How Are Online Sites Completly Random?

[RAY WALDROP 0]

I used to play real money on pstars but i keep getting up and then i get coolered. and i just dont understand how a computerprogram can be completly random some one had to program it to make it work.. I mean i take some really sick beats online i was playing a 20$ 180 man NLH sit & go i made it to the bubble and i was kinda short stacked... well i picked up AS QS under the gun so i shove i get a call from the small blind with A10 off, the flop came A6Q so i was like great i made the money.... well the turn was 10 and the river was a 10 no flush possible. Now it would just seem like plain bad luck but it happens to me all the time online where in live play i always seem to cash or go bust ligit.... just seems to me that it deals the cards to fit the tourney at hand so it can break all the tables down smoothley... i was just wandering if someone could explain to me how its completly random. THIS BLOG IS NOT TALKING ABOUT THE FULLCONTACTPOKER SITE.

[pnambic 0]

They use hardware random number generators. There are various ways to build one of those; all you need to do is to tap some naturally occurring randomness, like brownian motion of molecules in air. Additionally, they take bits from timing information on user actions (because getting randomness out of air is not that fast), and then hash up all those bits from various sources to make prediction hard even if you'd happen to know or control most of the inputs.In fact, Stars have an FAQ on this (click the "integrity" link at the bottom); they even link to the specific hardware they use. I'd expect the other major sites to use similar setups.

[Pixelation 0]

It's sort of hard to fathom sometimes but rest assured it is entirely random.Just keep in mind in the short term your are likely to suckout or get bad beaten on more often than expected thanks to variance.

[theone 0]

I dont think the randomness of their number generators is the problem. I see the same things happen to me that happen to you. I think it is the anonymity of the internet that causes the problems. That guy in live poker may have never called the A10 all in and that hand would never happen. I think people are much worse on the internet overall and call with very questionable cards and you see the luck side of this game come into play much more often.

[qyayqi 11]

Like this

[psujohn 0]

Live poker seems to have fewer "rare" events because you see fewer hands live. A rare event will still happen - especially if you do something a lot.In one night of live poker I saw a runner-runner beat an personally hit a 2 outer, a 4 outer and had a 4 outer hit against me. Considering that this is a self dealt game and we maybe see 40 hands an hour over about 4 hours that's a pretty unlikely string of events.Consider this - unless you believe that you're not given a choice in what action you take - bet, fold, raise - it's harder to stack the deck to force a certain sequence of actions than it is to deal randomly. In your example especially there's no guarantee that dealing someone AQs will make them push all-in and there's certainly no guarantee that someone with AT will call. If you were both dealt AA and the other guy hit a flush you might be able to argue that the PF action was practically forced but even still ....

[Mercury69 3]

Algorithmic random number generators

[No_Neck 0]

truth is they are not random, but they are sooo close you can't tell the difference. Computers can't do true random numbers.

[Dogpatch 2]

I'm not gonna take the time to post the tin-foil hat picture, but you need one.Live SnG, Saturday night. I was short and picked up KK UTG. I push, MP calls. MP turns over A8os. Flop comes K82 rainbow. So great, I've doubled right? Well, he goes runner runner A's for the boat. Somebody must've stacked that deck huh?

[givalitl 0]

A computer itself can't be completely random but if it intakes completely random data then it can be random. Like an above poster said the motion of molecules in the air is sometimes used to input random data, I've also heard of mouse movements being the data as well as the temperature taken down to an insane amount of decimal places.

[njligernj 0]

I guarantee that in every "online poker is rigged" thread in the history of the net (of which there are probably close to a million) someone has said: "I was in a live game and this unlikely event happened."That isn't proof that online poker isn't rigged.Someone will also usually say: "they make enough money straight up from rake -- why cheat and risk everything?"That isn't proof that online poker isn't rigged.Now then, calm down guy ready to post some condescending picture of a guy in a foil hat, having said all of that, I don't think it's really rigged. However that doesn't change the fact that I have never heard a compelling or convincing argument that it isn't rigged so I certainly understand why people remain suspicious. I've heard arguments about why people don't think it's rigged; why it would be hard to do; why the risk/reward isn't great enough. However none of that is proof -- it's just reasonable speculation and assumption. Plus there is also the possibility that the rooms aren't trying to cheat but their software is a little messed up. I don't think the rooms do enough to convince players (they adopt an ignore the problem lest people think we're being defensive for a reason to cover something up) they have random dealing.I'm on a brutal run lately myself; the kind of run which makes you think "oh c'mon ... the software wanted me gone there." However if I look at my longterm results I'm up overall. I'm getting it all-in with the best hand a HUGE amount of the time ... and losing.Ray - Do you keep records of how you get eliminated? One unlucky event like A10 v. AQ is relatively meaningless -- you need to look at things from a very longterm perspective. You should probably also note down every time you are all-in (or committing enough chips to be crippled) with the worst hand and YOU get lucky. I think you'll find over the longterm they pretty much balance out (or if they don't then you can quit).For all the energy people have put in to these threads and their conspiracy theories (and for all the poker tracking software out there) I've never seen anyone do any kind of convincing study which shows a longterm difference between expected results and online results. Is there one out there? Even a year long trial, which I am well aware even that isn't long enough to be concrete evidence, would at least be a step in the right direction. Merely posting one hand, no matter how unlikely, is just going to encourage ridicule. Show a decent amount of results that don't match up with the average percentages and at least a discussion can begin (even if, correctly, many would point out that it's not a big enough sample group). Until then we're all (including me) wasting our time and energy.

[RAY WALDROP 0]

I guarantee that in every "online poker is rigged" thread in the history of the net (of which there are probably close to a million) someone has said: "I was in a live game and this unlikely event happened."That isn't proof that online poker isn't rigged.Someone will also usually say: "they make enough money straight up from rake -- why cheat and risk everything?"That isn't proof that online poker isn't rigged.Now then, calm down guy ready to post some condescending picture of a guy in a foil hat, having said all of that, I don't think it's really rigged. However that doesn't change the fact that I have never heard a compelling or convincing argument that it isn't rigged so I certainly understand why people remain suspicious. I've heard arguments about why people don't think it's rigged; why it would be hard to do; why the risk/reward isn't great enough. However none of that is proof -- it's just reasonable speculation and assumption. Plus there is also the possibility that the rooms aren't trying to cheat but their software is a little messed up. I don't think the rooms do enough to convince players (they adopt an ignore the problem lest people think we're being defensive for a reason to cover something up) they have random dealing.I'm on a brutal run lately myself; the kind of run which makes you think "oh c'mon ... the software wanted me gone there." However if I look at my longterm results I'm up overall. I'm getting it all-in with the best hand a HUGE amount of the time ... and losing.Ray - Do you keep records of how you get eliminated? One unlucky event like A10 v. AQ is relatively meaningless -- you need to look at things from a very longterm perspective. You should probably also note down every time you are all-in (or committing enough chips to be crippled) with the worst hand and YOU get lucky. I think you'll find over the longterm they pretty much balance out (or if they don't then you can quit).For all the energy people have put in to these threads and their conspiracy theories (and for all the poker tracking software out there) I've never seen anyone do any kind of convincing study which shows a longterm difference between expected results and online results. Is there one out there? Even a year long trial, which I am well aware even that isn't long enough to be concrete evidence, would at least be a step in the right direction. Merely posting one hand, no matter how unlikely, is just going to encourage ridicule. Show a decent amount of results that don't match up with the average percentages and at least a discussion can begin (even if, correctly, many would point out that it's not a big enough sample group). Until then we're all (including me) wasting our time and energy.

Yeah man i agreed with that in the origanial post, i believe i said it would just seep like plain bad luck except that it happens so many timesand not just to me i see it done to otherplayers aswell i am not saying that they are not random.. merely saying that i dont understand how and why it works out like that most of the time late in tourneys and sit and gos

[fatman 1]

I thought it had something to do with the doom switch. Doom switch on you always lose. Doom switch off you always win.

[SpiderGuard 0]

I thought it had something to do with the doom switch. Doom switch on you always lose. Doom switch off you always win.

That and when you play minbet no one respects your raises.If I'm not mistaken at least a couple of the sites have proof of their randomness that they freely share. These are huge sample sizes and give you the information you want.

[Socrates 0]

People really have no idea how bad 90% of online players are do they. Its a simple explanation. baplayers make for bad beats. The more bad players you encounter, the more bad beats you are likely to take.

[Jam-Fly 8]

Why would PokerStars want to rig the people's accounts when they make billions a year off rake and tournament entries?Only thing I can think to say is:Bad beat forum is that way!

[Virtuoso80 0]

They're not truly random, but they are so infinitely close to random that there is almost no difference.Also, I'll have you know I won a tournament on Full Tilt last night, so therefore poker is DEFINITELY not rigged.

[Royal_Tour 0]

People really have no idea how bad 90% of online players are do they. Its a simple explanation. baplayers make for bad beats. The more bad players you encounter, the more bad beats you are likely to take.

This is silly, 80% favorite over another hand is still the winning hand 80% of the time. Its simple math. The more worse players there are doesnt increase the more bad beats.You might see yourself as a huge favorite more often, but u wont lose more often.

[Socrates 0]

This is silly, 80% favorite over another hand is still the winning hand 80% of the time. Its simple math. The more worse players there are doesnt increase the more bad beats.You might see yourself as a huge favorite more often, but u wont lose more often.

Yes the math is always the same for a given situations, but you encounter the situations more often then you do with good players. Any pro will tell you that good players take more bad beats than bad players. Its a simple result of getting in with the best of it more often. You can't take a bad beat if you're going in behind. So I stand behind my point that when there are more bad players, you are more likely to encounter situations that will result in you receiving a bad beat.For example. Do you think a great player would encounter more bad beat possibility situations in a tournament in which he played a bunch of Aaron Kanter clones or if he played a tournament full of Doyle clones?

[Dogpatch 2]

For all the energy people have put in to these threads and their conspiracy theories (and for all the poker tracking software out there) I've never seen anyone do any kind of convincing study which shows a longterm difference between expected results and online results. Is there one out there? Even a year long trial, which I am well aware even that isn't long enough to be concrete evidence, would at least be a step in the right direction. Merely posting one hand, no matter how unlikely, is just going to encourage ridicule. Show a decent amount of results that don't match up with the average percentages and at least a discussion can begin (even if, correctly, many would point out that it's not a big enough sample group). Until then we're all (including me) wasting our time and energy.

The original "tin foil hat" article contained a note by the author stating how many hands he had in pokertracker. I believe that to be the closest thing to concrete evidence. http://www.pocketfives.com/40ED5554-E9AF-4...624DBB08E8.aspx

[Royal_Tour 0]

Yes the math is always the same for a given situations, but you encounter the situations more often then you do with good players. Any pro will tell you that good players take more bad beats than bad players. Its a simple result of getting in with the best of it more often. You can't take a bad beat if you're going in behind. So I stand behind my point that when there are more bad players, you are more likely to encounter situations that will result in you receiving a bad beat.For example. Do you think a great player would encounter more bad beat possibility situations in a tournament in which he played a bunch of Aaron Kanter clones or if he played a tournament full of Doyle clones?

well. obviously you can only have a bad beat when you're way ahead. Your example makes me think you would rather play a bunch of doyles so you can blame your losses on you sucking, and not bad beats.And before you get to in depth with examples. here is a very simple oneplayer A - has AA 93%player B - has A,6 6%They play and go all in 100 times.player A wins 93 of the hands. and takes a bad beat for 6 hands.they play again and go all in 1000 times.player A wins 930 hands. and player B wins with a bad beat in 60 hands.You took more bad beats, but you played more hands, and your odds were always the same, and you're also rich from winning 930 hands.see what i'm saying?

[Socrates 0]

well. obviously you can only have a bad beat when you're way ahead. Your example makes me think you would rather play a bunch of doyles so you can blame your losses on you sucking, and not bad beats.And before you get to in depth with examples. here is a very simple oneplayer A - has AA 93%player B - has A,6 6%They play and go all in 100 times.player A wins 93 of the hands. and takes a bad beat for 6 hands.they play again and go all in 1000 times.player A wins 930 hands. and player B wins with a bad beat in 60 hands.You took more bad beats, but you played more hands, and your odds were always the same, and you're also rich from winning 930 hands.see what i'm saying?

I understand what you are saying; I think we're just coming from 2 different directions. I would rather play bad players, it just seems that some believe bad players win more because sites are "rigged" and they don't understand that they are seeing more ppl coming over the top in the SB with A4o than they would in a game of solid players. Its just the perception of people who don't understand the game.

[Tosh 0]

RIGGGGGGGED