Continuous Shuffle - Online poker RNGs...

[Talking Poker]

Correct. But you absolutely can NOT do what just about everyone does, which is rabbit hunt - had you timed down and called instead of folding, the next card WOULD be different (well, other than the rare times that the exact same card is selected by the RNG).

In the long run, yes, you will flop your set 12% of time time or whatever it is.... but looking at each individual opportunity, YOU actually control if you will flop it this time or not. Yuck.

Again, I understand exactly how this works and agree that it is the most fair/secure way to do it.

[de-coder]

There seems to be a general assumption that time has a profound effect on the result of the RNG. That assumes that the actual system clock is being used as a seed for the RNG, which doesn't have to be the case at all.

When the RNG is called and provides a result that result could easily be the same no matter when it's called. To explain better - if the RNG has provided 48 results so far then the next result would be #49. The value of #49 might have nothing to do with when the RNG is called to produce result #49 - it could be that #49 will contain the same value whether it's call now - or now - or --- now...

In that case, it makes no difference when you click the button - you have no control, or influence, over the outcome at all.

Now, it's likely that it uses a clock, I'm just saying it doesn't HAVE to use a clock. In any event it's unlikely they would ever reveal what they use for a RNG for security sake.

[Talking Poker]

It uses a clock.

The whole point is that that are continuously shuffling (effectively) the remaining cards in the deck.

[GTDawg]

I think you think to much.

[Talking Poker]

Please choose desired response:

1. Agreed.
2. Look who's talking.
3. Is there such a thing?

[GTDawg]

Too pls.

Cause I have a response for that one.

[de-coder]

That isn't exactly what Howard said. What he said was that the remaining cards are shuffled during the action. Obviously that could mean the cards are continuously shuffled, but he didn't actually say that they are, the cards could simply be shuffled once during the action to prepare for the next card.

[ChipFish]

This is hands down the funniest thread EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MAYHEM45]

Yeah right up there with eejits blackjack system.

[drewjax]

I dont get all you morons who say this isnt a big deal. Of course it is. If this is all true, then.....

When I fold a pp or a suited ace to a donk raise, and the flop comes with what "would" have been a set or nut flush, I cant "justify" losing my bloody mind, ranting and raving, and "rightfully" thinking I am jinxed.

[PShabi]

Honestly,

I think it's the worst "serious" discussion ever on this board and I hope it dies off the front page after this post because if I was a newcomer and this was the first thread I saw here, I would never come back.

[Talking Poker]

Noted. I appreciate you relaying your concern here without the need for loads of smilies and font size 7.

That said, I don't understand how someone reading this thread would never want to come back to this site. We have many, many, many far more useless threads than this around here.

But I think I've pretty much said all I can say about this anyway, so I'll do my part in letting it die off. Some people get it, others don't. No biggie.

[Zybomb]

THIS is my elaboration

YUCK

[Boobie Lover]

You people that hate this probably also get mad at people in blackjack that play suboptimally and take your cards when they shouldn't have. If that is the case, you are all geniuses.

[Zybomb]

lol... yes... yes i do (I do realize longrun it makes no difference yes)

[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.

[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.

[Talking Poker]

What I find especially strange is that you won't play on Full Tilt, because you run bad there. I know you're joking when you say it, but how many times have you said Full Tilt is rigged on this forum? Half a dozen?

Here's one for you:


Joking or not, you don't play there because you think you run bad there.