I love Pokerstars

[CJG 182]

Probably rigged

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/room/features/security/

http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/rng/

Two pages where they explain the lengths they go to produce randomness. Including a third party.

There is no bias against smaller stacks. Or if there was that would make a second company now liable to mass lawsuits.

Two separate successful companies would not do that in pursuit of a small fractional increase in profit.
"

They go to great lengths to produce what they call "randomness" yet they can't produce random cards. It's simply not possible. They admit that the cards that hit the table are decided by the program depending on what the players at the table do.

And a small, fractional increase in a company turning over that much money is a signficant amount of money.

You're dumber here than in the NRL forum, and that's saying something.

 

[Parra]

They admit that the cards that hit the table are decided by the program depending on what the players at the table do.

What do you base this assertion on?

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

What do you base this assertion on?

It's no assertion.

I had an email "discussion" with them and that was what they told me.

The exact words were;

"Similarly at PokerStars, the shuffle program is influenced by two independent, random, and unpredictable external stimuli, being:

1) Combined mouse movements from players connected to PokerStars
2) Quantum randomness, which is used by our true hardware random number generator developed by Swiss-based company ID Quantique."

 

[Parra]

The cards that hit the table are not decided by what the players do. These random actions are used as a seed for the RNG because they are unpredictable. So what you do cannot determine what card is dealt, it just adds input for the seed for the RNG.

 

[Parra]

Years ago I read about RNG seeds being generated from radio noise from space. Truly random. The point being that if the noise submitted was not random then there will be a bigger story than the validity of an online casino.

I have no doubts regarding the validity of pokerstars RNG or the hands dealt. I'd be more concerned about collusion and/or the existence of super accounts. Both of which are detectable and stars lead the way in automated collusion detection even at the lowest buy-in levels. Collusion is a problem in live games as well and always will be.

The existence and use of super accounts was exposed at Absolute Poker years ago and if anything like this occurred at Stars I'd expect a similar expose.

 

[watatank]

What's super accounts

 

[Parra]

An account where the player could see everyones cards.

Due to random card generation as they are dealt it is not possible to see the flop/turn or river in advance. But it is possible for programmers to see all the hole cards at once. This is all you need to win. Seeing what is coming on the flop/turn/river is unnecessary.

There was suspicion that a certain account in high stakes games was winning way above what is statistically acceptable. This was at a site called Absolute Poker and it was popular at the time. Players compared hand histories and decisions that were made by this account and eventually proved the cheating.

You can read how it all unfolded at 2+2 forums.

Here is an article describing what was going on. Seems the "super account" was used to observe all hole cards and relay this info to a tournament player. http://www.freakonomics.com/2007/10/17/the-absolute-poker-cheating-scandal-blown-wide-open/

 

[watatank]

Cheers...yeah I heard about that, I just didn't know that's what it was called :lol:

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

The cards that hit the table are not decided by what the players do. These random actions are used as a seed for the RNG because they are unpredictable. So what you do cannot determine what card is dealt, it just adds input for the seed for the RNG.

I didn't write it.

The fact is that the cards that hit the table are NOT random and never will be.

The deck should be determined before the hand begins and it should not be changed once the first card is dealt. If there was nothing to gain by poker sites by doing it differently, then why do it?

They do it because they can make more money by having a program that decides the outcome of the hand, rather than just shuffling, dealing and NOT changing the order the 52 cards are in.

Having a program that decides what card will come out on "influencing" factors makes it wrong and anything but random.

 

[Parra]

It is random. It is basically dealing from a continuously shuffled deck rather than a static deck. Standard stuff in blackjack to reduce predictability, not increase it.

This is a difference between online poker and live poker. It is also a marked improvement. If the deck is static after the first shuffle then it would be possible for someone to know the next cards. This happens in live games where a dealer is part of the collusion and if this method was used in online games then someone would exploit it and reveal the cards in advance. But this is impossible. This method also removes the possibility of poor shuffle techniques and potential patterns that exist with live poker.

The only remedy live poker games have is the burn cards between dealing the flop/turn/river. These are not needed online as the deal is genuinely random, not just shuffled once.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

No, what part of it's not random are you struggling with, is the the proof?

You can't ask a computer to pick a random result, it won't do it. Even they have accepted that as fact. When pointed out to them their response was "it is true that no computer program is capable of producing truly random results."

What you have to do is instruct the computer what to do if someone asks that question. So their program is intructed what to do by the programmer.

It's a computer program written by a human being which makes it anything but random. There is nothing random about it. They use the word random but they may as well used the word supercalafragilisticexpialidocious because it's just as relevant.

The hand below is a classic example of what I am talking about;

Low stack v bigger stack, dominant hand, flop changes the hand to a 2 outer for the lower stack.

This type of hand happens every single day of the week to me. The trick is trying to avoid it which, as they know, is nigh on impossible.


*********** # 1 **************
PokerStars Hand #77487892962: Tournament #533316442, $0.50+$0.05 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level XIII (600/1200) - 2012/03/20 13:28:17 AEST [2012/03/19 22:28:17 ET]
Table '533316442 39' 9-max Seat #9 is the button
Seat 1: doorlad (33077 in chips)
Seat 2: olocomeu666 (42507 in chips)
Seat 3: xXtheanswerX (20648 in chips)
Seat 4: xBasic (68624 in chips)
Seat 6: coopster_001 (5895 in chips)
Seat 7: GreatJohnnie (51993 in chips)
Seat 8: zamphire343 (72109 in chips)
Seat 9: Muchachee (20879 in chips)
doorlad: posts the ante 125
olocomeu666: posts the ante 125
xXtheanswerX: posts the ante 125
xBasic: posts the ante 125
coopster_001: posts the ante 125
GreatJohnnie: posts the ante 125
zamphire343: posts the ante 125
Muchachee: posts the ante 125
doorlad: posts small blind 600
olocomeu666: posts big blind 1200
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to coopster_001 [Qd Qh]
xXtheanswerX: raises 2400 to 3600
xBasic: folds
coopster_001: raises 2170 to 5770 and is all-in
GreatJohnnie: folds
zamphire343: folds
Muchachee: folds
doorlad: folds
olocomeu666: folds
xXtheanswerX: calls 2170
*** FLOP *** [3h Td Tc]
*** TURN *** [3h Td Tc] [6c]
*** RIVER *** [3h Td Tc 6c] [Jd]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
xXtheanswerX: shows [Js Ts] (a full house, Tens full of Jacks)
coopster_001: shows [Qd Qh] (two pair, Queens and Tens)
xXtheanswerX collected 14340 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 14340 | Rake 0
Board [3h Td Tc 6c Jd]
Seat 1: doorlad (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 2: olocomeu666 (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 3: xXtheanswerX showed [Js Ts] and won (14340) with a full house, Tens full of Jacks
Seat 4: xBasic folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: coopster_001 showed [Qd Qh] and lost with two pair, Queens and Tens
Seat 7: GreatJohnnie folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 8: zamphire343 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 9: Muchachee (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)

 

[Parra]

What would you prefer?

It is certainly more random than hand shuffled physical decks.

The RNG's are very sophisticated. The seed for the RNG is important - hence the use of radio signals from outer space and random mouse movements from PC's in uncontrolled environments. If the seed is random then the output is random. Now if you could manipulate the input you'd be on to something. Potentially. How you would then carry out the calculation at all, let alone in real-time, is anyone's guess.

The idea of true randomness is interesting. Most things considered random - for example the sequence of cards in a shuffled deck - aren't. But it is good enough for the purpose intended.

There was even a group of scientists in California that developed a system to predict roulette outcomes with enough certainty to have +EV. But the game of roulette hasn't changed and is considered random enough for what it is.

There are online casinos that use hand dealt cards. I haven't heard of this for poker but there is no reason it couldn't be done. I would not trust these at all.

 

[Parra]

*********** # 1 **************
PokerStars Hand #77487892962: Tournament #533316442, $0.50+$0.05 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level XIII (600/1200) - 2012/03/20 13:28:17 AEST [2012/03/19 22:28:17 ET]
Table '533316442 39' 9-max Seat #9 is the button
Seat 1: doorlad (33077 in chips)
Seat 2: olocomeu666 (42507 in chips)
Seat 3: xXtheanswerX (20648 in chips)
Seat 4: xBasic (68624 in chips)
Seat 6: coopster_001 (5895 in chips)
Seat 7: GreatJohnnie (51993 in chips)
Seat 8: zamphire343 (72109 in chips)
Seat 9: Muchachee (20879 in chips)
doorlad: posts the ante 125
olocomeu666: posts the ante 125
xXtheanswerX: posts the ante 125
xBasic: posts the ante 125
coopster_001: posts the ante 125
GreatJohnnie: posts the ante 125
zamphire343: posts the ante 125
Muchachee: posts the ante 125
doorlad: posts small blind 600
olocomeu666: posts big blind 1200
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to coopster_001 [Qd Qh]
xXtheanswerX: raises 2400 to 3600
xBasic: folds
coopster_001: raises 2170 to 5770 and is all-in
GreatJohnnie: folds
zamphire343: folds
Muchachee: folds
doorlad: folds
olocomeu666: folds
xXtheanswerX: calls 2170
*** FLOP *** [3h Td Tc]
*** TURN *** [3h Td Tc] [6c]
*** RIVER *** [3h Td Tc 6c] [Jd]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
xXtheanswerX: shows [Js Ts] (a full house, Tens full of Jacks)
coopster_001: shows [Qd Qh] (two pair, Queens and Tens)
xXtheanswerX collected 14340 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 14340 | Rake 0
Board [3h Td Tc 6c Jd]
Seat 1: doorlad (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 2: olocomeu666 (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 3: xXtheanswerX showed [Js Ts] and won (14340) with a full house, Tens full of Jacks
Seat 4: xBasic folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: coopster_001 showed [Qd Qh] and lost with two pair, Queens and Tens
Seat 7: GreatJohnnie folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 8: zamphire343 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 9: Muchachee (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)

Given the blind levels and ante it is a given that xXtheanswerX and coopster_001 are all in. Question is what is Muchachee waiting for? His stack to be eaten away to the point that a double up is useless anyway? he should be in this hand as well, given the stack sizes of the opponents and their likely situation. I wouldn't expect you to have QQ, I'd expect you to have anything.

You also have to wonder what xXtheanswerX is doing with a relatively small stack and basically a min raise in this situation. He set himself off and you had him.

There are a lot more interesting points to this hand than the flop/turn/river.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

I wasn't critcising any player, I was criticising the software which is designed to get rid of the smaller stacks.

I think you misread muchachee's stack, it's 20k, not 2k.

I called 2 of the cards on the flop, guess which ones?

Pokerstars is a toilet, if I didn't play there for nothing I wouldn't touch the place with a barge pole. This shit happens so often I expect it. I'm shocked when it doesn't happen, which isn't often.

 

[Parra]

I know his stack is 20K. But a full round of blinds and antes is already 17325 assuming the blinds don't jump again in the meantime. So at 20K it is time for him to push. Against the other two small stacks at the table it is a no-brainer.

Expectation is that you triple up here. In that situation you will win something like 90% of the time.

 

[raiders fan forever]

after losing to running quads this one just really got on my nerves tonight

i have: 6d 5d

flop: 6s6h5c turn:Kd river:10s

he has 10 6

rivers a higher fullhouse such a joke!!!! i even raised pre

 

[Lewis]

I didn't write it.

The fact is that the cards that hit the table are NOT random and never will be.

The deck should be determined before the hand begins and it should not be changed once the first card is dealt. If there was nothing to gain by poker sites by doing it differently, then why do it?

They do it because they can make more money by having a program that decides the outcome of the hand, rather than just shuffling, dealing and NOT changing the order the 52 cards are in.

Having a program that decides what card will come out on "influencing" factors makes it wrong and anything but random.

Sounds like your just another losing player who cannot accept bad beats.

 

[Parra]

after losing to running quads this one just really got on my nerves tonight

i have: 6d 5d

flop: 6s6h5c turn:Kd river:10s

he has 10 6

rivers a higher fullhouse such a joke!!!! i even raised pre

So you raise pre-flop with 6 5 suited, get some action yet you still stay in the hand and then complain about getting beaten?

Don't focus on the results, look at the decisions made. None of them were good after that raise. The fact that your opponent made worse decisions is good, but you'd expect him to be ahead if he comes over you preflop.

What were the stack sizes etc?

 

[BunniesMan]

just lost $100 bucks in a pot

i had 33

flop: 943 turn: Q river : Q

he had QQ

running quads pretty dirty

Essentially the exact same thing happened to me a few posts back.

Probably rigged

It isn't.

Just have a look at some youtube hands. This is one of my favourites:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7GkgwQ0ZQQ

Bad beats happen, ridiculous 10,000 to 1 situations happen. The only reason they seem to happen more often on Pokerstars is that online we can play thousands of hands, day after day. The 99% of those that go predictably don't stick out. The few that do make us think it's biased because they seem to happen too often.

But think about how long you have to play live poker to get through the same amount of hands an active player plays online.

Now with Zoom poker on Stars I'm making like $30 an hour profit at the 5c/10c tables playing 300 hands an hour. Plus the regular tournaments I play and most days I easily get through 1000+ hands.

It sometimes takes me months to play live what I play in one day of online poker. So obviously there'll be more ridiculous things happen online. That doesn't mean stars is rigged in any way, shape or form.

EA needs to accept that.

Even with Stars supposedly unrandom Random Number Generator, it's still more random than your typical by hand shuffling.