I bet if you surveyed every player on Replay, the percentage of players who consistently win and have had to buy chips would be small. I have yet to buy chips. Some days I do very well. Other days, not so much. Since I’ve never heard anyone use “Replay River”, I can only assume you made up the term. The only thing mind blowing is your insistance that it’s necessary to buy chips in order to win. People let their egos dictate their thinking to the point of conspiracy theories instead of acknowledging that maybe they aren’t very good poker players.
3 Likes
I started playing here in 2015. I used the first time discount and bought something like 620,000 chips for $20 USD. I did this because I wanted to play the 20k buy-in MTTs without grinding out a bank at the lowest levels. This was money well spent.
And now, 7 years later, I’m still playing the same tournies. My bank has grown, slowly because I don’t play a lot, but month after month. Obviously, I have not been “factored into their algo,” and if their software is programmed for me to lose, they should learn to code, because I’m not losing.
Buying chips once doesn’t mean you WILL buy more chips eventually. If I buy chips and get one whiff of some funny business, why would I ever buy into a rigged game again?
In this year’s live PokerGo Cup, event 5, the board came 5s 6s 7s 8s 9s, in that order. This doesn’t mean the deal was rigged. Unlikely events happen, and the more hands you see, the more goofy ones you will encounter. Every hand? I think not.
All of your statements are wrong, at least in my experience.
4 Likes
Agree, I play here because its not rigged, I buy chips recreationally and if for 1 second I did not trust then would not play
and trust me buying chips does not make you win 
To all if you can find a better free site than Replay, good luck with that - There is not one. its random, replay does not know what you as a users sits and then decides to change your cards. Replay is not some dodgy site it is trusted, has a great community
But I am very disappointed that when I ask the Replay dealer for a Gin and Tonic I am ignored, pfft so rigged that other players get a G+T and not me
Tiggs xx
6 Likes
It sticks in my craw every time I see anyone complaining about the good folks that support this great site by making a chip purchase from time to time. You fine folks that use the “I never buy chips” as a badge of supposed courage, need to thank the folks that offer a token of their support. It makes no difference if you support the site or not. But you are playing here, free of charge, if you choose. In your theory you should praise Replay for your wins as well as condemn for your losses. I think you would find that you will come out ahead, if you are the player you say you are. Thank you all for being here, enjoy.
8 Likes
Here ya go Tiggs…
6 Likes
So the Eternal Discussion got underway again, somewhat hijacking (but peripherally related) to the “Something fishy going on” thread, and I thought I’d try to bump it here with a couple of thoughts.
I think we can all agree that Replay uses a RNG. The problem is that to some, the RNG seems flawed. They notice “patterns,” so how random can it be; or they see things that they consider to be near statistical impossibilities; or even taking it as far as they never seem to win, so the game must be rigged against them in particular.
First, I’d suggest the “pattern” argument be dropped. Of course you see patterns. We all see patterns. And when we see a pattern, we tend to remember and amplify that pattern. It’s human nature. The fact that you see patterns in otherwise random things is not unusual - it’s quite normal. The pattern we see of billions of years of asteroid strikes on the moon creating the “man in the moon,” ink blot tests where you see butterflies, or Captain America smoking a joint, or Godzilla making pancakes, etc. etc. (I had an active imagination as a child). Seeing patterns in random things is normal, not unusual.
Statistical impossibilities? Compared to what? I’ve seen quad Aces get beat by a Royal Flush in a live game,
so how about we let that one go? If it can happen, it will happen.
The game targeting you personally? I know this is a small minority (but you are out there), and I’m just not going the tinfoil cap road anymore. If that’s what you believe so be it. Tighten up that cap and party on, Garth!
Now, having said all that I do have an honest question based on the statement we’ve seen posted about how “the deal” works at Replay using the RNG. A question for someone smarter than me to answer, so here it is, as provided by Craig_Anthony:
This was previously posted by Gatzby in the fairness debate thread.
Here’s how the dealer works: For each hand, we create a new deck deck of cards ordered lowest to highest. A card is then randomly selected from that deck and put it into another deck. This process is repeated until every card has been randomly selected from the first deck and moved to the second deck. After the second (entirely random) deck is complete, the dealing process begins from the top of the deck just as you would have in real life poker. As mentioned before, this process has absolutely no knowledge of anybody’s hands or previous decks.”
So there it is. And I get how that works, and it sounds reasonable to me in order to accomplish a level of “randomness” as best we can. However, it seems this process is done once and the cards are then dealt.
Well, who deals after one shuffle? Would it not makes sense to have the program repeat this shuffle at least three times or so before dealing? Or would that not really make a statistical difference in the randomness of the shuffle so why bother? Just curious if there is some mathematician out there with an answer.
2 Likes
if the first shuffle is random, three shuffles won’t be any more random.
What I don’t get is the people insisting that Replay publish their actual algorithm. If they don’t trust the 3rd party certifications, and they don’t believe Replay when they say their deal is fair, why would they believe that any algorithm they could publish is the one they actually use? Haters gonna hate, nothing Replay can do will change that.
4 Likes
That’s kind of the way I was thinking, but for a hand shuffle - say riffle style - I read that four to seven shuffles are needed to truly have randomized the deck - so why not the same with a RNG? I’m assuming it is the nature of the two (riffle vs. RNG) shuffles that makes the difference - just not sure of the “why.”
2 Likes
Well, in a riffle shuffle, cards are released in “clumps” of 2 or 3. Also, the cards near the top will stay near the top, those at the bottom stay near the bottom, and so on. One riffle shuffle will never yield a randomized deck. It’s possible for the second riffle shuffle to put the cards back into their original order!
The way Replay does it avoids these problems and is far more random than physical shuffling.
Edited to add: by the way, this is why most casinos don’t riffle shuffle. These days, they mostly use shuffling machines, but some still spread the cards on the table and “wash” them, which is far better than a riffle shuffle.
2 Likes
it doesn’t make any sense at all to me.
Makes perfect sense to me. Try it with a real deck, but you;re going to need 52 people (don’t want any one person’s bias to draw from a certain area to affect the shuffle). Hold a deck out before the first person with their eyes closed. Have them spin around three times then pull out one card and put it on the table. Repeat with the 51 other of your closest friends, each laying their card on top of the other.
Do you not have a randomly shuffled deck on the table when done? If not, tell me why not?
(probably don’t need to make them spin around three times - I just thought it would be funny if one of them bounced into the wall or something)
2 Likes
“It’s possible for the second riffle shuffle to put the cards back into their original order!”
Never thought of that, but yeah - that would be true, wouldn’t it? Shuffling cards is kind of mindblowing. A deck well-shuffled seven times is most likely to have an order of cards never seen in all of the shuffles since the beginning of time that occurred before! That’s what an 8 followed by 67 zeros gets you - more combinations that the estimated atoms contained on earth!
2 Likes
have done shuffle with a real deck. every time someone has a pocket pair on here, there is multiple pocket pairs. with a real deck, a pocket pair rarely pop up let alone multiple pocket pairs. I dealt 9 handed.
Ive done that too. I fact, somewhere way way back on this thread I posted my attempt at shuffling and then dealing 100 hands and comparing them to my last 100 hands on Replay.
I stopped well before 100 as the “patterns” I was seeing were quite consistent with the “patterns” I saw on Replay. Plus, do you know what kind of look your wife gives you as you sit there dealing out cards to invisible players and tallying the results of all hands? Yeah - I’m still married - but barely.
Having said that - your result and my result - neither are surprising. We’d need to deal thousands of hands to approach any real meaningful results. Our experiments were anecdotal at best.
2 Likes
so you with real deck of cards got same result as I did? hardly any pocket pairs? yet on here pocket pairs are like on old McDonald had a farm. pocket pair here pocket pair there a pocket pair every where.
I can’t buy into this whole certificate thing and its random
1 Like
Anyone who actually sees patterns should be able to take advantage of them. They should have all of the chips by now. If you think flushes hit more often than they should, for example, stay in and take your flush draw and you should come out way ahead.
I think that people look for some reason to explain why they can’t win. It can’t possibly be because they don’t understand the game, because they do well in their home game, when playing with other people who don’t understand the game.
If they took the time they waste looking for some external cause, and used it to actually learn how to play, i think the algorithm would suddenly seem OK to them.
5 Likes
problem is I rarely hit my flushes/straights . everyone else though chases and chases against me just hits 99.99% of the time. I flop a straight and 2 suited cards are out there I can’t bet it cause by river they’ll hit it. so, yes I do take advantage of these patters.
KK I can’t do nothing with those because someone will have Ax and somewhere a ace hits the board. if a ace doesn’t hit the board then they got AA
today had QQ raised got called A on flop. it never fails
its so funny that when I am suited, again it is wrong suit that hit flop.
1 Like
I didn’t say that. I said I got results consistent with my previous hands in terms of winning hands - pairs, two pairs, straights, flushes, full house, etc. etc.
My results were consistent with what I saw in my Replay hands.
Your results may have been completely different.
we wasn’t talking about winning hands. we was talking about how many times with a real deck that’s been shuffled that a pocket pair appeared when dealt 9 handed. now you’ve gone in a different direction
So you give them a free card - infinite pot odds - and complain about the algorithm?
Bet enough to make chasing a mistake and you will eventually come out ahead.
1 Like