don't get it.
[img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[Scotty.]

Here is a serious explanation of your friends' predicament

[ QUOTE ]
I can't argue with them as I see them getting dogged my more one, two and three outters than imagineable over the course of about 12 months.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Over the course of 12 months, and insane amounts of hands, of course you are going to be drawn out on by 2 outers more than you can imagine. Statistically you are supposed to be - I would be more inclined to think it's rigged if I was never drawn out on.

2. The reason they feel the amount of beats they receive is what would be considered a statistical anomaly is because of the selection bias. You don't see all of the times they were calling down with 2 outers and missed. Even when you do see them, they do not stick out in your mind because the result is what you expected, and you don't give it a 2nd thought. The only time you notice is when they hit one of their outs, and you immediately get frustrated, and the hand sticks out to you.

Does that help?

[MicroBob]

Now that's pretty funny.
nice-hand.


I hope a couple 2+2'ers will take the time to cool the flaming for a sec (I haven't read the whole thread...but I can guess what's been happening) and explain some of this in greater detail for you. Although I thought I did that in my post in the other thread that you just referenced.


I don't have time right now otherwise I would start but I do seriously hope you get the answers you are looking for.

[Guthrie]

[ QUOTE ]
All I asked was a simple question folks.

I'll rephrase the same question, "can the "math" related to the RNG and all it's components get screwed up with a higher population of players (say 60k+) at a site?"

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm no math nerd, but let's assume that Stars has 5,000 games running, all 5,000 games need their virtual decks shuffled at exactly the same time, and the RNG server is only capable of delivering 4,000 shuffled decks. So rather than wait a millisecond to finish shuffling the rest of the decks, the server just duplicates the last 1,000 decks. So what? How does that deliver a bad beat to any particular player?

I'm sure it's possible for a site to intentionally deliver bad beats or suckouts to selected players. Really, really stupid, but possible. But even if the RNG is awful it can't, by itself, have anything to do with bad beats. Someone might be able to discover a flaw in the RNG and exploit it, and I believe this actually happened some time back on one site, but I can't see any way that a flawed RNG could actually deliver bad beats on its own. Badly shuffled decks would fall equally on all players.

[thing85]

At this point, it looks like the OP's 92 posts are all related to this topic.

[ QUOTE ]
But you are all seemingly telling me that even unintentionally messing up the cards is the same as intentionally doing so?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. To the player, these events would appear to be the same exact thing and would allow a player to come to the same conclusion. Even if Stars didn't decide "Hey guys, let's rig the cards so that we'll make probably the same amount in rake and piss off the players" but implemented a system (the RNG) that was faulty, they would still, knowingly or unknowingly, be rigging the deck. Even if "rig" is the incorrect word choice here, the event outcome is seemingly equal, whatever you want to call it. Bottom line is, there does not appear to be any issue with Stars' RNG, so this thread should officially be dead unless anyone wants to beat the dead horse (like I probably am).

As an aside: This is NOT a flame. This is a constructive post illustrating what I perceive as a flaw in your logic/explanation about Stars.

[raze]

Sorry Jedi not you. I was talking about the woman picture.