Honestly, this seems way more productive than the fairness debate itself 
I generally donât worry too much about giving away timing tells on Replay, but in the places where I do care, I want to let the clock run out to roughly the same point no matter what - how much time is actually necessary isnât a consideration.
The way I see this algorithm is that it is set up to eliminate players, no specific player favoured but to thin the herd. I have to question how most freerolls seen to have roughly the amount of players left give or take a few around the bubble mark at the first break no matter if thereâs 60 or 160 playing the tournament. And even though a large entry obviously will have more all-in clowns playing and getting bumped early I canât see that that being the difference. Iâm not sure if you can call that rigged but it is certainly controlled. Iâve lost count of how many tournaments where Iâve been dealt crap hand after another and never winning a single hand the whole game even when you get AA or KK
2 Likes
So if that was the case why did so many site close down because of the change to HTML. I was on a few puzzle sites that stated they couldnât afford the change and just shut down
Iâve saw a post before stating that the shuffle algorithm on here actually shuffles between every card dealt, which if correct should not be happening, a shuffle should only be between completed hands
1 Like
Hereâs one where a slow play got the money in. Flop from Heaven.
Not only the flop but that turn card was so lovely for me, and then that river! I was crying like âBeachesâ. I almost felt bad for Villain.
Finally won a heads-up but it took some buttluck. I could play another 50 years and never see a board so beautiful. (sniff)
Thatâs expected. Youâre going to lose roughly the same percentage of people each blind level, so you will usually end up with same number of players after some time. Add in the fact that youâll have more bad players in a bigger field, and itâs not surprising at all that they thin out to roughly the same numbers going into the first break.
Because puzzle games likely wouldnât be using a client/server architecture. Essentially the whole game would be the client, and it would have all been in flash, and all needed to be re-written. Even if only some of it was in flash though, small sites might not have the time or expertise to do the conversion.
Replay have stated before that the whole deck is shuffled before the hand begins. If your talking about re-shuffling the remaining deck after each card is dealt, that would make zero sense, and zero difference to the randomness of the deal.
If I were coding, shuffling the entire deck before the hand would be the way that Iâd do it as it would be the most efficient way to code it.
There are two main ways. The first is to randomly draw each card as it is needed. This is less efficient as it has to keep going back to the rng for the next number and keep track of the sequence (to not repeat any cards). The second is to call the rng once for a sequence of 52 and then play out the hand with that sequence. Itâs much simpler to code and quicker for the server to execute.
Read that on here a few year ago. Not sure if it was from anyone involved with the game though or just someone having a moan
Well, dealing the cards one by one will be more efficient, because it only has to run for cards that are actually dealt, otherwise theyâre equivalent. If youâre using a single RNG for multiple games though (which is a good thing to do because it adds a source of entropy), then you canât recreate the hand using just the internal state of the RNG when dealing one card at a time. You have to store every single card dealt, and you canât validate that the cards dealt match the RNG output after the fact.
The only really sane implementation is to shuffle the entire deck, and thereâs some shuffle algorithms where thatâs the only option.
I know which option my money is on
A post was merged into an existing topic: Practicing Patience
Lol!! I do the same thing, but I do vary every once in a while. I think this doesnât give out any tell for others to notice. Itâs situational whenever I vary the time to call or raise. I usually fold quickly no reason to prolong the game.
Why the long long pause for both the Turn and River call?
You Flopped the nutz. Replay doesnât show Vâs hand but taking a wild guess, he had a high card (Ace?) Flush.
I was just recently discussing players and long dramatic pauses. Apparently, you must think it gives an impression of uncertainty of your hand to the other player. A reasonable amount wouldâve been okay for the Turn but the River shouldâve been a snap call.
A lot of drama at the River is my point.
It shows for me. He had Asp 2di.
I put him all-in. He called me.
True,
Years ago, slow playing the River when you had the nutz was considered bad form. Players considered it rude since you were taking their money and sort of gloating.
I guess things have changed now with a new generation of poker players or maybe itâs just acceptable behavior on on-line sites or itâs now just acceptable in both areas. Since we play with Free Chips it also may be a reason itâs okay.
Iâm not trying to change your behavior or playing strategies but more of an informational comment. Like I said, it was years ago.
Well, some people consider taking any time at all to think about a spot and not just insta-clicking whatever button your mouse happens to be over at the time rude, but I donât believe waiting before raising an opponent has ever been considered bad form.
Waiting to call with the nuts, or slow rolling is a different story, and still very much frowned upon, but also very different to what happened here.
(1) I donât think this is rude.
(2) I wasnât implying this either. But a really long pause with each street one would start thinking the player has been watching too much TV and thinks they are in a drama show. A lot of players on here are doing this now.
(3) Are you still referring to post 3283 "Flop from Heaven"? Maybe you can re-watch it?
I realize sheâs probably new and learning (based on her prior posts) and was giving her basically a pass on it because as I wrote I wasnât even sure players felt that way anymore with all the changes occurring over the years. It was just my FYI, which can be considered or dismissed by her.
Yeah, were talking about the same hand. I wasnât trying to insinuate that you consider it rude or were complaining though. Sorry if that wasnât clear.
I donât see what napkin needs a pass on though. Stalling before raising on the river is perfectly legitimate and always has been.
Uhh, yes you kinda did.
You thought I had slowrolled (and probably didnât even know the term) which is and always has been bad etiquette, but you didnât watch the hand closely enough. There was still action to come from Villain so I have every right to undersell my strength here. There is nothing and never has been anything wrong with that.
Yes Iâm learning and always willing to learn but there is nothing in this example that you can teach me. In fact you could learn from me here. ; )
@Souljacker
From an old post by gatzby. At the time of the post gatzby was part of the replay team.
âHereâs 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 anybodyâs hands or previous decks.â
So it would appear that once the deck is created it is dealt off the top, one card at a time, like a physical deck and is table specific.
[/quote]
Good so you did re-watch the hand. Maybe my use of the word pass was incorrect here and I shouldâve used a different word which I still canât think of one right now.
This hand actually shows what usually is considered acceptable and unacceptable behavior when one has the nuts at the River. Her opponent also had the nut Flush and when faced with the decision to call the all-in, he really didnât hesitate.
The highlighted portion of your post conveniently omitted that the player had the nuts at the River call. Her opponent was going to go al-in with the nut Flush so no reason for an extended pause because he basically was Pot Committed at that point.
Why make someone needlessly sweat your call or raise at that point?
Iâm now curious when you previously wrote that stalling with the nuts at the River was still frowned upon. So, when would you have started frowning after watching the hand?