Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 03/14/2018 in all areas

  1. 7 points
    I believe it’s the players not the rng. The reason people take so many bad beats, in my opinion, is because people will stay in with weak hands and just won’t fold. Then they hit a minor miracle trip 2’s on the river and we blame the devs. My theory for this has always been that the reason this happens is plain and simple. We’re not playing with REAL MONEY. And that’s why your experience of live poker is radically different to this game. That’s why people don’t fold. That’s why they stay in with junk. And that’s why there are so many bad beats. I’m pretty sure most people are folding their 2 if a months salary was on the line. Just my opinion though.
  2. 6 points
    No offense taken. I understand your concerns. We've never said that we're trying to 'improve the quality of the randomness'. There are reasons behind the existing algorithm, some of which have been stated in earlier posts. We've done the research and testing and are completely satisfied that the algorithm produces every possible shuffle in a uniform distribution.
  3. 6 points
    You're right, it's not going to change. We think that rigging the shuffle to match the expectations of people who are unhappy with math would not be good for the game. We're going to stick with the mathematically correct algorithm. Also, the Earth is round, climate change is real, and the moon landings were not faked. The CIA totally killed JFK though.
  4. 4 points
    Tor, You're on a agenda based rant, and I get that. But ! The same RNG was used when you won the 500k tournaments as was used when you lost the ranked tournaments.. So it's not the RNG ! It's the style of play in 500k tournaments vs ranked tournaments. There are many, many donks playing bingo in ranked tournaments! They have little or nothing to lose by taking absolutely stupid risks. Knowable and skilled players, such as you, are continually frustrated when playing against such stupidity, but its not the RNC or PP, its the players you're playing against.
  5. 4 points
    The H2H points have been increased, effective immediately.
  6. 3 points
    Um, do you think better players want to play you? Ranking up is hard, and it takes consistent good play, because losing sets you back more than winning. That is a feature, not a bug. The spread of players among ranks seems well distributed. It won’t be if every bad player gets boosted up to avoid hurting their feelings.
  7. 3 points
    I've noticed, while playing poker, that probability and the odds of certain cards resulting in a winning hand sometimes just don't happen. Care must be taken to refrain from falling in love with that killer hand the Gods have blessed me with. Chasing after that elusive straight or flush while someone is over betting the table, is a fools errand. During normal play, strategies used with six players won't work with four players, or three players. Identifying predictability in others is key to the art of bluffing, but predictability must be avoided by me. When I suffer a losing streak of several games, it's not because the RNG is rigged or some other external reason. If I'm the one losing, its because I'm doing something wrong and I will continue to lose until I change the way I'm playing.
  8. 3 points
    Tiered buy-ins are returning to ranked in the next update.
  9. 3 points
    Have you ever thought that the reason why you seem to be noticing so many "bad beats" is precisely because here players tend to make absolutely insane bets and all-ins, rather than folding? Sometimes those bad hands happen to win by chance, thus "beating bad" other "better" hands. When people keep betting on bad hands, rather than folding, that will naturally increase the amount of "bad beats" that you will witness.
  10. 3 points
    It does. When dealing cards from a deck, whether physical pieces of paper from a stack of paper, or in computer memory, what you're doing is randomly choosing a partial permutation of 52 things. The standard physical shuffle of physical cards and subsequent distribution of cards from the top of the deck is not mathematically different than distributing cards from random locations throughout a deck that hasn't been shuffled. But physical limitations, and trust issues more than anything, force us into this process of shuffling and dealing from the top. Software doesn't have the physical/trust issues to contend with, so it can just randomly choose cards out of the deck. The basic card shuffle algorithm is to build a shuffled deck by randomly choosing a card from the deck 52 times - the Fisher-Yates Shuffle. The top card is chosen, then the next, and the next, and so on, until all 52 cards are randomly chosen. Then we deal out however many cards we need from the top. In PP, we only need the first 17 cards (or less) - 2 for each player (4, 6, 8, 10, or 12 cards) plus the 5 community cards. Ie., we need to randomly choose up to 17 cards from the deck. It doesn't matter what order the remaining cards are in - that of course has no effect on the hand. So we don't actually need to do that part of the shuffle - it's completely pointless. But regardless of whether we pick 52 random cards or only 17, the basic algorithm is flawed in the context of online poker. It would be possible, and not really all that difficult for someone who knows what they're doing, to predict the shuffle. Our multiple RNGs as described above are designed to add unknowable, true randomness to the pseudo-random number generator, making it impossible to predict the shuffle. We also need to ensure that our random number space is large enough to produce all permutations of 17 cards. Our algorithm gives us this as well, many times over. The initial ordering of the deck that cards are randomly chosen from is irrelevant and has no effect on the probabilities. I mentioned it in that original post only because it's an important factor in the ability for someone to predict the shuffle. When choosing a random card from a deck, the probability of choosing the Ace of Spades is the same no matter what order the cards are in to begin with: 1/52. The probability of choosing TsJsQsKsAs in that order, or any particular ordered set of N cards, is the same regardless of the initial locations of those cards within the deck. For any given pseudo-random number sequence used to choose the cards, different deck orderings will of course produce different deals. Or another way to look at it is that different deck orderings would require a different random number sequence to produce the same deal. The probability of any particular deal is the same regardless.
  11. 3 points
    The shuffle can't be more randomized or realistic, and frankly I resent the accusation. But I'm wasting my breath, again. People who think it's rigged will never be convinced otherwise. Truth and math are irrelevant.
  12. 3 points
    Hello. Id like to begin the letter by saying thank you......but not for the things you might first think. Yes, you and your team have created a really fun and immersive game. While I am grateful for all your hard work, Id like to thank you for something else. You see, one of my daughters is a special needs adult. She and I spend time playing certain games together every night. One of our 2 favorite games is Prominence Poker. She is more of my cheer leader than a player, but shes learned enough to keep me on my toes. The time we have shared while playing your game has meant more to me than I can possibly convey. We laugh, we make up names for players and on occasion, make a little money. I never would have thought a Poker game would give us so much happiness... its a win win ..even if we are losing - we are still winning. lol Thank you for creating a great game like this. Keep up the good work.
  13. 3 points
    Oh my, I am really excited that it seems you guys are going to add deep stack to the ring games. I believe this will make the games better. I always notice the pattern in ring games, usually some one comes in shoving all in. But once they double up or triple up they get really conservative, they value their chip stack a heck of a lot more. I think having the minimum buy in at 150 big blinds is great, it would be harder to just come in and keep shoving, and if they do they will go broke faster and learn to actually play with some post flop skill. Also having deeper stacks means the river becomes more of an important street than it is now, as check raise shoves and all ins will really put people to the test. As it is now the turn is where most of the decisions are made, as its where most people shove. Deep stack also emphasizes more postflop play and pot control, also balancing ones betting lines and value ranges. I really hope this feature is added, if not it will feel like parents teasing their kids they got them a awesome toy, only to say "oops sorry, here is a sweater instead." P.S. Please DO NOT let people buy in for less than 100 big blinds. One post suggested letting them buy in for half of what they do now. If you let people buy in for 50 big blinds it will be allin, all the time. If they don't value 100 big blinds as is, they will value 50 even less. They will come into a room with what would be twice the number of buy ins and figure "I can go all in 100 times in a row, lets just shove and see what happens." Their goal would be to have everyone go all in and try to double or win 6 stacks at once. Then leave with profit and then come right back in (still haven't fixed the issue of people leaving with profit and coming right back in for minimum, they need to sit down with their profit if coming back right away to same exact table). So yeah doesn't matter if we can buy in deep if some poker terrorist decides to buy in super small at 50 big blinds and just shove all the time and then leave when they win. There would be no more game and people would stop playing your game. I know one of your competitors (they are big and start with a Z) allows people to only buy in for 10 big blinds. Well the bots and regular people figured that out and that is all most buy in at, and they are now wondering why their numbers are down. So yes add deep stack and make the minimum 150 big blinds, but do not let people buy in for half of what they do now, it would destroy the game.
  14. 3 points
    Sorry Tor, I am also an experienced player and have no issues with RNG/algorithm used. This is probs in the wrong thread here but here's my 2 cents anyway. The reason for some many 'bizarre' or 'crazy ways to lose' is simple, the players. I here so many peeps complain about how prominence screws them and peeps hitting miracle one outers on the river and what not. Bad beats and weird hands and one outers happen in live tourneys and real money poker sites too. The poorer the standard of poker being played the more variance and weird hands that will happen. Common theme in prominence is how can he hit that on the river? But when you actually examine the hand played, it's a four way limped pot and bad players stick around with garbage hands and hit stuff then the guy that limps with aces will say would never happen in real life. And they are right it wouldn't happen in real life because anyone who can play would raise with aces preflop and doesn't allow the jack 6 off suit hit runner runner full house. My favorite is when it's a cold deck and they expect someone to lay down a big hand/draw and when it gets there it's all about prominence screwing them when it would off been a mistake for them to lay the hand down. Biggest thing I can say is to not get involved in limped pots and be prepared to fold when you do. Anyway rant over, is there any plans for more trophies/achievements to be added to the game?
  15. 2 points
    I enjoy the game, but I was wondering if we'll ever raise the cap on the buy ins. Right now its capped at 100 big blinds. So at the 1 mil game, its 5k/10k blinds (100x10k=1 mil). I was wondering if we'll ever get the option to buy in for 2 or even 3 mil at the same game. So if I was to enter a game I could have the option to buy in from 1 mil all the way to say 3 mil. I'd like this because I could match up with the big stack and win a lot more if I hit the right hand. Also deep stack is much more fun and interesting in ring games. Its what's played on TV and streams and Prominence is all about replicating that environment. To do so we need higher buy in caps, I think that is something that should be easy to implement. Also why is there not a 2 mil game. There is a big gulf between 1 mil and 5 mil. Every other game has a 2, for example, 10k, 20k, 50k....or 100k, 200k, 500k. Yet there is no 2 mil game for the million dollar games, why is that? I like to gradually go up the stakes as I build my bankroll, but 1 to 5 mil is like crossing the Grand Canyon. So adding a 2 mil game would be awesome. Also can we eventually add PLO, I'm sure everyone would enjoy this game. It would add variety and keep people interested in the game. It is the 2nd most popular variant of poker right now. Its great action and coupled with higher buyins would generate more chip business for you. So its win win. Anyhow hope you can add higher caps for buyins, a 2 mil game and PLO. Thanks.
  16. 2 points
    Some people have a cognitive misconception about probabilities and how they work. For example, with 5 best cards being chosen from a group of 7 cards, the probability of a flush is about 1 in 32. Meaning that, on average, there will be a flush approximately once every 32 rounds. Many people, thus, get the misconception that if they see an unusually high amount of flushes, like for example 3 flushes during 10 rounds, or 5 flushes in 20 rounds, or something like that, then there's something wrong. Clearly if the odds are 1 in 32, having 3 in 10 rounds is an indication of the randomness being completely skewed! That's like 1 in 3, not 1 in 32! But this is nothing but a variant of the gambler's fallacy. Just because on average (over thousands and thousands of rounds) the probability is 1 in 32, that doesn't mean that it's impossible to get some streaks of flushes, where in a relatively short amount of rounds you get tons of flushes. Every round is its own event, and doesn't care what has happened in previous rounds. Just because tossing a coin gives you a 50% chance of getting heads, that doesn't mean that getting 10 heads in a row is indicative of something being wrong. (It's not even hard to get 10 heads in a row, if you keep tossing for long enough. There are even genuine videos of this, of people doing that. They keep tossing a coin for a couple of hundred times, videoing themselves, and when they get the 10-toss streak, they show that segment.) Sometimes it, likewise, happens in the other direction: You might go for 200 rounds with only one or two flushes appearing. That's also completely normal. Yet nobody pays attention to that. We only pay attention when it happens unusually often.
  17. 2 points
    First of all... stop with the name calling!!! You obviously didn't read my post correctly. English doesn't seem to be your native language. I said 'You can't blame the devs for the actions of another player'. I never said I was okay with that player's decision. By normal play I was referring to the community cards. Additionally, I don't know what the blinds were. Didn't you go by Rotravi last Fall when you were trolling the forum??? If you don't like the game take your trolling ass back to boring Pure Holdem. You're so freaking nerve wrecking!!! It's one thing to have an opinion, but your repetition and false arguments are not wanted here! Somebody needs to kick this troll off the forum.
  18. 2 points
    Just stop it!!! That's the worst example of your argument I've seen so far. Just play the game. You can't blame the devs for the actions of another player. That's a normal play. Maybe you shouldn't have went all-in in the first place. What did you expect to get? Because expecting anything is the wrong approach anyway. It's called gambling bruh! And for the record, nobody cares about Pure Holdem over here. That's the most boring game I ever played.
  19. 2 points
    Thanks so much mate. I have another suggestion the ranked prob should have more starting chips especially for the higher tiers. Ranked feels 🐢 turtly.
  20. 2 points
    With all due respect... you just got here. The evidence of my support for the devs and game can be found in the archives dating back to 8/16. Once again, I respect the devs. That doesn't mean I have to agree 100% with everything they say or do. That's my final verdict. Hit me with another laugh please!
  21. 2 points
    I think you're correct. It can't be the RNG, because we're all receiving cards from the same deck. I also think that some players are trying not to lose, rather than trying to win.
  22. 2 points
  23. 2 points
  24. 2 points
    That's what I thought. I think I'm starting to play for the fun of the game, points and chips are just secondary.
  25. 2 points
    Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I've played a lot of hands on this game and I see the card generator as fair. I think what influences a lot of the action is the players. Lots of players are just beginning to play holdem or haven't played long. When you bunch them together with a lot of family pots you see weird stuff happens. But what's influencing this action is more player decisions than any programming. That said there will be bad beats, on this game and any other online site and even live play. I think all one can do is just keep playing well, at some point the variance evens out and you will be winning. Out of all the things to tweak in house, I think the card generator is one thing to be left alone. I think it would cause more issues than solve. But yes the card generator topic has been around for as long as online poker has been around.