|
|
|
|
#1
05-24-07, 03:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
I'd suggest digging into the 2+2 archive for their *probability* forum as a start. I've seen some pretty good discussions about "pseudo-random" generators (I think) somewhere. It gives me enough confidence that online sites shuffles are no less "random" than live, probably a lot more.
__________________
"Animals die, friends die, and I shall die. But the one thing that will never die is the reputation I leave behind." Old Norse adage |
|
#2
05-24-07, 03:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
You know, I'd be more confident if they used the noise produced from an analog circuit like Atari did.
Of course, the algorithm they use for their rng has probably been tested so much that it doesn't even matter anymore. I wonder if there's a guy somewhere that wrote the code and sits at some .01/.02 table and just CRUSHES from his office at Pokerstars.
__________________
"And that's how you play aces." Yeah, you make kings run in to them. |
|
#3
05-24-07, 07:36 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I asked Stars about this some time ago and they sent me a very detailed technical description. I am not a programmer, and I can't say I understood it all, but I know enough to know it was not BS. It was definitely as random as I could ever want it to be.
No, sorry, I deleted the email a while ago. But if someone asked, they would probably get the same email.
__________________
poopity, poopity pants. |
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
