Shuffling at sites
 

I always thought poker stars shuffled for every card but then I saw this today in the WCOOP main event chat:


snake8484: is the flop preset ? or does the deck continue to shuffle the remaining cards until the player presses call or fold etc
[...]
HostMarkW [Support]: the deck is only shuffled once at the start of the hand


Maybe they had changed the method.

Do you know how it is?

And what networks have continuous shuffling (shuffling for every card) and what networks shuffles the deck before all the cards are dealt so the flop etc. would be the same regardless of action?

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

Prima apparently has continuous shuffling (link), to "ensure complete randomness". It's interesting how she tries to use this to show that the rabbit cam works though.

Obviously all that really matters is that it's random. Continuous shuffling discourages results oriented thinking ... shuffling at the start of the hand is obviously closer to how it would be in a casino. I don't really care myself.

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

Stars uses a TRNG to shuffle the entire deck.

I don't know of any site that uses continuous shuffle and if one did I'd avoid it since it is much less likely that the cards will actually be random with continuous shuffle.

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

Party at least used to use continuous shuffle.

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
Stars uses a TRNG to shuffle the entire deck.

I don't know of any site that uses continuous shuffle and if one did I'd avoid it since it is much less likely that the cards will actually be random with continuous shuffle.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? Explain how.

As far as i know UB does continuous shuffle.

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

If someone uses continuous shuffle then odds are they are using a PRNG to generate the random numbers.

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

Why?

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

Because using a TRNG with continuous shuffle would be very demanding on resources. There is nothing preventing them but it is just very unlikely since the whole point of using continuous shuffle is to make a PNRG act like a TRNG.

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

Very demanding on resources? How processor intensive do you think it is to take an input and generate a TRNG from it? FWIW, i'm pretty sure no sites use a PRNG since the Planet Poker debacle.

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
I always thought poker stars shuffled for every card but then I saw this today in the WCOOP main event chat:


snake8484: is the flop preset ? or does the deck continue to shuffle the remaining cards until the player presses call or fold etc
[...]
HostMarkW [Support]: the deck is only shuffled once at the start of the hand


Maybe they had changed the method.

Do you know how it is?

And what networks have continuous shuffling (shuffling for every card) and what networks shuffles the deck before all the cards are dealt so the flop etc. would be the same regardless of action?

[/ QUOTE ]

The actual method we use to shuffle is described in
great detail on this page:

http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/room/features/security/

Let's cover that in detail, step by step, from the "Shuffle
Highlights" section:

> We use 249 random bits from both entropy sources (user input and
> thermal noise) to achieve an even and unpredictable statistical
> distribution.

So, to shuffle a hand, we take 249 truly random bits from the thermal
source, and 249 truly random bits from the aggregate mouse movements --
two truly random (not pseudo-random) sources.

> We use the SHA-1 cryptographic hash algorithm to mix the entropy
> gathered from both sources to provide an extra level of security

Thus, we use a mathematical formula to combine these two different 249
bit numbers into a single 498 bit number. Now we have a binary stream
of units and naughts, something like this:

01010111100101100111011010001000101011110101010101 1010101010101011...

It's much longer than that in reality (498 bits), but you get the idea.

The page then says:

> To convert random bit stream to random numbers within a required
> range without bias, we use a simple and reliable algorithm. For
> example, if we need a random number in the range 0-25:
>
> - we take 5 random bits and convert them to a random number 0-31
> - if this number is greater than 25 we just discard all 5 bits
> and repeat the process

Finally, we use that method to do the actual shuffle:

> To perform an actual shuffle, we use another simple and reliable
> algorithm:
>
> - first we draw a random card from the original deck (1 of 52)
> and place it in a new deck - now original deck contains 51
> cards and the new deck contains 1 card
>
> - then we draw another random card from the original deck (1 of
> 51) and place it on top of the new deck - now original deck
> contains 50 cards and the new deck contains 2 cards
>
> - we repeat the process until all cards have moved from the
> original deck to the new deck

So, how does it work? First, we need a number from 0 to 51 to get one
of 52 available cards. To get such a number, we need 6 bits. (I'm
assuming you know at least a little bit about binary numbers here
since you said it was a "technical" discussion). We take the first
six bits of our much larger stream of random bits, and never use them
again:

01010111100101100111011010001000101011110101010101 1010101010101011...
010101 (use these)

11100101100111011010001000101011110101010101101010 1010101011...
(these are what's left)^^^^^^^^^^

If that number is from 52 to 63, we discard it as too large. If it is
between 0 and 51, we use it to choose the card. In this case, 010101
is our six bit number, and it is "21", so we choose card 21 as the
first card.

We continue down the bitstream as needed. We now need 0 to 50 (51
cards left), and the next six bits are 111001, which is 57:

------11100101100111011010001000101011110101010101101010 1010101011...
------111001 (use these)
01100111011010001000101011110101010101101010101010 1011...
(these are what's left)^^^^^^^^^^

We discard that as too large and continue with the next six bits,
011001, or 25. And so on.

Each time the number of cards is reduced, the number of bits we need
can drop, too. Here's a table showing how many bits of data we need
to choose from N remaining cards:

52 = 6 bits needed 35 = 6 bits needed 18 = 5 bits needed
51 = 6 bits needed 34 = 6 bits needed 17 = 5 bits needed
50 = 6 bits needed 33 = 6 bits needed 16 = 4 bits needed
49 = 6 bits needed 32 = 5 bits needed 15 = 4 bits needed
48 = 6 bits needed 31 = 5 bits needed 14 = 4 bits needed
47 = 6 bits needed 30 = 5 bits needed 13 = 4 bits needed
46 = 6 bits needed 29 = 5 bits needed 12 = 4 bits needed
45 = 6 bits needed 28 = 5 bits needed 11 = 4 bits needed
44 = 6 bits needed 27 = 5 bits needed 10 = 4 bits needed
43 = 6 bits needed 26 = 5 bits needed 9 = 4 bits needed
42 = 6 bits needed 25 = 5 bits needed 8 = 3 bits needed
41 = 6 bits needed 24 = 5 bits needed 7 = 3 bits needed
40 = 6 bits needed 23 = 5 bits needed 6 = 3 bits needed
39 = 6 bits needed 22 = 5 bits needed 5 = 3 bits needed
38 = 6 bits needed 21 = 5 bits needed 4 = 2 bits needed
37 = 6 bits needed 20 = 5 bits needed 3 = 2 bits needed
36 = 6 bits needed 19 = 5 bits needed 2 = 1 bit needed
1 = 0 bits needed

If you add up all the bits you get (you guessed it) 249 -- the number
of bits we take from each of our truly random entropy sources.

Since we start with DOUBLE the number of truly random bits needed (249
each from thermal and user inputs), this is enough to ensure that even
if we have to discard every other group of bits as "bigger than the
maximum number we need", we have enough truly random bits to complete
the shuffle.

Thus, there isn't really a "seed". That's a concept that applies only
to pseudo-random generators. When you refer to a "seed" you mean the
first, initial number fed to the pseudo-RNG, from which flows all of
the following numbers in a mathematical progression. If you know the
seed, and know the mathematical formula, you can get the Nth number in
a pseudo-RNG progression by running that formula on the seed, and then
the result, and then that result, N times.

That doesn't happen at all with our method. At PokerStars, NOTHING is
ever pseudo-anything, and nothing is ever "seeded". The next number
doesn't depend on the prior one and there's no mathematical formula
one can use to figure out the next number. Every time we choose
the "next card to go into the randomly shuffled deck", the choice is
truly random and not the result of a pseudo-random number generator.

Once randomized, the order of the deck is
never changed throughout the deal. The cards that come out on any
given round are totally independent of any player action.

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what continuous shuffle means. The way I understood it continuous shuffle means that the next card to be dealt is being repetitively re-generated thus adding entropy based on duration of hand and increasing randomness. As such a PRNG would act very much like a TRNG.

If a site is going to use TRNG to generate every card I don't see the benefit over them just choosing from the ~8E67 possible orderings from the outset and having a predetermined ordering before anything is dealt.

The issue with Planet Poker and PRNG doesn't really apply to continuous shuffling. The issue was that they were limiting the orderings to a fraction of the possible orderings.

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

That post from the Stars employ led me to check Party's site and they do mention how they "seed" thus they are using a PRNG.

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
Party at least used to use continuous shuffle.

[/ QUOTE ]

No they didn't.

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

I'm pretty sure Full Tilt uses continuous shuffle, although in my opinion there is little practical difference between the two.

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

what is user input and thermal noise ? can someone explain? thermal noise is the pokerstars cpu?

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
what is user input and thermal noise ? can someone explain? thermal noise is the pokerstars cpu?

[/ QUOTE ]

thermal noise = heat from a device.

user input = users' mouse movements.

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what is user input and thermal noise ? can someone explain? thermal noise is the pokerstars cpu?

[/ QUOTE ]

thermal noise = heat from a device.

user input = users' mouse movements.

[/ QUOTE ]

so is stars taking my temp via my mouse?

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
so is stars taking my temp via my mouse?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

To anyone with a functioning reading comprehension device (ie, a brain) it is clear that the two things are separate.

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what is user input and thermal noise ? can someone explain? thermal noise is the pokerstars cpu?

[/ QUOTE ]

thermal noise = heat from a device.

user input = users' mouse movements.

[/ QUOTE ]

so is stars taking my temp via my mouse?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Yes they are.

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what is user input and thermal noise ? can someone explain? thermal noise is the pokerstars cpu?

[/ QUOTE ]

thermal noise = heat from a device.

user input = users' mouse movements.

[/ QUOTE ]

so is stars taking my temp via my mouse?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Yes they are.

[/ QUOTE ]
And your IQ.

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I always thought poker stars shuffled for every card but then I saw this today in the WCOOP main event chat:





snake8484: is the flop preset ? or does the deck continue to shuffle the remaining cards until the player presses call or fold etc
[...]
HostMarkW [Support]: the deck is only shuffled once at the start of the hand


Maybe they had changed the method.

Do you know how it is?

And what networks have continuous shuffling (shuffling for every card) and what networks shuffles the deck before all the cards are dealt so the flop etc. would be the same regardless of action?

[/ QUOTE ]

The actual method we use to shuffle is described in
great detail on this page:

http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/room/features/security/

Let's cover that in detail, step by step, from the "Shuffle
Highlights" section:

> We use 249 random bits from both entropy sources (user input and
> thermal noise) to achieve an even and unpredictable statistical
> distribution.

So, to shuffle a hand, we take 249 truly random bits from the thermal
source, and 249 truly random bits from the aggregate mouse movements --
two truly random (not pseudo-random) sources.

> We use the SHA-1 cryptographic hash algorithm to mix the entropy
> gathered from both sources to provide an extra level of security

Thus, we use a mathematical formula to combine these two different 249
bit numbers into a single 498 bit number. Now we have a binary stream
of units and naughts, something like this:

01010111100101100111011010001000101011110101010101 1010101010101011...

It's much longer than that in reality (498 bits), but you get the idea.

The page then says:

> To convert random bit stream to random numbers within a required
> range without bias, we use a simple and reliable algorithm. For
> example, if we need a random number in the range 0-25:
>
> - we take 5 random bits and convert them to a random number 0-31
> - if this number is greater than 25 we just discard all 5 bits
> and repeat the process

Finally, we use that method to do the actual shuffle:

> To perform an actual shuffle, we use another simple and reliable
> algorithm:
>
> - first we draw a random card from the original deck (1 of 52)
> and place it in a new deck - now original deck contains 51
> cards and the new deck contains 1 card
>
> - then we draw another random card from the original deck (1 of
> 51) and place it on top of the new deck - now original deck
> contains 50 cards and the new deck contains 2 cards
>
> - we repeat the process until all cards have moved from the
> original deck to the new deck

So, how does it work? First, we need a number from 0 to 51 to get one
of 52 available cards. To get such a number, we need 6 bits. (I'm
assuming you know at least a little bit about binary numbers here
since you said it was a "technical" discussion). We take the first
six bits of our much larger stream of random bits, and never use them
again:

01010111100101100111011010001000101011110101010101 1010101010101011...
010101 (use these)

11100101100111011010001000101011110101010101101010 1010101011...
(these are what's left)^^^^^^^^^^

If that number is from 52 to 63, we discard it as too large. If it is
between 0 and 51, we use it to choose the card. In this case, 010101
is our six bit number, and it is "21", so we choose card 21 as the
first card.

We continue down the bitstream as needed. We now need 0 to 50 (51
cards left), and the next six bits are 111001, which is 57:

------11100101100111011010001000101011110101010101101010 1010101011...
------111001 (use these)
01100111011010001000101011110101010101101010101010 1011...
(these are what's left)^^^^^^^^^^

We discard that as too large and continue with the next six bits,
011001, or 25. And so on.

Each time the number of cards is reduced, the number of bits we need
can drop, too. Here's a table showing how many bits of data we need
to choose from N remaining cards:

52 = 6 bits needed 35 = 6 bits needed 18 = 5 bits needed
51 = 6 bits needed 34 = 6 bits needed 17 = 5 bits needed
50 = 6 bits needed 33 = 6 bits needed 16 = 4 bits needed
49 = 6 bits needed 32 = 5 bits needed 15 = 4 bits needed
48 = 6 bits needed 31 = 5 bits needed 14 = 4 bits needed
47 = 6 bits needed 30 = 5 bits needed 13 = 4 bits needed
46 = 6 bits needed 29 = 5 bits needed 12 = 4 bits needed
45 = 6 bits needed 28 = 5 bits needed 11 = 4 bits needed
44 = 6 bits needed 27 = 5 bits needed 10 = 4 bits needed
43 = 6 bits needed 26 = 5 bits needed 9 = 4 bits needed
42 = 6 bits needed 25 = 5 bits needed 8 = 3 bits needed
41 = 6 bits needed 24 = 5 bits needed 7 = 3 bits needed
40 = 6 bits needed 23 = 5 bits needed 6 = 3 bits needed
39 = 6 bits needed 22 = 5 bits needed 5 = 3 bits needed
38 = 6 bits needed 21 = 5 bits needed 4 = 2 bits needed
37 = 6 bits needed 20 = 5 bits needed 3 = 2 bits needed
36 = 6 bits needed 19 = 5 bits needed 2 = 1 bit needed
1 = 0 bits needed

If you add up all the bits you get (you guessed it) 249 -- the number
of bits we take from each of our truly random entropy sources.

Since we start with DOUBLE the number of truly random bits needed (249
each from thermal and user inputs), this is enough to ensure that even
if we have to discard every other group of bits as "bigger than the
maximum number we need", we have enough truly random bits to complete
the shuffle.

Thus, there isn't really a "seed". That's a concept that applies only
to pseudo-random generators. When you refer to a "seed" you mean the
first, initial number fed to the pseudo-RNG, from which flows all of
the following numbers in a mathematical progression. If you know the
seed, and know the mathematical formula, you can get the Nth number in
a pseudo-RNG progression by running that formula on the seed, and then
the result, and then that result, N times.

That doesn't happen at all with our method. At PokerStars, NOTHING is
ever pseudo-anything, and nothing is ever "seeded". The next number
doesn't depend on the prior one and there's no mathematical formula
one can use to figure out the next number. Every time we choose
the "next card to go into the randomly shuffled deck", the choice is
truly random and not the result of a pseudo-random number generator.

Once randomized, the order of the deck is
never changed throughout the deal. The cards that come out on any
given round are totally independent of any player action.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why stars is the best. Their games mimic actual casino play. I always believed the continuous random shuffle was not the best method for maintaining integrity in the games.

It is possible that the next card COULD be rigged to create either more action or fix the outcome of a hand utilizing a continuous "random" shuffler.

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

a) to state the obvious, the "continuous shuffler" doesn't need to be shuffling the cards all the time, just reshuffle them before putting the next card out. Therefore it's more of a JIT (just-in time) shuffler than a continuous one and thus doesn't impact performance.

b) [ QUOTE ]
Continuous shuffling discourages results oriented thinking ... shuffling at the start of the hand is obviously closer to how it would be in a casino.

[/ QUOTE ]
qft

I'd rather like JIT shuffling as it helps me be less results oriented. The fish all yap about "I folded J8 [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]" when flop comes JJ8 and I don't want to be like that even in thoughts.

c) [ QUOTE ]
I always believed the continuous random shuffle was not the best method for maintaining integrity in the games.

It is possible that the next card COULD be rigged to create either more action or fix the outcome of a hand utilizing a continuous "random" shuffler.

[/ QUOTE ]That's because you are clueless about software development.

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

There is zero benefit from using JIT shuffle but added complexity. So why would anyone use something that is even marginally more complex but offers no benefit?

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
a) to state the obvious, the "continuous shuffler" doesn't need to be shuffling the cards all the time, just reshuffle them before putting the next card out. Therefore it's more of a JIT (just-in time) shuffler than a continuous one and thus doesn't impact performance.

b) [ QUOTE ]
Continuous shuffling discourages results oriented thinking ... shuffling at the start of the hand is obviously closer to how it would be in a casino.

[/ QUOTE ]
qft

I'd rather like JIT shuffling as it helps me be less results oriented. The fish all yap about "I folded J8 [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]" when flop comes JJ8 and I don't want to be like that even in thoughts.

c) [ QUOTE ]
I always believed the continuous random shuffle was not the best method for maintaining integrity in the games.

It is possible that the next card COULD be rigged to create either more action or fix the outcome of a hand utilizing a continuous "random" shuffler.

[/ QUOTE ]That's because you are clueless about software development.

[/ QUOTE ]

I may be clueless about software development, but I am an expert in determining breaches in security and procedures, including detemining how perpetrators were enabled.

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

Assuming any site's RNG is not rigged then it does not matter what system they use because the next card will be random. Having said that I prefer the Stars approach because you always know whether your decision was correct or not if the hand progresses on difficult decisions. Doesn't help but I just like to know.

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming any site's RNG is not rigged then it does not matter what system they use because the next card will be random.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually no. If a site uses a PRNG then even though the numbers would appear random they actually are not. They could make it very very difficult to near impossible to predict the next card but near impossible is not the same as impossible.

My view is that you can approach the level of Stars system but never surpass it using any other RNG methods so why use something that is even slightly less then the best possible option?

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

The simplest shuffle is to not shuffle at all, but instead randomly pick the cards from an ordered deck on demand. But all fair shuffling systems are equivalent.

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

No the simplest method and by far the best method is to use a TRNG to pick at random one of the ~8E67 possible orderings.

Any other system at best approaches this method but will always be inferior even if only by a margin that is insignificant.

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

You don't need the full deck ordering, only some of the cards will actually be used. The order of the rest doesn't matter and thus doesn't need to be determined.

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

If you don't order them all then every time a new random event is required the site would have to consult their entropy source. This is much less efficient then simply ordering them all at once.

You gain nothing with JIT shuffle but you add a bunch of extra steps. Why would anyone want to add unnecessary steps?

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

You store random bits in a pool of course and use that when you need to deal a card.

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

And what do you gain by doing this? Nothing.

You have increased resource use for no benefit.

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
And what do you gain by doing this? Nothing.

You have increased resource use for no benefit.

[/ QUOTE ]

It looks to me like it would use slightly fewer resources. As I understand it, the Stars method generates, or captures, enough random bits to shuffle an entire deck, then selects them one at a time, "moving" each card from the unshuffled to the shuffled deck.

If you generate that same random bit pool, and then use it to select cards from the unshuffled deck as needed, you will never get to the end of the deck, thereby saving a tiny bit of processing on the unused cards.

I doubt that it makes much difference in the grand scheme of things.

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

this is almost hilarious to read. you guys somehow think that user generated mouse movements are at all truly random? dont you think that most people use their mouse in a very similar way. and most people are playing poker with their mouse, and they are aiming their mouse at particular areas of the screen to click on Fold, Call, Raise etc. And you think mousemovements are truly random? i'd say they are extremely predictable, especially when playing poker.

What about thermal noise? did they prove it was truly random? where is their so called thermal noise coming from? is it the ceo's office, set at a very comfortable 72 degrees? is it the cpu temperature (which, if busy, is going to be hot, or very hot? is it solar sunspots? where is this thermal noise, and prove to me that its entropy is truly random?

and what of the sha-1 hashing. thats very suspicious. the sha-1 algorithm is a very good hashing agorithm. but its pretty similar, or, practically the same as the prng algorithm that most of the other poker sites use. try googling sha1 and rng in the same term, and you'll see a lot of people using sha1 as an rng. this is effectively what pokerstars are doing. theirs is a prng thats reseeded from realworld data once per deck.

there's a danger in reseeding the prng too often. reseeding once per deck, like pokerstars does, is far more dangerous than reseeding once per hour or once per day, and then continuously cycling the prng when its not in operation.

you guys apepar to have been blinded by "black box" semantics and pseudo science if you think that pokerstars method of generating pseudo random numbers (by combining two realworld seeds then performing a hash on them) is any more random than the method that the other poker sites use.

the point about poker sites using a particular prng, is that the crypoanalysts and mathematicians will have proved how random it is using statistics and tests, whereas when a company claims to be picking up 'true random' data and performing a hash on it, and has NOT been subject to any cyptoanalysis or mathematical proofs, you should be FAR MORE suspicious, rather than LESS. fact is, i'd rather put my trust in a good prng that has a very long cycle time (like the Mersenne Twister that passes the DIEHARD test and doesnt cycle again for a trillion years) than some hairbrained scheme that some poker company claims is based on hashing of "assumed" random data.. when clearly that random data has not been proved to be random at all, and may in fact by extremely non-random - especially if its based on user's mouse movements or any other user generated input).

now as for the arguments that continuous shuffling (or continuous recycling of the prng) is bad or good, as far as im aware, no poker site does continuous shuffling, after the deal has started. when people say that they do continuous shuffling, i think you'll find that they are constantly shuffling the deck then reshuffling it, before the hand, and that at the time the hand is dealt, the deck is frozen and dealt just like in a casino. i do not know anyone who continues to shuffle the remaining cards, even after the deal has started. that doesnt make much sense, except in casino blackjack to stop card counters having an edge in the same deck, through knowledge of ALL the other cards that are dealt.

you guys have been completel;y hoodwinked by this talk of prng's and true rng's from the marketing departments of the poker sites. dont believe what youre told. go consult a cryptoanalyst if you want proof of whats more random and whats less random. dont believe what anyone tells you, and above all, if someone says theyre using trng's, dont believe its more random than a good prng, unless its proven. mathematically, not verbally.

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
this is almost hilarious to read. you guys somehow think that user generated mouse movements are at all truly random? dont you think that most people use their mouse in a very similar way. and most people are playing poker with their mouse, and they are aiming their mouse at particular areas of the screen to click on Fold, Call, Raise etc. And you think mousemovements are truly random? i'd say they are extremely predictable, especially when playing poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please predict them then.

[ QUOTE ]
What about thermal noise? did they prove it was truly random? where is their so called thermal noise coming from? is it the ceo's office, set at a very comfortable 72 degrees? is it the cpu temperature (which, if busy, is going to be hot, or very hot? is it solar sunspots? where is this thermal noise, and prove to me that its entropy is truly random?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the link - it answers your question.

[ QUOTE ]
there's a danger in reseeding the prng too often. reseeding once per deck, like pokerstars does, is far more dangerous than reseeding once per hour or once per day, and then continuously cycling the prng when its not in operation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would reseeding the prng be bad?

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

the art of reseeding an rng is to do it not too often abnd not too infrequrently. the point that you reseed an rng is the point of weekness in the system (not in the rng itself). try googling "reseeding rng" for other people's thoughts on the subject.

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is zero benefit from using JIT shuffle but added complexity. So why would anyone use something that is even marginally more complex but offers no benefit?

[/ QUOTE ]Implementing JIT shuffling isn't really more complex than shuffling in the beginning. Instead of removing the next card from the remainder of the deck you remove a random card, big deal.

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

This thread proves that it's true what they say: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
I may be clueless about software development, but I am an expert in determining breaches in security and procedures, including detemining how perpetrators were enabled.

[/ QUOTE ]What you wrote above doesn't really match and makes no sense. You cannot be an expert in determining how breaches in software happened if you are indeed clueless about software development.

Re: Shuffling at sites
 

aerobatic, what you wrote was tl;dr, but at a glance you seem to be completely clueless.

[ QUOTE ]
This thread proves that it's true what they say: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[/ QUOTE ]qft