Stars - Worst Rng Online?

[Mockerman1 0]

Is it just me, is it just a string of rediculous beats/rivers (running bad), or does Stars have the worst RNG on the internet? Just wondering.

[JustLikeNegs 1]

BBFIDTS

[Suited_Up 2]

You gotta jiggle the mouse around more during the hand.

[Merby 3]

Is it just me, is it just a string of rediculous beats/rivers (running bad), or does Stars have the worst RNG on the internet? Just wondering.

I can understand how you feel, but I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. I've seen some *sick* beats in a short period of time playing live, too. I feel comfortable enough to trust the RNG on the major poker sites.

[bigbrennan 0]

Is it just me, is it just a string of rediculous beats/rivers (running bad), or does Stars have the worst RNG on the internet? Just wondering.

If the RNG was the worst on the net, it still would mean bad beats would be distributed evenly. It is not in any poker rooms favour to fix hands and set people up, it really is random.Beats happen, its poker.

[kkot 0]

Is it just me

Yup!

[eYank 0]

i dont remember where i saw it but someone sent me a site where someone datamined like 20 million hands (probably less but a huge amount) and came to the conclusion that cards come out on the board at the right percentage of time like if a card has a 1/40 chance of coming it will come 1/40 times over the huge amount of hands

[Mockerman1 0]

If the RNG was the worst on the net, it still would mean bad beats would be distributed evenly. It is not in any poker rooms favour to fix hands and set people up, it really is random.Beats happen, its poker.

This is a good point and I was thinking this too. I guess it's just the lunacy of the way some of these hands have delevoped plus the fact that I feel I've played them well, although for that I should obviously post hand over in strat. This last thing is something I will certainly do from the Stars hands (they certainly have the best HH feature of the sights I've played on).And your right BBFIDTS is probably the most appropriate answer here, I do think it's just running bad I guess. It's just I was a first time player at Stars after the FCP rollover so I was more hesitant over playing there after essentially a week of rediculous poker. I've certainly always felt that I've trusted all major sites too, so another good point there. Anyway, carry on.

[vbnautilus 48]

If the RNG was the worst on the net, it still would mean bad beats would be distributed evenly.

Evenly across people, yes, not necessarily evenly across time for a given individual. Streaks are to be expected. See my post on variance in the strat forums for my perspective on this along with some pretty figures, and also this thread by aim786.

[Royal_Tour 0]

Is it just me, is it just a string of rediculous beats/rivers (running bad), or does Stars have the worst RNG on the internet? Just wondering.

even though the RNG doesn't have a way of communicating with me, I'm going to have to side with it, even without hearing its rebuttal. Simply because you couldnt comprehend the red line under the word ridiculous. and the letter "E" is way too far away from the "I" to make it a typo. Which leads me to believe that you simply are not that good at poker.I like the word simply

[a__thekevlar__2 0]

[seemorenuts 0]

Though I believe that RNGs are good enough, I have a better impression of the one used by Cryptologic software.I realize that their volume is much lower, but I've not heard of any complaints from their software.Let's assume that all current poker sites have sufficiently good random number generators so as to provide a fair game.It would surprise most of you (if not everyone) that the following is still possible:there are many methods of implementing a system to artificially increase profit that could escape the level of auditing that accounting firms use (I don't trust accounting firms);more sophisticated methods of detecting crooked systems are probably not used, and if they are I'd bet that you could then devise methods of beating them;as a consequence of the above, an arm's length government (lol) system of regulation is a step in the evolution of online poker.E.g., you can still demonstrate randomness over a large number of hands that still exhibit manipulative characteristics within far smaller sets if you don't look closely enough. An overlay on a rebuy tournament is one example of the house wanting to manipulate matters to increase rebuys. I don't want to give them any more ideas.I fully expect to be flamed for not knowing a thing about math, trust me, I know a lot. Remember, I said possible, not probable. Very highly improbable because the sites make money hand over fist without shenanigans--and the penalty for dishonesty is ... lol, minimal, given how greedy poker players are--they just need their fix.

[James D 0]

Does anyone have a picture of the Stars RNG? What does he look like? There's been a few times where I'd like to look him directly in the face and then have it out with him... mano a mano. Hopefully he would not mess with me after that.

[KentuckySlim 0]

Though I believe that RNGs are good enough, I have a better impression of the one used by Cryptologic software.I realize that their volume is much lower, but I've not heard of any complaints from their software.Let's assume that all current poker sites have sufficiently good random number generators so as to provide a fair game.It would surprise most of you (if not everyone) that the following is still possible:there are many methods of implementing a system to artificially increase profit that could escape the level of auditing that accounting firms use (I don't trust accounting firms);more sophisticated methods of detecting crooked systems are probably not used, and if they are I'd bet that you could then devise methods of beating them;as a consequence of the above, an arm's length government (lol) system of regulation is a step in the evolution of online poker.E.g., you can still demonstrate randomness over a large number of hands that still exhibit manipulative characteristics within far smaller sets if you don't look closely enough. An overlay on a rebuy tournament is one example of the house wanting to manipulate matters to increase rebuys. I don't want to give them any more ideas.I fully expect to be flamed for not knowing a thing about math, trust me, I know a lot. Remember, I said possible, not probable. Very highly improbable because the sites make money hand over fist without shenanigans--and the penalty for dishonesty is ... lol, minimal, given how greedy poker players are--they just need their fix.

I am an accountant. I work for a very large accounting firm. NO accountant will tell you that our auditing techniques are designed to catch 100% of all the misstatements in financial statements. Our job is to form an OPINION as to whether the financial statements are in accordance with US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and are free of MATERIAL misstatement. Our work relies HEAVILY on sampling - be it random, satistical, or judgemental.Sorry had to vent there a little.BTW there's nothing even a little dirty about having a guarenteed prize pool in a rebuy tournament. You can argue that these tournaments are the best value because they generally only take a rake for the original buy in, and not for rebuys/add ons.The fact of the matter is that the poker site makes money from you whether you win or lose. It's just not in their best interest to try to "fix" hands for one person to win and one person to lose (or even for more action as rakes always have a cap).

[Mockerman 0]

even though the RNG doesn't have a way of communicating with me, I'm going to have to side with it, even without hearing its rebuttal. Simply because you couldnt comprehend the red line under the word ridiculous. and the letter "E" is way too far away from the "I" to make it a typo. Which leads me to believe that you simply are not that good at poker.I like the word simply

I like the word logic, I guess you don't.

[loogie 115]

Tell me you've already gone into your Control Panel and made sure the Doom Switch has been turned off.

[cubsfan44 0]

O.P what color deck are u using? I know I ran like hell untill I switched to the red deck.

[bull62 0]

Does anyone have a picture of the Stars RNG? What does he look like? There's been a few times where I'd like to look him directly in the face and then have it out with him... mano a mano. Hopefully he would not mess with me after that.

Kick his ***.

[tealsea 0]

after 2 days of donks hitting every single f'in draw against me, i'm beginning to wonder just how "random" jokerstars rng really is....ppl are stupid enough to call all in on a draw (even some with only the river to come) & they are on a one outer, and they hit....SO F'IN SICK!!!i wonder if backgammon is this frustrating

[Zach6668 513]

You can't mix Energizer and Duracell!Wtf are they thinking!

[cubsfan44 0]

You can't mix Energizer and Duracell!Wtf are they thinking!

zomg you figured it out...no more suckouts tytytytytytytytytyty

[seemorenuts 0]

I am an accountant. I work for a very large accounting firm. NO accountant will tell you that our auditing techniques are designed to catch 100% of all the misstatements in financial statements. Our job is to form an OPINION as to whether the financial statements are in accordance with US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and are free of MATERIAL misstatement. Our work relies HEAVILY on sampling - be it random, satistical, or judgemental.Sorry had to vent there a little.BTW there's nothing even a little dirty about having a guarenteed prize pool in a rebuy tournament. You can argue that these tournaments are the best value because they generally only take a rake for the original buy in, and not for rebuys/add ons.The fact of the matter is that the poker site makes money from you whether you win or lose. It's just not in their best interest to try to "fix" hands for one person to win and one person to lose (or even for more action as rakes always have a cap).

I have no disagreement with you on your first paragraph. People should realize exactly what an accounting firm purports to do, and many poker sites will not allow you to have any info on what goes on, there's no standard to guide the industry, no verifiable quality assurance, etc.I agree with your statements in your third paragraph but you missed my point--in order to eliminate the money losing overlay, a poker site could manipulate hands to encourage enough rebuys to eliminate the overlay--we both assumed correctly that the house takes nothing from rebuys or addons.Your last paragraph repeats what I already said.P.S. accounting firms, even the big ones, are not immune to dishonesty--Enron is only an obvious example, I've heard of many others--it has to do with fees and the almighty dollar.

[daniel mahan 0]

You gotta jiggle the mouse around more during the hand.

def lol'd

[rog 0]

I have no disagreement with you on your first paragraph. People should realize exactly what an accounting firm purports to do, and many poker sites will not allow you to have any info on what goes on, there's no standard to guide the industry, no verifiable quality assurance, etc.

That's great and all, but completely irrelevant. The PS RNG is not audited by accountants. The two firms are consulting firms in the area of software quality and testing. This is all published on the PS site.

[rog 0]

there are many methods of implementing a system to artificially increase profit that could escape the level of auditing that accounting firms use (I don't trust accounting firms);

So? It's not accounting firms that are auditing it...it's software firms. They audit through both black-box and clear-box testing.