Your analogy (with self serving assumptions) is irrelevant to the situation at hand. There are not 2 piles but 5 piles with unknown quantities of a particular suit.
“In a normal distribution, half of the spades will be in one pile and half will be in the other.” What are you talking about??? What is a normal distribution that divides the cards evenly???
The randomness of 2S cards combined with 3S cards is what should be in your equation. The frequent occurrence of this combined with the phenomena mentioned by wildpokerdude makes one wonder about “random”.
I believe the cards dealt are random but what is the algorithm used for this “randomness”? Is their a pattern? Does the computer ALWAYS start with 4 suits in order (2-A) and then shuffles? Does it change the order after the first hand? Does it shuffle the cards depending on what’s on the table? Does the program run through all possible hands first and then start all over?
How is random defined at RP?
What kind of random is RP using?
My “assumptions” are not self-serving, they serve us all equally.
A normal distribution will follow a bell curve something like this…
Poker is a game of imperfect information. The best we can do is to center our predictive models on a normal distribution curve. I’m sorry if you don’t like my answer, or don’t understand it, and I’m equally sorry that this makes me some sort of self-serving idiot. I can assure you that I’m an normal moron, there’s nothing self-serving about it.
Before each hand, Replay randomly selects 1 card and “transfers” this card to a new deck. It then selects another card from the remaining ones and transfers this to the new deck. It continues doing this until the new deck is complete, at which point it is as randomized as it can get. They then deal one card at a time from the top of this new deck.
I do notice a lot of patterns. thus it becomes kind of predictable what is going on. which people who tested the RNG said its impossible to predict, but I do it at a very high rate.
You’re right I have no clue what that phallic cone head represents. My interpretation of it would be that if you have 5 piles, as in my sample, you are way out of standard deviation…
From where? from the table? from down cards? not played cards?
What’s the secret?
sent you a friends request. can tell you what I mean.
From a normal (but virtual) unshuffled deck.
I haven’t seen their code, so I can’t be 100% positive, but I am fairly sure they use some variant of a pRNG algorithm called “Mersenne Twister.” The reason I think this is that it is widely available, has been translated into a lot of computer languages, is in wide use, and produces very very good results.
At any rate, their pRNG has been certified by by a neutral 3rd party, not once, but twice now. Claiming otherwise because your yadda yaddas keep getting beaten by blah blahs, while offering no supporting data is rather pointless.
Thanks SPG, I know it’s all in my head.
And my screenshots they are of course photoshopped…
I never suggested any such thing.
But I will suggest that you are cherry-picking a few examples that would fall at the lower probability extremes of the distribution, then insisting that they represent the norm.
Really mate, you need to get your story straight 
As stated by @SunPowerGuru, it is almost certainly the Mersenne Twister.
No. By definition, random precludes the possibility of predictable patterns.
Do you remember that I suggested that you read the “The Fairness Debate” thread in its entirety? Had you followed my advice, you would have come across this particular post:
And consequently would not need to ask this or any of your other questions. The linked post directly addresses the shuffling algorithm.
Obviously not otherwise the dealing could not possibly be claimed to be random and, much more importantly, independently certified as random (twice!).
I really don’t understand this question at all but I suspect that you are still talking about the shuffle and deal algorithm. Please see the post linked above.
Ah - very tricky! Asking the same question using different wording! See above, this question has been answered.
As I said, if you go and read the “The Fairness Debate” thread, you will find answers to questions that you haven’t even thought of.
Given the difficulty that you seem to have had in understanding SPGs very basic and clear post, you might find this article useful.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/data/standard-normal-distribution.html
Hope this helps,
TA
Adding to what SPG said, a couple of screenshots does not, in any way at all, provide meaningful data.
It will be much easier (ie. possible!) to take you seriously if you have some data. To generate data, you need to do 2 very easy things.
- Define, precisely, the question that you are investigating
- Keep a record of every hand that you are dealt in for at least 1000 hands.
The question seems to be something like:
“How often do I get dealt suited cards AND the flop comes with 3 suited cards that are different to the suit that I am holding?”
I suggest that you record every hand so that you have a “control”: apart from examining the actual question, we can also see if 3 suited cards occur, on the flop, according to the mathematical expectation.
I would also suggest that 1000 hands is not enough, by far, to provide any certainty but it is easily sufficient to indicate whether further investigation is warranted. For the record, your results after 5000 hands do become interesting and after 10000 hands we can draw some fairly definite conclusions.
It is ALWAYS the case that the questions of randomness can only be answered with a sufficiently large data set. I do understand that it’s much easier to throw accusations and mumbo-jumbo around the forum but that doesn’t really achieve anything.
An indication of how this sort of “research” is done is covered, very briefly, in this post:
See you when you get back with your data set 
Enjoy!
TA
ha yeah its all in my head too 
pure imagination.
I hope you got your knickers out of the twist caus I can hear you screaming all the way over here… I do suggest you work on reading comprehension skills though.
I asked a very basic question which you have repeated, rephrased but seem to have great difficulty answering. Not only would it provide me an answer as to whether I’m the only one having this experience, it could also lead to some data…
Your cherrypicking of what I ‘said’ is amusing but contrary to your accusation, I do not believe there is some great conspiracy but I have noticed some patterns. So thank you for posting this to confirm there ARE some predictable patterns!
To think that all you had to do was read the post immediately below the one quoted and that was, apparently, too much trouble.
The simple answer to your question is that every simple player notices and comments on these anomalies and discrepancies. People with even the smallest amount of knowledge of statistics and random numbers are aware that what you, and they, have seen is the random world doing its expected random thing and not worthy of even a moment of thought.
There are absolutely no predictable patterns - that is the very definition of random.
If your claim is that there are predictable patterns then you most certainly are arguing that there is something nefarious afoot!
I suggest that you read the “The Fairness Debate” thread: there is absolutely nothing that you can discuss here that hasn’t been thoroughly discussed previously.
TA
BTW1- I play about 50 hands at a time depending on time. Four of those 5 hands were played in a 2 day period, roughly 200-250 hands total. Still anecdotal but remarkable none the less!
BTW2 -Suggesting something and wondering about something are not the same thing!
That’s elementary, Watson!
This post was actually for TA
there are patterns. all one has to do is open their eyes. I have explained these patterns over and over. you simply just ignore and say what you want to fit your agenda.
when I get dealt KK, there is always a Ace on board, if not a Ace on board, usually means a player has AA. if that is not a pattern than I don’t know what is.
Data or no discussion.
I’m done here until and unless you guys, @wildpokerdude and @Click, come up with 2000 hands of data - 1000 hands each.
TA.
WTF, what are you smoking???
You want me to read an old thread but you can’t even get your equations straight?
Sorry dude, you are not a reliable source of information especially since you are still squirming out of my question.
And actually you are saying that there patterns, they just are not predictable!
I think that’s very special and generous of you to tell us what to do!
thanks for the laughs.