Unless Replay is deliberately manipulating the deck, each player would be effected by the algorithm the same way. I don’t see any reason for Replay to do something that could potentially make people leave the site.
GREAT POINT! 95% of players either all in on every hand or drop out without ante! Honestly, which makes more sense: putting up chips that could win or not even trying? I’ve actually played on 50/100 tables where players surrender 50 chips and leave! If they just want to dump chips, who am I to refuse them?
1 Like
Well first off, Aces wired loose a lot of the time. Keep in mind that although they are Aces, they are still just a pair and even 3/2 offsuit can beat them if they catch a duce and a trey on the flop. Yep, it seems like I go through weeks of straights and full house hands that get beat at the river by a nothing hand, and the odds are astronomical for those hands to fill but it happens all the time. They have a saying for that. It’s, " That’s Poker for Ya". End of story.
2 Likes
Poker algorithms are used in online poker to shuffle and distribute cards fairly.
In live poker, the dealer shuffles the deck of cards manually, and the order of the cards will be determined by chance.
Algorithms used in online poker are designed to ensure that the game is fair and unbiased.
They are not intended to manipulate the deck of cards in any way
The RNG combined with an algorithm works in what way?
Random number generators (RNGs) are used in online poker to shuffle and distribute cards fairly. An RNG is a software algorithm that generates a sequence of numbers that cannot be predicted better than by random chance 1. The algorithm uses a seed value to generate the sequence of numbers, which is then used to shuffle the deck of cards 1. The seed value is typically generated using a combination of factors, such as the current time and the player’s actions, to ensure that it is truly random 1.
The output of an RNG is not truly random, but rather pseudorandom. This means that the sequence of numbers generated by the algorithm appears to be random, but it is actually deterministic and can be reproduced if the seed value is known 1. To make the output more random, multiple independent RNGs can be combined using a bit-wise XOR operation to provide a combined RNG that is at least as good as the best RNG used 1.
Is it possible for a poker algorithm to manipulate the deck of cards?
Yes, it is possible for a poker algorithm to manipulate the deck of cards. However, it is important to note that algorithms used in online poker are designed to ensure that the game is fair and unbiased. It is also possible to manipulate a poker algorithm by tampering with the random number generator (RNG) used to shuffle and distribute cards 3. However, reputable online poker sites use RNGs that are designed to be cryptographically secure and cannot be easily manipulated 3
2 Likes
“Free poker sites may not have the same level of security measures as reputable online poker sites. Therefore, it is possible that their algorithms may be more susceptible to manipulation.”
4 Likes
Exactly, as this hand points out.
2 Likes
I don’t play usually when the hands are always played to completion because its free and some don’t have a clue how to play. That changes the way hands are perceived. Money is the difference. Players won’t stay in with money at stake. But will play every hand with nothing at stake. Big hands, Crazy hands, straights that are wild. Hands get a chance to succeed with replay.
Actually, a purely pseudo RNG would make the behavior people describe less likely than a true RNG. Because they cycle, it would be very unlikely or perhaps even impossible to produce the same deck twice in a row with a pRNG, but that would be as likely as any other outcome with a truly random shuffle.
In any case, the cycle length for a pRNG with 32 bits of internal state, which is extremely low, is over 4 billion. Even if there was only 1 pRNG running for the whole site that has never been reseeded, you can be sure that no human would have detected the pattern.
The RNG certificate verifies that computer testing couldn’t even detect any patterns, so you really don’t need to worry about any form of bias in the RNG.
Interesting side note - an actual dealer shuffle is going to have some sort of bias a lot of the time. It is possible to manually shuffle cards in a way that passes tests for randomness, but it’s unlikely a dealer is shuffling the cards that rigorously every time. Case in point, it was recently proved that tossing a coin is biased - not because of the coins themselves, but because of the way most people flip coins, which makes them slightly more likely to land the same way up as they stared.
I’m trying to piece this together what I know and experienced.
I mentioned before that I noticed a repeating hand 36 then 45 in the flop and a 2 rivered 100% of the time.
This happened multiple times enough to be noticed and utilized before disappearing forever.
How did that particular hand get in the algorithm in the first place?
What caused it to disappear?
Why is such a hand repeating over and over?
Is the pRNG output being controlled / reproduced when the seed value is known?
Is this how they get hands to repeat?
Is the repeating hand just added into the algorithm to repeat every 2000 hands for example?
The repeating hand shouldn’t have been there if the RNG is truly random.
Maybe as this conversation continues, more understanding of the algorithms will occur.
Have you ever noticed the frequency of Quads being dealt while you’re playing at your tables?
I’ve posted this many times and I have provided screen shots of several examples of my hand history to show I’ve experienced them which I felt was more than a normal occurrence.
I’ve never claimed the RNG was rigged on here but instead I think there’s a flaw. I’m not into conspiracies. And, I don’t believe in coincidences.
1 Like
Hands will absolutely repeat in a truly random sequence. In fact, getting the exact same deck as exactly as likely as any other configuration. The odds of both are vanishingly small, but the deck has to end up in some order.
What this means is that if you look at any small sample of hands you’re going to be able to see some pattern that has extremely low odds. It would only be unexpected and an indication that something was wrong if it held over a very large sample.
I would note that 36 is just about always going to continue to the river on a 45 flop. I don’t think hitting a 2 on the river is all that rare given that
1 Like
I must admit I thought this site was rigged when I first started playing because I saw quads at what seemed like far to high of a rate in my first few hundred hands. I also saw a straight flush get beaten by a royal. I changed my mind fairly quickly though and haven’t noticed anything since.
I am fully prepared to believe you see quads dealt at a much higher frequency than average though - and that doesn’t require anything to be rigged or for there to be a flaw in the RNG.
All the hands a single person has played represent small samples of all the hands dealt, and those samples are going to have a distribution of some kind. There’s going to be outliers on that distribution, so there will be players who see more quads than expected and other who see less.
1 Like
These random numbers can be reproduced using the seed value 12. Therefore, if you provide the same seed value to the PRNG, it will generate the same sequence of numbers every time 12.
In other words, if you know the seed value used by a PRNG, you can reproduce the same sequence of random numbers that were generated earlier 12. This can be useful in situations where you want to replicate results
I don’t know, it just seems like there is a way to deal the exact same deck more frequently.
Well, yeah, if you seeded a pRNG with the same value before each shuffle you would get exactly the same deck every time. I’m pretty sure everyone would have noticed if that was happening 
Periodically seeding a pRNG with the same value wouldn’t really explain what people are describing either. There can only be as many deck configurations as whatever period it’s updating reseeding at. If that’s < 1000, then there is a high percentage of hands and flops that will never get dealt, and again I think that’s something people would definitely notice. I don’t think many would notice getting the same deck as they had 1000 hands ago though, and realistically the period would have to be orders of magnitudes larger than that.
I guess in theory you could reseed a pRNG with the same value at a random period, but apart from wanting to mess with people and start very long discussion about the validity or your RNG, I have no idea why anyone would do that. I also can’t imagine a circumstance where that gets implemented by accident.
1 Like
Replay Poker hands out achievement awards.
There should be one called “Leave No Stone Unturned Award”
With that reply, you definitely earned that award.
It sure paints a picture.
A masterpiece!
With your kind act of assistance,
I can now safely say,
“All the stones that are in the path to understanding algorithms have been turned!”
We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.
1 Like
There is only a finite time that the RNG is totally random until it resets and the algorithm is reset. When that is is anyone’s guess. It could be the beginning, the middle or the end or anywhere in between before hands start to repeat themselves. Should start a company that tests the algorithm and sell RNG certificates for a fortune. Remember the shuttle and algorithms are set by the site’s programmers.
Im not insinuating anything, just stating the facts like on any online poker and video slot machines. Businesses are not in business to lose money and that’s a proven fact as any business owner will tell you.
1 Like
Since casinos make their money off of rake during a poker game, the rake on Replay only amounts to free chips. No money made, so no reason for Replay to rig anything.
1 Like
well i have played 12 games in 2 days and seen 17 quads just on the tabels im on but so what its free fun and same for all
I just looked at your last 200 hands and not a single quad.
1 Like
Maybe this player did not have them… says he ‘seen’ them… probably other players.