Continuous Shuffle - Online poker RNGs...

[Talking Poker]

Not at all. The same number of times that person "takes my card" and it hurts me, they also "take my card" and it helps me. Plsu, it changes the entire order of the deck, so the next hand is different and so on and so forth.

I've never understood the people you are referring to (the ones who get upset), but I conceed that this is a reasonable analogy.

I think what you aren't getting is that *I* don't want to be responsible for my immediate, short term luck. I'd rather it be predetermined (by immediate, short term luck, yes - but at least with a pre-shuffled, fixed deck, it's out of my control).

[Zybomb]

You beat me to my responses every time thus far in this thread

It seems a lot of ppl r missing the point here

[Reel Deal]

I guess I'm in that boat because to me random is random is random... whether I have a small hand in it or not, it's still random. The odds will work themselves out over the long term so that with a large enough sample size a tangible shuffled deck will produce the same results as an electronic RNG used at an on-line poker site.

[Zybomb]

I am (and Im sure TP also is) not by any means saying that this system isn't random. Nor am I saying that over the long term it will not even out, nor am I saying that it wont produce the same results as a normal deck given a large enough sample size.

What I am saying is exactly what TP said... that although the long run is uneffected, and the short term luck is still the same (since I can not control it)... I dont like the idea that I influence (be it blindly) my short term results based on how long I take to act. Id rather it be influenced (by short term luck yes) by something I dont have any "control" (I put it " " for a reason ) of.

Will this stop me from playing online poker? No of course not. Am I saying it's unfair... no of course not. I just dislike it. I would rather have it work like an actual deck, be randomly "shuffled" and then have a predetermined order. Just like in a live game, I wouldnt like it if the deck was constantly shuffled while there was action going on during the flop then recut and a turn was placed, then shuffled again while the turn was going on and then cut and the river was deal. Would the randomness be the same? Absolutely. Would I like it? No.

[GTDawg]

Why do you say you have any control over it? You don't have control over it. Nobody has control over it.

If you had control over it, people would have websites designed to calculate how long you should wait before clicking call to better maximize profit.

It doesn't matter when you click the call button because it's random. It's random if you had clicked it a second earlier. It's random if you clicked it a second later.

Random is random. There is no degree of randomness. And, any difference in randomness based on when you clicked the call button is silly talk.

I throw a die on the ground. One of six possibilities equally likely to occur.

I wait two seconds and throw a die on the ground. One of six possibilities equally likely to occur.

Whether I held the die with the one facing up or shook my hand is inconsequential for the odds of an event occuring.

Like has been said above, if this bothers you...you're what if'ing yourself to death and it's a health hazard.

=======================

I think there is a difference between wanting it more like a live game and feeling that you affect the random drawing of cards by when you click the call button.

[Boobie Lover]

Yeah I'm joking about Full Tilt being rigged (although I would be up a lot this year if I didn't play there). I just think Stars is FAR superior to FT in so many regards (support, software, games, cashing out).

[Talking Poker]

OT, but I prefer Full Tilt - even though I'm willing to concede a few of your points.

The main reasons I prefer FT: 27% rakeback ON TOP OF a good FPP system, loads of promos/bonuses, the ability to datamine and use PT/PAHud to their fullest potential, and even the "Bet Pot" button.

I wish their software was better (they continue to improve it, albeit slowly), and no one can match Stars support. I'll definitely give you that.

To me though, I'm more than willing to sacrifice the second paragraph for the first.

[Zybomb]

Control is used loosely here, which is why I put it in " " , but yes I do have control over it....it is BLIND CONTROL, meaning I can not pick and choose the way I effect it, but I most certainly do effect it. If I call now 1 thing happens, if I call later another thing happens. THUS I CONTROL THE NEXT CARD....once again THIS IS BLIND "CONTROL". I can not say if I wait X seconds this will come and Y seconds this will come, but I certaintly influence the results, since different cards will appear depending on when I act.

I dont see whats so hard to understand here.

AGAIN, no one is saying this effects long term results, but once again I would rather have short term luck be influenced (by short term luck yes) by something I dont effect.[/quote]

[GTDawg]

It's like my rolling dice example. It doesn't matter.

[Reel Deal]

Why would you not like it? I could see not liking it b/c it would slow the game down but if it didn't, what's the difference? Again, random is random. I actually like that the on-line rooms do it this way because if they didn't there would always be that doubt that someone could hack in and catch the card(s) that will come next.

[Talking Poker]

This is exactly how I feel.

[Talking Poker]

Absolutely. No one is questioning this.

Let me give you another somewhat-related example. When a table breaks up in a live tourney and new seat assignments are handed out, I PREFER when the TD deals out the seat assignments to each of the players over when they are placed on the table and everyone has to grab their own. Both methods are equally random, and in the long run there is absolutely no difference between them, but I prefer the former.

Does this mean that I have a problem when they are all tossed to the middle of the table or that it plagues me or drives me crazy? Do I even think about it for more than the 1 second it takes me to reach in for my new seat assignment? Absolutely not. I simply PREFER to have no "hand in" (literally, in this case) my fate in the tourney in this regard - one that is COMPLETELY dependent on luck. Maybe it's superstition, whatever.... Clearly, this is a personality _______. I leave the word blank there because I don't think "flaw" or even "issue" are correct - those words are far too harsh. The point is, my reaction to this is simply an opinion - a matter of personal preference - and I don't understand how anyone could berate me for having an opinion on the issue just because they don't care either way (or prefer the other method, for that matter). It's the same to me as if you guys got all worked up because I like Blue better than Yellow (which I do, btw).

I don't like cutting BJ decks either, FWIW. I still do it, of course. I just prefer when the hot blond sitting next to me does it instead.

[Reel Deal]

I hope you don't think I berated you. Because if you did, you can suck on it you blue-lovin' RNG-hatin' ass face.

[drewjax]

I really wish I didnt know this.

I havent played at Fulltilt yet, and I dont know about the RNG at Stars et.al.
And I KNOW that its still random, and is still the exact same in the long run, yada yada, blah blah.......

BUT seriously,

I cant help but thinking as I am ready to click.......

BIG BUCKS, BIG BUCKS, NO WHAMMYS..........

And didnt that actually wind up being rigged.??????........

[Akverno]

After studying computer programming (specifically programming algorithims for randomnization seeded by system time) I assumed this was how all the sites worked. Never really bothered me.

Edit: I guess I should clarify a bit. Due to most randomization protocols relying upon system time to seed the randomnization, I assumed there had to be a second level (or more) randomnization seed to greater differentiate between the hands. I just assumed that they used the time the flop was dealt as the seed to randomnize the rest of the cards. And I'm also assuming that they have multi layer randomization built in that incorporates other factors as variables as well (chip size on the table, names, most likely a bunch of things the system can't control that are used to select a value for a variable in a function) I may be alone in that thinking though.

I guess I just mean to say that I assumed online poker was truly random, and the only way to have truly random poker would be to continually shuffle the cards.