Welcome to The Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads and etc.

Prodigal Gil

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Prodigal Gil last won the day on April 11 2017

Prodigal Gil had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

73 Well Respected


About Prodigal Gil

  • Rank

Community Information

  • Affiliation
  • Gamertag, PSN, or Steam ID
    Prodigal Gil

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Zanatoo, let's end this so called flopped debate. You are clutching at straws and enter technical rounds rather outside of one's knowledge. Point for trying however to keep the thread alive, but I am done educating. i suggest looking up subjective randomness first before even continuing this topic . Even the quality of posters here differs poorly vs. WSOP Full house pro forum, the latter having some zest, logic and poker knowledge. I am sticking to gaming!
  2. A developer...a programmer...a computer programming specialist! Now that has opened up a new can of worms for one claiming to be the expert and not knowing what a dev is as a lingo. Did one get caught red handed. In fact, what language do you know? High or low level language? Do you know Fortran? How is your . Et? Do you pronounce C# as C Hash? :-) I don't want to go down this route, but man do I now wonder about the overinflatedness behind the screen. Your very early posts did indicate some googling base on the way the text were written. My English and grammar is certainly not perfect, but I clearly type from the top of my head rather Google, copy, paste and some right old porky pies. I formally give up debating this point of PRNG or any mathermatics with you. #CSharp
  3. When did the debate turn into a personal slag fest. Stick to the discussion on randomnesses. Wrap was putting up a decent argument until he revealed he was a dev....all down hill from there! :-)
  4. Clear, you know I love the WSOP Full House Pro and contributed much to the game. The point of the deck PRNG wasn't particularly and seriously in question because the majority of players investing time and money in that game (and the amount of prices I gave away running the league) accepted that it was a FUN DECK. The atmosphere was also fun even though it had its fair share of big bugs as well as even being hacked, which messed up the Economy. Server lag was also a huge issue which positively meant the success was under forecasted to the amount of players on that game. The point being the timing of the market as well as what happen in the US banning poker, was a massive hit. Most of all, it was fun as hell! For PP, the tone seemed serious, the XBOX ONE platform didn't help with its lame party UI and many did it have decent headset also vs. The 360. Looking back at MPL videos with hosting 80+ people tournaments and final tables videos made, there was massive bad beats left right and centre, but that was the fun part. People wanted to gamble and be over the top, because 7/10, they will catch something. It was the gamble element that made it really fun to play as well as 9 player table certainly. Hardly anyone awaited for a game as there was also someone there in U.K., US, Australia...etc. 90% of the time, there was table talk and anyone presume in party was ganged up upon. The table dynamics was super! PP with hardly game chat turned it in a graveyard, so if it is a serious game/feel, the quality of the deck and fairness gets looked at under the mircrosope. it doesn't make business sense to change the codes to the engine so sure, as long as it is profitable for PP and I hope that it is for your guys with roll out on many platforms. Havong said that, your deck imo has an issue and perhaps recognising both games had, the PRNG is poor for both games. The question is, I am lessser than 1% of your demographic and if majority are ok, I don't see any reason to change anything either and might was well spend time developing other others of the game as long as the platform is stable.
  5. By this comparison, I am not sure you fully understand and please explain the role of a variance in PRNG. Using your method to debate, I would say you uniformly distributed sequence are also in your imagination there is nothing wrong. A point cannot be debated if you choose only to challenge the opposing point made. Sure you may not have spotted one, but then again, this is the point subjective randomness. Your claims that these patterns are imagination equates to also the same to what you perceive as usual patterns. "These 'patterns' or sequences you are talking about are in your imagination. I've played poker long enough, live and online, to spot an unusual pattern when I see one and on Prominence, I have." Point stated.
  6. How does this post actually contribute to the original thread topic? Looks like somebody is getting frustrated. As the community manager stated, all views are welcome as long as it keeps friendly, and this piece of text adds zero value to the debate, and perhaps a failed attempt at creating a lash out an attack. I've seen in this thread how debates points have been taken out of context, picking and choosing a section of text to mull over with incoherent points that are subjective without much facts to back up. I feel there are indeed egos that need to be put back to the closet because this normally happens when one is stuck in a debate. Quite the evidence I say. ;-)
  7. Ignorance is certainly not pardoned here, my friend. You left out the "pseudo" RNG. The purposes is to generate a set of numbers in a sequenced determined and looped, so the quality is measured base on the reasons as above post above indicates. That is how to judge its quality in terms of randomness subjective randomness.
  8. Aside from opening a bit more with 4xblind, the 50% bet from the flop and turn is pretty standard play. It also depends on the players with 99. Do you have a better stack size to him/her? Do you want to jam on Turn? I would see pockets KKs as preflop hand to play with mostly jamming. Once past pre-flop, anyone who made a made call with pockets below 1010, and pocket 99s are actually Tier 3 hand on Sklansky starting hand. That player naturally should have reraised. On Flop, someone could make 2 pairs or trips already, especially when you already see no flash, straight. Continuation bet of 30% to 50% POT is a standard play if no one raise and you got the call. In your case of turn, you really have 2 options. a. check call (in the case of trips, 2 pairs) b. check-fold if they raise (210 in your case, which is over the top of almost 4 times pot of 60K but then) on top of that, you lose 60k less you put in the turn.
  9. A few thing to clarify for those who have decided to ignore it or just have a lack of understanding. Either way, this is not negative, it is just ignorance. Again, it is not an insult, but a fact. Let's remind us of the OP post and question. Deck Shuffling Clarification - It doesn't seem random? This is a close question. The answer is Yes or No. Thus, there is clearly 2 main camps: 1. YES it does seems random, but my reasoning it is not, because of sample size...blah blah, which by the way has no relationship with a linear instruction of purpose of PRNG. Reminding the audience that if the PRNG is supposed to output 17930468345678938378, loop again, 17930468345678938378...etc. The answer to the original question is, "it does see random", no sequential patterns spotted! Must be goo PRNG. However, if someone in the loop picks up 17930468345678938378 actually, it does NOT seem random. Case in point, this is what is subjective randomness. Main argument points I have seen for this camp is, you cannot prove it is random. Where is the case of it being random then and how should one measure Pseudo Random Numbers/Card..." not sure", but I will continue to challenge on those who said no. This is not a debate point. 2. NO, it does not seem random, if the PRNG outputs 123456789123456789 . Actually, in both cases of sequence, it is still an PRNG sequence being generated. Subjective Randomness another example RANDOM subjectively NOT RANDOM subjectively. Therefore, in reality, the quality of a pseudo-randomness is determined by a good spread of its sequence. In poker, it is about recognising patterns that are generated representing much lesser probabilities of making the board against the hole cards. Several posts have already indicated a sequence of low % lost, becoming a win (bad beats) as well as low probably of cards sequence being a deal as well as the spread of the card dealt with only a small/reduced no. of players (6 people) against a normal 9 people table. This is how is considered as a poor quality PRGN as these patterns occur and have been picked up. I am sure the counter argument would be these patterns spotted are only the snippets of 1234567 . This is a represented argument no doubt but in an on-line poker game, this is not good enough that these patterns are spotted because: 3738494738391234567373849473839123456737384947383912345673738494738391234567 must be played at the same interval of the loop. The likely hood of this happening is slim, especially in a 52 number generator. Lastly, even if the highlighted sequence is long enough to cover different intervals, then the SPREAD of the PRNG is also not good enough, with its objective been no patterns should be spotted consecutively. Thos who have played online poker long enough and spend a period playing in a no. of hrs session of the game should be able to pick up given slightly judgement and inaccuracy that overall if these patterns (bad beats, low % cards being dealt, low % hands being made) are spotted over several hrs session over days and weeks of intervals participants, it is a poor PRGN. Hopefully, this provides some insights into the quality of PRGN, rather than continuing the conversation down the line of Linear Congruential PRGN or any mathematical jibberish.
  10. Let me just close down this ignorant argument immediately and as someone with a MSc in Computer Science should know. What has sample sizing got to do with measuring a quality PRNG? PRNG is a algorithm meaning it follows a set of linear instruction. This also means irrelevant of sample size, it should produce exactly what it is support to do in a periodic loop. Thus, the number produce in a sequence will at some point repeat itself. This goes back to the point that the purposes of a good quality PRNG is to produce a spread of numbers and in this case cards that meets the criteria of "subjective randomness"...look it up mate. Uniformly distributed, uncorrelated, and do not it repeat itself within the loop. What players are seeing is blatant correlated, uneveningly distributed and repeat itself in both hold cards and board matching the hand. This is expectionally poor. Your debate point on sample sizing is flawed.
  11. Thanks for sharing. A developer does not necessary gives you automatic credit for knowing what PRNG is as this is heavily a Mathematics specialist. Your responses in the previous post indicate otherwise from your list of qualification. From a Poker perspective, rather than a developer's perspective and I manage a team of developers and QA engineers in my daily job, a much simpler way to look at this rather than going around proving codes and mathematical models has, a poor PRNG will show signs of easily spotted patterns outside of the norm in its perceive randomness quality base on anecdotal evidence. I will go a far as decent poker players, semi-pro, all those who take a strong interest in poker will pick that up rather quickly. Especially with PP, it is staring you in the face. I would say several experienced poker players on this game has presented sufficient amount of anecdotal evidence to make such determination. Your argument to prove it is of high quality or even so claiming acceptable, no sufficient evidence was presented. The programme got caught out and the developers claimed there were no issues with the PRNG with its quality, after finally sharing it has tweaked the entire shuffling system, which someone with your expertise seemed to have completely ignored. I still yet to see an argument point on the poker perspective from you, rather than sitting on your anti-debate bench. -------------------------- Let me ask you this since you are the 16 years expert. Flip a coin x amount of time in 2 sequences: Sequence 1: HTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHT Sequence 2: HTHTTHHHTHTHHTTTTHTH Which sequence is random? When you are able to answer the question correctly, then we can have a proper debate instead of chucking out garbage debate points because in any debate, one must share the same understanding or at least close, otherwise, there is no point in bumping head against a wall!
  12. Since it seems like you are unable to have a logical debate, using your own word and deflated argument, how do you measure good quality?...from you "haven't noticed anything"? Prove that there is no issue before arguing there is. Those who have highlighted issues on one very good post from HYCICANDR, which you have completely ignored, state the very slim chances of occurrence being spotted and repeated in succession. This in itself is the purpose of PRG. I feel from your responses that you probably have no idea how a pseudo random number generator works nor do you actually know its purpose. Let me tell you. 1st. it is not random (purely) 2nd. it is a massive single loop of numbers generated that will also go back to first selected. (you cannot generate the first no.) [In case, each card dealt is a loop since they do not leave the card deck static as Texas should be or any poker version] 3rd. PRG quality is based on if repetitive patterns have spotted so...in you review to disprove, prove that it is a high-quality PRG. I don't think you even know where to start! Lastly, your previous post on asking how you prove it is poor quality means you have no idea when it is already been explained with valid points. If you don't get it, drop the debate. We are all here to learn from everyone's experience and I have not seen you adding to that.
  13. Actually, English is my 2nd language...Chinese is my mother tongue and a dose of dyslexia!
  14. Forget the personal experienced experience part. The basic shuffling mechanics has changed...random generated card per each card dealt when it should be static after the shuffles. Its like saying let’s play Monopoly with a sudden change in a 7sided dice. The actual % of cards that is to be generated has changed with each dealt now being randomised. Before you start to request for proof, you need to proof it is random and you cannot. I am not even entertaining that debate because that is not even the right question for a Pseudo-Random Number Generator. The question to ask is “how accurate is the randomness to this PRG?” and “what is acceptable accuracy in an on-line poker game?”. The 2nd question comes down to experience and pattern spotting. It is not just the math here, it is the experience. I’ll leave that for another post for those anal to what to talk about that. Computer science geeks, developers and mathematician, feel free to join. As for why Pipeworks has been blasted, they clearly should not have claimed (since WSOP Full Hose Pro), the generator is accuracy or there is no issues with it. They use fisher-yates, and imo, without fully understanding how to code it in to produce this mess of a PRG and failed until later to admit they decided to added additional layers of shuffling….per each card. Have a quick read if you have time of similar discussion. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5345141/commercial-grade-randomization-for-poker-game Unfortunately, this has not work out for them as the output from any PRG is judged directly by anecdotal experience, which is how good or poor a PRN is actually reviewed (the measure here is if there is clear patterns being repeated, which is the job of a PRN. A good PRN is good with their pattern loops and makes it so that the players perceive it to be sufficiently random.) I stop here as the thread is about the shuffling mechanism, but the quality of the PRG itself, but indirectly related. To summaries: a. The core Texas shuffling mechanism has been changed to every card dealt b. Repeated patterns being spotted regularly denotes poor PRG It is not about being 100% random. Fisher-Yates is a perfect random algorithm, but implemented incorrectly, can produce poor accuracy and most importantly, poor experience in poker including environmental factors.