The odds are already so consistently in GOP's favor after rake that cheating would be 10x the effort for little reward. The hands where you have ALMOST the "nuts" (the best hand) are the ones where you bet most and lost most for any tiny misjudgement. If each is only "lucky" one hand in ten, you need to play sharp to stand a chance. There's always one winner per hand, barring a tie. It would be relatively easy to check/fix, If they say they've checked that, I believe them. If you don't SPECIFICALLY KNOW what the modulo-, index-, and other bugs can arise in a Fisher-Yates when you change the number of cards, then my original post would be meaningless to you. I was making a specific technical suggestion for something that can happen if you apply a 52-card algorithm to a 6-deck boot. (isn't that what hurts most? Ppl don't complain as much when beaten by a better hand that had them outranked from before the flop - well SOME do, but they're SO CERTAIN that their (semi)bluffs are SO CLEVER that there must be rampant cheating. consistent patterns of specific PP vs PP pairings), so I know where ppl are coming from, but what I've seen in the past year and a half in poker corresponds well with what I'd expect, when you adjust for the high percentage of ppl who play long shots. I'll admit that I saw some SERIOUSLY improbable-seeming patterns my first month or two (e.g. As a VIP+ who doesn't buy chips (okay, I bought an inexpensive hat package when I first started, but it was October, leading up to Halloween), I don't doubt their claims of a fair RNG.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |