Continuous Shuffle - Online poker RNGs...

[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.

[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.

[MAYHEM45]

Stars cards are affected by mouse movements as well. There was a website way back in the day that sold "mouse gesture techniques" to call out aces on the river.

[drewjax]

Same here.

"Damn you TP" (in my best Stewie Griffin voice)

[Talking Poker]

I've been out all day. Time for me to get caught up on this thread. I'll start here:

While I don't think there is anything irrational about my logic here (all I have done is state facts about the mechanics behind the way cards are electronically dealt at Full Tilt), I understand that me saying "I don't like it" has 100% to do with my personality and 0% to do with the RNG itself. I have no problem with their RNG, and any allusions I made otherwise in other threads were simply me joking.

But don't misinterpret me saying "I don't like it" with me "indulging myself in feeble minded thinking" or having some sort of major personality issues or anything of that sort. While I believe that there are still people who don't understand what I have been saying all along here (I'm not saying that you are one of them, but it's pretty clear when reading through this thread who is getting what Zy and I are saying and who is not and is taking it to a WAY other crazy level), I don't see why liking or not liking something has to mean anything more than just that.

If I said that I like Blue but I don't like Yellow, surely that would be ok, right? I mean, me having opinions like that doesn't mean those opinions are consuming me, costing me sleep, affecting my emotional/physical health or another of the sort. They are just opinions.

Right?

[Talking Poker]

I'm going to lump these two posts together, since they are equally absurd. I think Mayhem knows that neither Zy or I are suggesting anything of this nature, but I'm not so sure about omahilo. Either way, these posts aren't worthy of even this much of a response. Ooops, too late.

[omahilo]

I agree my post is absurd... I was just thinking out loud.

I dont think any of the sites are rigged or anything like that.

[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]

This is exactly how I feel.

[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.

[GTDawg]

Since you didn't respond to anything I said...kinda makes me a sad panda...I'm gonna take the this time to respond in general to some things...

I am not "berating" you for your opinion...that's kinda harsh there, Chet.

But, still...it is an odd personality trait. I mean, it doesn't affect anything one way or the other. It seems as though you are being results oriented about something that as you have mentioned...doesn't matter in the long run.

[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.

[GTDawg]

I think I found a way to appease the great Shabs...but I'm sure he already knows about the new Beastie Boys album coming out in a few months.

[PShabi]

Much appreciated Dawg, but I knew about that album before they did.

[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.