• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

39 Climbing Up The Ladder

About Zoltan6201

  • Rank
    1st Runner-Up

Community Information

  • Gamertag, PSN, or Steam ID
  1. Are you a spokesperson for Prominence Poker? Does ClearConscious or any other moderator have any decision making responsibilities? Laughing at someone's point is insulting. Neither of us knows how much PP MAKES each month. For the record, this is an argument from ignorance because it has not been and cannot be proven, and therefore is a fallacious argument. I cited "LESS than $20,000" because I have no idea how many RNG transactions per minute/second that is required. It could be $5,000 or $500. The contact at random.org asked for data that I did not have access to, so I made extremely rough estimates. Simply arguing that "it is just a video game" is no justification for dismissing an idea that would make it better than any other poker simulation. If you would like to argue that it would not make it better, than please feel free to do so. Maybe cite the 2 billion hand test environment data one more time? This is not the only thread questioning the actual methods of generating RNG or Pseudo-RNG used by PP. Now if they'd like to reveal actual data on real hands being played, the actual number of RNG required per minute and the actual net profit of PP, then we could really have information to evaluate.
  2. I contacted Mr. Mads Haahr at random.org. I did not mention Prominence Poker. I only spoke of an idea of a poker game for a console system. Information from their website indicates: "The randomness comes from atmospheric noise, which for many purposes is better than the pseudo-random number algorithms typically used in computer programs". They are interested in partnering with Prominence Poker. The cost would be less than $20,000 USD per month. (I only estimated the volume because I did not have access to real data) Please forward his contact information (*mod edited*) to the appropriate decision makers at PP to discuss this service. I hope that this has been helpful. I am just a concerned customer who wants to offer new options and ideas to PP. Innovation and thinking outside of the box are how successful companies set themselves apart from the competition. Doing things that no one else does is often viewed as being exceptional. It's even possible that PP becomes a real money game in the future. That would be really cool IMHO. Thank you.
  3. How to deal with a bully.

    The hard part about PP is that the chips have no value. No sane person would go AI all of the time. Maybe they are the same ones who would bet their rent/mortgage money in Vegas? Here's another cool video by Daniel Negreanu on dealing with poker bullies:
  4. How to deal with a bully.

    Unfortunately, you will run into these people quite often. In this case, it may be better to find a new table. I posited in another thread that there should be a limit on the amount of times that you can go "All-in" (AI) in a row. At the least, there should be a warning and a sit-out penalty. All the usual suspects came out and said that it was a bad idea. Pre-flop AI maniacs like playing Russian roulette. Poker is not Russian roulette. Even with AA, it's not a safe bet that you'll win. I tend to stay away from rank 20 and under players anyway. Good luck!
  5. I have a concern about observers in casual poker games. I know that if someone loses all of their chips and does not rebuy they can sit in the game as an observer. I wonder why there is no time limit on forcing these players to leave the table. It seems like a small time for them to observer is okay. Last night we had one person as an observer for 45 minutes. This prevented a sixth player from joining the game. Obviously I could have left the table and found another table, but why should the five players be deprived of a fifth opponent? Thank you for your consideration. p.s. it's not a problem in ranked games.
  6. I am not arguing about the players on all of the forums. I am arguing that players arguing in this thread are not amateurs who need poker lessons on how to play. There is no need to imply that anyone posting anything on a forum which contradicts their opinion is inherently false and due to the fact that they do not know how to play poker or are doing it incorrectly. That's my point. Either way, play style has nothing to do with whether your RNG is experiencing repetition problems. Your developers or moderators have admitted that there is no shuffling. I think that's a huge problem. It seems odd that the repetition of hands on actual tables happens too frequently to be random. It seems remarkable to me that ideas like using a physical offset are rejected out of hand.
  7. Honestly, that's a generalization that infers a premise which in fact is not applicable to the audience. Most of the forum posters are really good and experienced players. Suggesting otherwise is really unfair.
  8. I know that you do not do it now. But..... You must admit that it would be cool? I did find this info with a cursory search: "Now, note that if you really do require truly random numbers, you could use a service such as Random.org, which generates numbers with very high randomness/entropy (based on atmospheric noise). Data is freely available for download. This may nonetheless be unnecessarily complicated for your situation, although it certainly gives you data suitable for scientific study and whatnot. The choice is yours in the end, but at least you should now be able to make an informative decision, being aware of the various types and levels of RNGs" http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1234094/how-can-i-generate-truly-not-pseudo-random-numbers-with-c Just offering a suggestion. That's all. I want PP to be the best it can be. Wouldn't it be cool to certify that your program is completely random and no one has any grounds to question it? IDK. Just MHO. Go the extra mile. Do what hasn't been done before. Think outside the....ah nevermind.
  9. So, you're saying that they considered it and rejected the idea, or that it's not cost effective? It doesn't seem like Atomic Clock sampling would cast that much. I don't know. I'm just asking. I'm done. Thanks for your time and your excellent customer service attitude! (For the record: No sarcasm)
  10. I'm in PETA. I'm just offering a suggestion. Someone brought up the point that computer generated RNGs are not random. Players are questioning PP's RNG. If your programmers added a RL random factor to the calculations, then there would be no questions. If there were you could say that "We use a RL offset". Surely (lol), you can see that it's innovative. I understand your billion test. I get that. You guys are analyzing actual game play results, right? The cost differential between a 30/6 rifle is RUGER AMER RIFLE W/ VORTEX SCOPE 3006 16933 0 $529.99 but if your good, you'd get Sauer 202 Classic 30-06 Rifle SACG23006 0 $3,509.00 and an RPG is worth $2,000 and each grenade $500.
  11. No one in this thread forums is checking to the river, getting a bad beat and questioning the RNG. These are intense battles that go back and forth leaving two players in a showdown. The lower hand seems to win more often on a river card that seems impossible. It's worth questioning. Not complaining. Just asking if they considered "using a physical phenomenon which is expected to be random to supplement their RNG calculation". It really is a good idea. It's a way to offset the true lack of random number generation inherent in computational calculations. It would be innovative. It's not that hard either. It could be an atomic clock digit. Since we have now learned that they do not shuffle the cards at all, isn't anyone alarmed? "Go to the underground"? Really? "Surly". Not at all. Rumack: Can you fly this plane, and land it? Ted Striker: Surely you can't be serious. Rumack: I am serious... and don't call me Shirley. -Airplane movie from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080339/?ref_=ttqt_qt_tt
  12. Yeah, I'm getting entropied. (joke) I understand that it's RNG. I get that your test results of 2 billion approximate poker probability. I just wondered if you considered "using a physical phenomenon which is expected to be random to supplement their RNG calculation". I'll take the answer as "No". Thanks.
  13. Maybe you're missing my point because I failed to specify what I was referring to on the river. I meant that in one to one showdowns, players seem to hit more miraculous river cards than random cards would seem to allow. Maybe it's luck. Maybe it's really random. I'm just saying that IMHO, it looks a bit off. That is not complaining. It's an observation. As a customer, I have the right to inquire if the are"using a physical phenomenon which is expected to be random to supplement their RNG calculation". Perhaps it's something they did not consider. Maybe they'll read it and think that it might be a god idea. They put these forums in place to improve their game. Constructive criticism is not "complaining". I'm not asking for source code. I don't see anyone here asking for that. I'm not claiming that they are rigging the cards. Although it's off-topic, rigging the cards would be simple. Add an increased possibility percentage based upon level of the player. Given player A is below rank 10, increase their RNG odds by 10%. Easy.