And Full Tilt strikes again.

[Lilred36]

Wait, Falta1ty still plays on there? Haven't seen him in ages.

well they were talking, he doesn't but i guess some pro's get paid to play.On another note I had about several tourneys in a row where I got rivered, or runner runnered with very few outs.That rng thing just doesn't care for me I suppose.

[PANAMHIEST]

Yall was three handed so he probably honestly thought he had the best hand, didnt and then got dumb luck. I guess thats why they are the pros lol.

[Lilred36]

I don't think its luck that I lose with KK,10 10, Ak all against A7 os in the same day, I am so sick of losing with the best hand, honestly without this crap I'd be way up this week.I will check hand history when I go back it mighta been 4 big tournies today I got knocked out of by A7, one I mighta had KQ suited tho either way,dumb luck lol.

[PANAMHIEST]

I don't think its luck that I lose with KK,10 10, Ak all against A7 os in the same day, I am so sick of losing with the best hand, honestly without this crap I'd be way up this week.I will check hand history when I go back it mighta been 4 big tournies today I got knocked out of by A7, one I mighta had KQ suited tho either way,dumb luck lol.

This is why i do as much railing as possible. It seems like that on some days the computers RNG, (the program that supposedly deals random hands), sems to be stuck on a seed card(the first card shuffled), causing what would normally be a truly random dealt hand, to have some odd favorites, such as your A7. Ive seen it with just about every hand out there that people will play. If you notice a hand that seems to win no matter what start playing it, but aint no telling when it change over to some other set of hole cards, it just does it over and over again. There always seems to be a set of hands that just wont lose. I wish they had a hand tracker, kinda like a poker player tracker, because then youll see these certain hands doing way better than normal odds would apply at the given times they are seemingly unbeatable. But even these super lucky hands lose, you just gotta get dealt extremely empressive odds against em

[Lilred36]

Nice post Pan,so I push with these hands?I thought about it actually woulda won several big pots today,if I woulda called big raises with A7.Odd thing is and this happened the other day,a couple of my tourneys today"and the other" I couldn't find my bust hands in hand history.So I e-mailed support, they sent me an e-mail saying they had a new hand history thingy haven't used it yet but might try to find them.Still celabrating the Saints game and Boo getting a check,will tell ya how it goes.

[klinkman]

This is why i do as much railing as possible. It seems like that on some days the computers RNG, (the program that supposedly deals random hands), sems to be stuck on a seed card(the first card shuffled), causing what would normally be a truly random dealt hand, to have some odd favorites, such as your A7. Ive seen it with just about every hand out there that people will play. If you notice a hand that seems to win no matter what start playing it, but aint no telling when it change over to some other set of hole cards, it just does it over and over again. There always seems to be a set of hands that just wont lose. I wish they had a hand tracker, kinda like a poker player tracker, because then youll see these certain hands doing way better than normal odds would apply at the given times they are seemingly unbeatable. But even these super lucky hands lose, you just gotta get dealt extremely empressive odds against em

Ummmm....no! The seed value used to generate each individual card (a new seed is used for every card) is not based on the first card generated, or has anything to do with it, but taken from a seprate hardware random number generator that generates a sequence of 1's and 0's based on non-determinisitc input, usually shot noise. The most important part is that the input is non-detrministic, that is it cannont be determined or predicted by a human. That is key. Early poker programs used Psuedo-RNGs that based the random numbers off of the system clock, which can both be manipulated and can be determined. As long as that input is non-deterministic the output will be as well. And remeber that new seed is also generated for each individual card-this means 2 things. 1. Previous cards delt only affect future cards dealt in that the card cannot be dealt again, so if a 7 was dealt and folded, it won't be dealt again. 2. There is no knowlege of the card that's going to be dealt until it's dealt-not even a person with inside access could tell you what the flop is going to be until it's dealt, as it's not generated until it's actually dealt.

[PANAMHIEST]

Ummmm....no! The seed value used to generate each individual card (a new seed is used for every card) is not based on the first card generated, or has anything to do with it, but taken from a seprate hardware random number generator that generates a sequence of 1's and 0's based on non-determinisitc input, usually shot noise. The most important part is that the input is non-detrministic, that is it cannont be determined or predicted by a human. That is key. Early poker programs used Psuedo-RNGs that based the random numbers off of the system clock, which can both be manipulated and can be determined. As long as that input is non-deterministic the output will be as well. And remeber that new seed is also generated for each individual card-this means 2 things. 1. Previous cards delt only affect future cards dealt in that the card cannot be dealt again, so if a 7 was dealt and folded, it won't be dealt again. 2. There is no knowlege of the card that's going to be dealt until it's dealt-not even a person with inside access could tell you what the flop is going to be until it's dealt, as it's not generated until it's actually dealt.

Well, um ya all that deep tech stuff makes sense, but then why does it get stuck on some hands that are obviously winning way more than they should be,consistently, before moving on to a new batch of hands that seem to never lose?

[klinkman]

Well, um ya all that deep tech stuff makes sense, but then why does it get stuck on some hands that are obviously winning way more than they should be,consistently, before moving on to a new batch of hands that seem to never lose?

Humans have evolved to be constantly looking for patterns in their environment. Patterns allowed us to spot and evade predators, find food and identify edible plants in new surroundings. They also allow us to spot our opponent's tendancies at a poker table, and allow smart players to adapt to them. But because of how short our lives are and how little we actually get to see, we have evolved to look for and spot patterns over short periods of time, where in many cases a pattern may not actually be there. If the first 2 people going west from the settlement don't come back, we surely think going west is deadly and should be avoided, even though both those deaths might be completely random(Guy A was sick when he left and Guy B met a bandit going the other direction).

What I'm suggesting is that you're seeing a pattern that isn't actually there, as you have been evolved and trained to do all your life. A7 beating KK happens almost 30% of the time. It happening 3 times in a row happens (if I did the math right) about 3% of the time. 3% is not high odds, but FAR from impossible. So if you watch hundreds of thousands of hands of poker, and watch A7 beat KK 3 times in a row, you are seeing something rare, but something you would almost expect to see watching that many hands. And it has nothing to do with the RNG being hot, or cold, or whatever, it's just a natural occurance over that large of sample.

I know all this is easy for me to say, but trust me I've been there, and I'll be *****ing and screaming the next time it happens to be. But I play enough poker where it will happen to me, and it will suck when it does, but it's not rigged, it's not the RNG getting stuck on a certain hand, it's just that if you get it in as a 70% favorite, 3 times in 10 you will lose, and that was one of those times.