Online poker flawed by process!

[Relative]

OK I have started another thread.

 

 

Online poker is hugely flawed, and has nothing to do with the RNG.

 

 

The flaw is in process.

 

The process - A multitude of 52 card decks are put into a shuffle server, so basically millions of decks put into a box and shuffled in their individual deck.

 

 

The decks are then put into a que system. So although random, there is a set sequence set of how many cards is needed for which ever table needs a deck and amount of players at that table.

 

Every single hand on all tables, a new deck is issued every go. And the first deck in the que goes to which ever table finishes first. So a new deck every hand to be clear.

 

 

So I will now talk some basic maths.

 

 

And base it on a 9 seater game of 5 tables containing nine players each table.

 

 

 

Deck 1 - 18 card sequence that is set goes to table 1.

 

Deck 2 - 18 card sequence that is set and goes to table 2.

 

and so on for 5 tables, 2 cards each.

 

 

Ok so far?

 

Table 3 seat 3 the player is dealt pocket pair aces.

 

 

and table 3 finishes its hand first, so gets deck 6 out of the que.

 

 

Table 1, seat 3 hand 2, was meant by luck to be dealt aces.

 

which was deck 6.

 

Table 3 player one gets aces two hands in a row by timing of the decks.

 

 

This is an unfair process of distribution, you can not rely on statistics and distribution probabilities,

 

 

It is a game of timing, roulette principles and -EV

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

111111111011111111

111111111111111111

111111111111111111

111111111111111111

111101111011111111

111111111011111111

111111111011111111

111101111111101111

111111111111111111

111111111011111111

111111111111101111

011111110111111101

011111111011111101

 

0 represents the ace, can you understand this one this time?

[John Cuthber]

 

can you understand this one this time?

No, but that might be because you have not defined some of the terms you are using.

They may be well understood in poker, but I'm not a player so they mean nothing to me.

-EV

que

pocket pair aces

RNG.

 

In any event, while I can see that the sequence of cards might be messed up (if they actually deal this way) I can't see how it's unfair.

Firstly, you can always opt not to play if you don't like the rules.

Secondly, the activity at the other tables isn't known to you, so you can't use it to gain any advantage.

(or, if it is known to you, then it's known to all and they gain the same advantage).

[Relative]

No, but that might be because you have not defined some of the terms you are using.

They may be well understood in poker, but I'm not a player so they mean nothing to me.

-EV

que

pocket pair aces

RNG.

 

In any event, while I can see that the sequence of cards might be messed up (if they actually deal this way) I can't see how it's unfair.

Firstly, you can always opt not to play if you don't like the rules.

Secondly, the activity at the other tables isn't known to you, so you can't use it to gain any advantage.

(or, if it is known to you, then it's known to all and they gain the same advantage).

roulette is - equity , you can never win in the long run, poker would be + equity, in the long term the skill etc prevails.

 

Online takes a +Ev game and makes it -EV.

 

RNG is a random number generator.

 

Poker over time has an even distribution, online poker has an uneven distribution making it an advantage if they get good timing of the decks.

 

An unfair process. A 52 card deck , using one deck and through distribution properties, you will receive aces etc, however online is random times two.

 

 

It is an unfair process that can not work.

[John Cuthber]

Do you think that this

"Online takes a +Ev game and makes it -EV."

actually explains what EV is?

 

Do you read what you have written before you post it?

[Relative]

Do you think that this

"Online takes a +Ev game and makes it -EV."

actually explains what EV is?

 

Do you read what you have written before you post it?

I apologise I automatically presumed you would know.

 

http://www.cardschat.com/poker-odds-expected-value.php

aces are about 8/2 , by timing it would be possible to receive a losing ace ace, and it can easily become 0/10 .

[John Cuthber]

Is that equally true for all players (in the long run)?

If so,how is it unfair?

[Bignose]

Table 3 player one gets aces two hands in a row by timing of the decks.

Have you never played much poker before? Because, like, this stuff happens all the time. I'm not a big poker player -- maybe 40 or 50 hours total in my life -- and I understand stuff like this happens all the time. As an anecdote, I remember one night a buddy won with pocket aces 3 hands out of 4 consecutive hands. Extremely unlikely for sure, but it happens. That's the nature of randomness.

 

If you really think there is a problem, you need to calculate what the probability of getting pocket aces two hands in a row from a purely random distribution. And then calculate the probability of getting two aces from the shuffle server. If those two are significantly different, then I agree you have a problem. If they are the same, then there isn't a problem.

 

But what you've presented here doesn't seem so unfair to me as just the nature of randomness.

[CaptainPanic]

It seems to me that the only difference is that in one case the dealer (who shuffles) influences the randomness between two games, whereas in the online game, the shuffle apparently happened in the past. This may give the impression that people can gain an advantage of it, but unless the security of the servers is breached, there is no issue, and it is just as random as in any other poker game.

 

If I will roll two dice in 1 minute from now, and then promise to leave them under a cup, then it doesn't matter whether we take a guess now (before the roll) or tomorrow, a full day after the roll. We will both be just as clueless, and our guess isn't influenced by anything. Unless ofcourse, someone peeks under the cup in between. But you shouldn't play online gambling games if you do not trust the security of the server you are playing on.

[Relative]

Is that equally true for all players (in the long run)?

If so,how is it unfair?

yes in live play, but on the internet the process is different and makes it unfair, each player suppose to have the same chance , yet on line timing decides the fate of individuals,

It seems to me that the only difference is that in one case the dealer (who shuffles) influences the randomness between two games, whereas in the online game, the shuffle apparently happened in the past. This may give the impression that people can gain an advantage of it, but unless the security of the servers is breached, there is no issue, and it is just as random as in any other poker game.

 

If I will roll two dice in 1 minute from now, and then promise to leave them under a cup, then it doesn't matter whether we take a guess now (before the roll) or tomorrow, a full day after the roll. We will both be just as clueless, and our guess isn't influenced by anything. Unless ofcourse, someone peeks under the cup in between. But you shouldn't play online gambling games if you do not trust the security of the server you are playing on.

and two dice have very different variances, the same applies to two decks of cards.

Have you never played much poker before? Because, like, this stuff happens all the time. I'm not a big poker player -- maybe 40 or 50 hours total in my life -- and I understand stuff like this happens all the time. As an anecdote, I remember one night a buddy won with pocket aces 3 hands out of 4 consecutive hands. Extremely unlikely for sure, but it happens. That's the nature of randomness.

 

If you really think there is a problem, you need to calculate what the probability of getting pocket aces two hands in a row from a purely random distribution. And then calculate the probability of getting two aces from the shuffle server. If those two are significantly different, then I agree you have a problem. If they are the same, then there isn't a problem.

 

But what you've presented here doesn't seem so unfair to me as just the nature of randomness.

The randomness is not at question, the equal distribution over time is.

[John Cuthber]

yes in live play, but on the internet the process is different and makes it unfair, each player suppose to have the same chance , yet on line timing decides the fate of individuals,

The shuffle is designed to do that.

What is the problem?

 

 

Here's a "cut to the chase" question.

Could you use this issue to cheat and increase your chance of winning?

(Note that all other players can do what you propose to do).

[Relative]

The shuffle is designed to do that.

What is the problem?

 

 

Here's a "cut to the chase" question.

Could you use this issue to cheat and increase your chance of winning?

(Note that all other players can do what you propose to do)

It is not about the winning or losing, it is about a fair share of distribution, example 1/221 hands i will likely receive a pair of aces.

This process creates 1/?.

 

 

By timing you could never receive aces, or a pair of aces, that was a winning pair of aces, and not a losing pair of aces.

 

 

Or by timing you could technically although long odds, receive a pair of aces every go.

[John Cuthber]

If you can not influence your chance of winning (and nor can anyone else) then it is fair.

 

 

Also, as far as I can see, you don't have access to the information you would need to do the timing you speak of.

How do you know how many cards the other players in other games have played?

[Relative]

If you can not influence your chance of winning (and nor can anyone else) then it is fair.

 

 

Also, as far as I can see, you don't have access to the information you would need to do the timing you speak of.

How do you know how many cards the other players in other games have played?

I still do not think you actually see the point, a fare distribution is that on average i get dealt aces every 1/221 hands, although we all know this is not definite and a certainty, but within the block of randomness of only 52 variables, in time aces will be dealt and over time they will be dealt on an equal proportion to all players, and the aces will generally win 8/10 times.

The internet distribution takes all this away, it changes poker into roulette, and the luck of timing starts to play a big part.

 

We can not or will never work out the algorithm's, although I can imagine there may be a pattern in chronological order or some other context.

 

 

The point been , and no, not gamblers fallacy, imagine if you sat there for 500 hands and had not seen a pair of aces, the next deck was your turn to receive them, and another table gets them, 500 hands later the same, 500 hands later the same, etc etc, it does not work because of this.

[Bignose]

The randomness is not at question, the equal distribution over time is.

This is the same thing...

[Relative]

This is the same thing...

yes

[Bignose]

if "yes" then what is the question? If the randomness is fair, then the equal distribution over time is also fair, by definition.

[Endy0816]

at least in theory you could use multi-tabling.

 

I would go in assuming that most everyone is cheating in some sense. Players and the House.

 

Best bet is to learn to code then you can make bots for yourself and/or sell them to others.

[Relative]

if "yes" then what is the question? If the randomness is fair, then the equal distribution over time is also fair, by definition.

No because some players receive more than their fare share of aces by timing, some players receive more winning aces than losing aces, and so on, kings , queens etc.

 

 

So variance can never run a true course because timing is the intervention.

at least in theory you could use multi-tabling.

 

I would go in assuming that most everyone is cheating in some sense. Players and the House.

 

Best bet is to learn to code then you can make bots for yourself and/or sell them to others.

I want a fare game not a dishonest game.

[Bignose]

No because some players receive more than their fare share of aces by timing, some players receive more winning aces than losing aces, and so on, kings , queens etc.

How do they accomplish this timing? How can someone see what decks are coming up and thus do this timing? If someone doesn't know what deck is coming up, the fact that it was generated fairly but ahead of time doesn't matter.

 

The question was posed above... are you honestly saying that rolling a pair of fair dice right now is actually different than rolling a pair of fair dice 1 minute ago?

Edited July 28, 2014 by Bignose

[Relative]

How do they accomplish this timing? How can someone see what decks are coming up and thus do this timing? If someone doesn't know what deck is coming up, the fact that it was generated fairly but ahead of time doesn't matter.

Again I think you miss the point, online poker there is only about 10% that are winning players. Quite a few of these players are not even good, with really low ranks but get lucky.

 

 

Most players will lose whether they are good or bad players by timing luck,

 

 

Example I get aces, 20 times in one week, I win every time, by good timing, the aces i got were winning aces.

 

The next week I do not see aces or kings or queens, I see a lot of 94's , 73's, etc.

 

then by bad timing I spend the next month getting losing aces and so on.

 

The distribution does not run according to statistics. Hit and miss all the time allowing no consistency of play that is why there is a low percent of winners.

 

 

It suppose to be the luck of the shuffle, not the luck of the shuffle and then the luck of which deck you get, that is making twice the odds, making online poker - ev for most.

[Bignose]

Again I think you miss the point, online poker there is only about 10% that are winning players. Quite a few of these players are not even good, with really low ranks but get lucky.

 

 

Most players will lose whether they are good or bad players by timing luck,

 

 

Example I get aces, 20 times in one week, I win every time, by good timing, the aces i got were winning aces.

 

The next week I do not see aces or kings or queens, I see a lot of 94's , 73's, etc.

 

then by bad timing I spend the next month getting losing aces and so on.

 

The distribution does not run according to statistics. Hit and miss all the time allowing no consistency of play that is why there is a low percent of winners.

 

 

It suppose to be the luck of the shuffle, not the luck of the shuffle and then the luck of which deck you get, that is making twice the odds, making online poker - ev for most.

So, you do understand that the house rakes a % of every pot, right? The house hosting the games makes their profit too. By this alone, most people will be negative expected valued.

 

If there is no rake, then poker is a zero sum game. Someone wins and many lose.

 

But, and here's the biggest thing, there is a skill to poker too. I can totally believe that even game with no rake, the average player is negative. Because there are some very skilled players that will be positive, and a large number of low skill players that will lose a lot.

 

The nature of the game sets this distribution up. If you seat a table with 10 players and play until someone has all the chips you have 1 winner and 9 losers. The 'average' player here is negative expected value.

 

Lastly, it is a random game. You could have a game where everyone plays perfectly all the time, and you will still end up with a winner and a lot of losers. Professional players have off nights, weeks, even months or years. Sometimes you just get cold cards.

 

Really, unless you have millions of hands of data, I'm not sure you can claim unfairness simply from the random nature of the game + the skill part of the game. This is what you need to show that it "The distribution does not run according to statistics." Do you have this data? More than just a single anecdote about your one week?

Edited July 28, 2014 by Bignose

[dimreepr]

A couple of quotes to illustrate

 

“If there weren't luck involved, I would win every time.” - Phil Hellmuth

 

“I must complain the cards are ill shuffled till I have a good hand.” - Jonathan Swift

Edited July 28, 2014 by dimreepr

[Endy0816]

I want a fare game not a dishonest game.

 

Program a poker simulator yourself and play against an AI?

 

I don't know what else to tell you. Too easy for players to automate perfect play and even easier for the house to adjust the deck in mid-play(has even been admitted to previously).

[Relative]

So, you do understand that the house rakes a % of every pot, right? The house hosting the games makes their profit too. By this alone, most people will be negative expected valued.

 

If there is no rake, then poker is a zero sum game. Someone wins and many lose.

 

But, and here's the biggest thing, there is a skill to poker too. I can totally believe that even game with no rake, the average player is negative. Because there are some very skilled players that will be positive, and a large number of low skill players that will lose a lot.

 

The nature of the game sets this distribution up. If you seat a table with 10 players and play until someone has all the chips you have 1 winner and 9 losers. The 'average' player here is negative expected value.

 

Lastly, it is a random game. You could have a game where everyone plays perfectly all the time, and you will still end up with a winner and a lot of losers. Professional players have off nights, weeks, even months or years. Sometimes you just get cold cards.

 

Really, unless you have millions of hands of data, I'm not sure you can claim unfairness simply from the random nature of the game + the skill part of the game. This is what you need to show that it "The distribution does not run according to statistics." Do you have this data? More than just a single anecdote about your one week?

Well actually one of the biggest sites refused to give me my hand history.

[dimreepr]

Well actually one of the biggest sites refused to give me my hand history.

 

 

 

Why is that important?

 

If we played constantly for a billion years it would be entirely possible, almost certain, that no hand would be replicated.