|
|
#11
03-11-2006, 06:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: I dont understand differences in website shuffling mentioned in FA
I was under the impression that a true RNG could be made by either measuring radioactive decay(i.e, every click of a geiger counter is a 1, an absence of click is 0), or by measuring background cosmic radiation. Both are relatively easy to do, and it is a wonder that the poker sites do not use either.
|
|
#12
03-11-2006, 07:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I dont understand differences in website shuffling mentioned in FA
[ QUOTE ]
The random generator uses a seed generated by the mouse movements of all players on the table & therefore cannot be predicted. [/ QUOTE ] Yup. If you ever get dealt Qd7h and fold preflop at holdem, you do a figure 8 motion with your mouse, and you will get AA the next hand.
|
|
#13
03-11-2006, 10:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I dont understand differences in website shuffling mentioned in FA
[ QUOTE ]
Wait 50 years for quantum computers [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] They'll give you randomness. [/ QUOTE ] Okay, I'll wait around 50 years for this... until then, I'll just twiddle my thumbs and scratch my butt. Wake me up when it happens, okay?
|
|
#14
03-12-2006, 02:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I dont understand differences in website shuffling mentioned in FA
[ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]The random generator uses a seed generated by the mouse movements of all players on the table & therefore cannot be predicted. [/ QUOTE ] That's not the same thing as random. It's just as good but not the same. [/ QUOTE ] V92 of Party uses an RNG seed based on a linear combination of number of players at the table that have bet buttons, memory growth rate and mean time between application crashes.
|
|
#15
03-12-2006, 03:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I dont understand differences in website shuffling mentioned in FA
[ QUOTE ]
V92 of Party uses an RNG seed based on a linear combination of number of players at the table that have bet buttons, memory growth rate and mean time between application crashes. [/ QUOTE ] I thought I better add that I'm just joking. Generating random numbers are the least of Party's software problems these days.
|
|
#16
03-12-2006, 04:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I dont understand differences in website shuffling mentioned in FA
[ QUOTE ]
I'll never believe that. No computer can generate a "true" random number. The shuffle "slice/selection" may be so large as to virtually gaurantee it cannot be predicted (cracked), but that does not mean it is random. It just means that if there are any flaws, and if it is not random there ARE flaws, their distribution is even so no one knows/can predict when the "random number" generator will shaft them, and it will. Wait 50 years for quantum computers [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] They'll give you randomness. [/ QUOTE ] No one is waiting for a "random" deck of cards. There are "only" 52! possible deck orderings, so one would not need a "quantum computer" to select one of these deck orderings in a way that is not predictable. A pseudo-random seed of the likes of the major poker sites is completely appropriate to feed their algorithm and generate one of these 52! decks. If their alogrithm is flawed, this is another matter entirely. If RNGs are a worry to you, stay away from live play too. Those expensive shuffling machines? Yep -- there's a Random Number Generator inside! Or even without a shuffling machine -- you and another player split a pot each holding AK with 2 Aces on the board. Your cards get scraped up together and then the dealer shuffles. Do YOU think the resulting distribution of those aces will meet the criteria of "COMPLETE RANDOMNESS?" Problems such as player collusion and poker site payout issues are the more likely threats to "shaft" anybody than a robust RNG.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
