Party Poker RND shuffling

ImpulsiveMe · #1 09-14-2006, 08:31 AM

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 · #2 09-14-2006, 09:08 AM

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 · #3 09-14-2006, 09:09 AM

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

ImpulsiveMe · #4 09-14-2006, 11:23 AM

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

disjunction · #5 09-14-2006, 11:38 AM

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Easily, if you are interpreting the results correctly.

benfranklin · #6 09-14-2006, 11:41 AM

[ 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 · #7 09-14-2006, 12:36 PM

[ 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.

Tarheel · #8 09-14-2006, 01:09 PM

[ 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 · #9 09-14-2006, 01:30 PM

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?

WordWhiz · #10 09-14-2006, 10:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, you can't "prove" anything with 100% certainty. All you could show was that an event was unlikely enough to happen randomly that the greater likelihood is a faulty RNG.