Conspiracy? LOL!!
I think the correct word you should be searching for is Controversy!
The only conspiracy in your posts which I’ve seen only lives in your own head!!
Seeing Quads almost every HE session which I have played the last 5 years is enough math for me that something may be off. Quads should be a rare occurrence as the table indicates (1/595 = 0.1681%) which means it is a 99.8319% probability of not occurring in a hand. These are from the table calculations which I don’t use.
According to my Statistics page about 64% +/- which has been consistent since the beginning. I’ve always considered myself as a very dangerous LAG player.
As I previously stated i think you are a very talented programmer which I’m not, but I can still recognize one.
Your reply on how you’re not using an RNG is going to take me some time to digest.
Thanks for providing your code. I think.
I recorded 10,000 and 20,000 hands, and 73,006 hands too. The results (German number format again):
For me is there all OK. Only little differences on not so many times happening hand results. I’m sure the Replay RNG was programmed before Replay Limited Ltd bought it, because nothing goes wrong on it, lool.
the point I was making was that it’s not just the hands you play that matter.
Well, I guess your point was unclear to me as well as this one.
Wow, now there is the math that @smooth99 and @AngelinaB and the rest of the conspiracy theorists need to do. And the results … they clearly back up that Replay’s deals are in fact very very VERY random.
NOTHING is rigged. Case closed. Court adjourned.
I don’t believe that at all. I’ve played over 100 heads-up games in the last month and I might have seen quads once? Quads almost every session? Not possible. How many heads-up hands even see showdown, let alone get there with quads?
Exactly how many times have you seen quads heads-up this week? Can you link the hands?
If your only argument every time is, “I see it happen, just take my word for it!” then you have no case. All you have to do is present some real evidence and you never do.
Now, I’m not trying to smack talk you at all, but this is just the reality of it. If you can’t understand that most basic concept, then you don’t have the math expertise to argue your case.
How about explaining for me and anyone else who is interested, Polki’s code of not using an RNG in your own words?
It would help speed things up for me since I still haven’t had the time to review it.
post deleted
Thanks, Polki for the info. I was thinking you had programmed a poker hand simulation program and counted the outcomes and then calculated the hand probabilities for 5, 6 and 7 cards.
I was impressed with your formula:
Is this a European or Germany math methodology?
Thanks for taking the time.
0.1681% * 6 players * 200 hands per session is 201%
We know the value Poki gives is the odds for a single player, because the table clearly states it is the odds of making quads with 7 cards. There would be 17 cards in play if we were looking at the odds of anyone making quads.
You accuse napkin of responding without reading your posts, but appear to be happy to disregard or ignore the numerous explanations already given clearly demonstrating that seeing quads most sessions is exactly what you should expect.
I get that the explanations given may not actually be clear if you don’t have a coding or probabilities background, so I’d be happy keep trying to explain things, but there’s no point arguing whether or not seeing quads every session is expected. It’s simply a mathematical fact that it is.
The Holecards:
Card 1 is one of 52, Card 2 one of the 51 rest. 52 x 51 = 2652 different holecards. But one of them is then Ah Kh, and one is Kh Ah. 2x the same. Because this is the number then 52 x 51 / 2 = 1326.
For 5 dealt cards it is then 52 x 51 x 50 x 49 x 48 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5.
Because 5 same cards but different sorting/order.
What do you think I have done twice already? You think I’m a dog that you can keep making fetch a stick?
Here, I will spell it out for you. Poki (or anyone else) does not need an RNG to analyze data. The RNG is only needed to deal random cards. Poki is not dealing random cards, he is simply looking at data.
Now, to look at data, one needs baselines to compare to. So Poki calculated the baselines. To do this he listed out EVERY POSSIBLE 7 card runout (2 hole cards plus 5 community). From this list he counted up how many pairs, 2-pairs, 3oks, straights, flushes, full houses, 4oks, straight flushes and royals there were in those runouts. Since every runout happens the exact same amount of times (once) and since a random shuffle will over time tend to balance out to each runout exactly to an equal amount of times, these are the frequencies that randomly shuffled cards will gravitate towards over time.
And here are those baselines.
Now, in order to test whether or not replay is shuffling randomly, we need to collect data. this is the hard part since Replay does not support downloading had histories. However, Poki has done the work FOR you (you owe him a cookie). He has tracked hands played on replay (over 70k of them!!! wow!) and he has counted up how many pairs, 2-pairs, 3oks, straights, flushes, full houses, 4oks, straight flushes and royals occurred in those hands. From that he divides by the total hands and gets a frequency for each hand.
And here’s your data.
Now look at the half-red-half-green bars down the middle. Notice that the black marks in each of them are almost all dead on in the middle? That means that the frequencies match almost exactly the same as the baseline. That indicates random. You might notice royal and straight flush are wanked out of range (on the ends) but that’s because their frequencies are so low that they are susceptible to what statisticians call RSF (random sampling fluctuations). Take a statistics course and you will learn that on day 1 or day 2. But the rest are all nearly BANG ON to their baselines!
Now do you also see the ‘dealt cards’ graph in the middle left side? All of those red vertical bars all roughly the same height with no spikes or skews? That is what a RANDOM distribution looks like. Again, take a statistics course and that will be probably day 3.
The deals are so random that they are effectively white noise.
So Poki has done all of your math work for you to try to prove that Replay is not random, and the results show that Replay is in fact very VERY random and your theory has been thoroughly and utterly DISPROVEN. ; )
You’re welcome. Now give Poki his cookie (and stop your crusade). And that’s the last stick that this dog is fetching for you.
The results of 5 ‘tables’, (lool). 1 Replay table, 4 tables created using my programming RNG. Sorry, i had not the time to play all this hands on Replay, lol. I can look after playing what luck i had on a table.
The numbers for dealt min/max look not correct, can be i have the pixelhight of the graphic on it, i made it > 1 year ago.
All random. It gets better and better.
168 hands on Mississippi River:
5,000 hands:
20,000 hands:
1,000,000 hands:
10,000,000 hands, here is most perfect:
1,000,000 or more random hands needed, to have the 169 hole cards where they should be.
Thanks, I understood your formula which is when I realized how you came up with the odds and probabilities for your table. Like I had stated previously I thought you had created a poker hand simulation program.
What exactly is the meaning of 201%?
And why are you multiplying by 200 hands?
Wouldn’t every one of the 6 players be expecting Quads in any given hand to also be 0.1681%?
There’s only 3 ways Quads can occur in 7 cards, a pair, a set or 4 cards hitting the board. I’ve never said Quads would never occur since the 0.1681% indicates it will happen.
Multiplying 0.1681% by 6 doesn’t make sense to me since probability % is not additive or cumulative but it is exponential.
It appears to me you’re saying given Quads are expected 1 in 595 hands and since you haven’t seen Quads in 594 hands then it’s 100% that the next hand will be Quads. Or you flip a coin and there is a 50% chance of heads but if you have 2 people flip a coin doesn’t mean there’s a 100% chance both are heads.
My view is each hand has a 0.1681% probability of seeing Quads. The reason I’ve been posting that I’ve seen Quads almost every HE session is because I don’t think it should be occurring frequently.
My point was that you don’t play every hand. If you fold 3-400 while playing 200, there’s a good chance you’ll see a set of quads almost once a day on average.
It’s absolutely additive. Think about the case where there are 3 of a kind on the board. Every single hand you deal adds linearly to the probability someone will have the 4th of that kind.
We don’t want to count 4 of a kind on the board six times, so technically you can’t just multiply by 6 (giving 1 in 99 odds), but it’s a close enough approximation to the actual odds of 1 in 112.
The 200% I got just represented roughly how many times you should see quads in a 200 hand session, or roughly twice. The percentage of 200 hand sessions you’d expect to see quads in if playing six handed is:
1 - (111 / 112)^200 = 83%
There appears to be some confusion on my part since by the time the set hits the board everyone has already been dealt their hole cards. Remember a set on the board given a board of just 5 cards if it frequently occurs wouldn’t that raise some concerns with you of a random shuffle given, that we’ve discussed that Replay doesn’t burn cards before each street.
