[quote=“county29, post:1233, topic:2578”]
Well, speaking for us winners on here
[/quote] ( comment sensored ) … 
[quote=“whoeverit, post:1232, topic:2578”]
Shakeraise even managed to pick up the bounty on chasetheriver on the way.
[/quote]and we all know they wanted bragging rights around the watercooler…
Plus its always good to stick it to the boss, when they can’t get mad …
Speaking of… Its Thursday… batter up ?
Usually I only play poker on the Replay Poker Site but today I tried a different poker site. The difference between the two sites was glaring. You could see the difference between the two sites five minutes into the game.
On this new site, I played in a tournament with 177 players, the game lasted just under 3 hours. The difference between this Site and Replay wasn’t anything you saw but rather what you didn’t see.
In the 3 hour game … here’s what I didn’t see. I never saw a Royal Flush, a Straight Flush or 4 of a kind… These are very common hands on Replay. I never saw a King high flush, get beat by an Ace high flush. With the exception of one time, did I see 3 Jacks get beat by 3 larger face cards. Very seldom did I see a small straight get beat by a large straight.
Now, here’s something I did see. I saw where a high card only, would sometimes win hands. Also about 35% of the time, a small pair would win the hand. And this was interesting. The small pair would win even when there was face cards showing on the board. Something that never happens on Replay.
I also noticed that if a pair came on the flop, probably 90% of the time, one of the other 8 players on the table, didn’t have the matching 3rd card. And lastly and most important, I saw the lack of monster hands at the show down between two players, like you see on Replay.
Never during this game, when I was dealt a pair down or a very strong beginning hand, did I feel like the computer program had dealt these cards to “set me up” for a loss by dealing a better hand to one of the other players. Players on Replay know this feeling well. We call it being “Replayed”.
My point of all this is that Replay is a fun site but it really needs to take a long look at their programming. On Replay not only do you need to beat the players, but even harder, you need to beat the computer program as well.
Just my two cents worth…
Morning GeeWiz.
After reading that lengthy post and all the positives about the other site I didn’t see you post about any negatives on the other site nor did I see you post anything positive about Replay.
Wondering why the post at all ?
You know as well as the others that no one is being " Set up " or " Replayed ".
Enjoy your day
Craig
Replay Rep for sure.
Come on Whittaker; that’s not fair. Nor is it accurate. Craig, like me, has the poker ability to earn at a good rate and as such does not need or desire to buy chips. Yet he felt, as did I, that we would like to volunteer to make the experience that much better. Player Reps are volunteers and very necessary to help people learn the vast aspects of the site, just as moderators are volunteers who help make the site cleaner. For the sake of showing the difference between what is called a “Players Rep” and a “Replay Rep” if Craig, who volunteers is as I described, Shakeraise, who is paid, is a “Replay Rep”. So please stop word-smithing the two. Indeed, why don’t you volunteer? I think you would like it and would do well.
There well may be a time when the players need a representative body because people are not getting a fair shake and are not getting their fair game. The fact is we who are critics are self appointed representatives, and as you have also experienced many of the ideas that have come from these “players reps” have been incorporated into the Replay Poker experience.
New subject please.
Scratch
Craig…since you, as a Replay Rep, decided to ignored the text and message of my post…I guess there was no good reason at all for the Post.
Will I continue to play on and enjoy Replay? Yes. It’s a fun site…I was just hoping to point out how the site could be improved.
I think it was fair Scratch.
GeeWiz made a respectful post in which he laid out his observations and experiences. I may not agree with his opinion but I have no reason to believe that it is not 100% his opinion.
That is the essence of player feedback, which is what this forum claims to desire.
On the other hand, the credibility of Craig’s posts are suspect in my mind because he is receiving things from Replay and every one of his posts reads like a Replay response. Maybe he just gets a title, maybe more.(we haven’t been told exactly how Replay compensates “Player Reps”)
If Craig has evidence or first hand experience that discredits GeeWiz’s post, let him present it.
Saying “You didn’t say anything nice about Replay, therefore you are wrong and you know it”…from somebody who has been selected by Replay to interact with the players…well I think identifying him as a Replay mouthpiece is fair, accurate, and evidence-backed opinion.
It is an established premise that, in any controversy, an opinion is to be given less weight if that opinion is coming from someone who receives anything of value from a particular side of that controversy,
I am saying, flat out, that in my opinion, Craig’s views on the integrity of Replay’s programming should be given less credibility than other random players because of Craig’s special relationship as a representative selected by Replay and rewarded by Replay.
To Craig & Scratch & other Player Reps,
I mean no disrespect to any of you personally.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with accepting a volunteer position and carrying out the duties of that position as you see them. The giving of your time is laudable.
Actually Whittaker, I have come to like you. What is worse I also suspect I am older than you and am likely losing my mind faster than you are losing yours. But I haven’t yet gotten to the level of thinking that there are dramas of scheming, plotting, and conspiring for chips, status, fame, or notoriety. The chips can’t get you on the subway. ESPN isn’t looking to interview even the top players here. And there is no organized crime family sending in their button men and threatening ownership for a piece of the action.
Craig, who I have never played against to my knowledge, may be a friend by the dint of me begging everybody to be my friend, and never even chatted with the man, is simply trying to help out and like me, is trying to ease out on what, to me, was just another version of GeeWiz’s signature theme of ReplayPoker is fixed for the advantage of some vague group of people. The enemy is not ReplayPoker and Craig. It isn’t me. There are no enemies. There shouldn’t be anything suspect in your mind or his.
There is real ■■■■ going down in this world, but it ain’t here.
Scratch
Hi GeeWiz. I didn’t ignore your text and message as a matter of fact I read it such that I decided to comment. I welcome all opinions and as such you should welcome mine.
I’m glad you enjoy Replay.
Stay positive my friend.
Craig
Thanks for the discussion on all this! We really appreciate the contributions of Scratch and Craig and all our other volunteers. They are all entitled to their opinions on what the company does, along with suggestions and forum posts, just like any other player. We really want to encourage discussion – even if that means criticism about how we do things. That’s how we get better. 
Regarding the RNG, we generally don’t add much to the topic since we’ve had this certified by a third-party, but I don’t think it’s productive to delete anyone’s thoughts on it. They do all get merged to this thread. We’ve had suggestions to get it updated, and as we very much care about trustworthiness, that’s on our radar.
I didn’t do so well this time … 
Congrats to everyone who won big bounties!!
Scratch…How in the world do you read my post and come to the conclusion that I believe… to quote you …“that the signature theme of Replay Poker is fixed for the advantage of some vague group of people.”** That is dishonest of you to imply that. Go back to my post and read it.
I simply stated that after playing on a different site, in my opinion, Replay’s programing needs some attention. If you are going to comment on my Post, at least be honest about what I said. Don’t twist the Post around to make yourself look good and imply the author of the Post wears a tin foil hat.
At this point I’m very sorry that I even wrote the post. I always thought that having a post was to receive feed back about the Site. Apparently I am wrong.
At this point I have had a change of heart. I now believe that the difference in the programing between the two sites was just a figment of my imagination. Thank you for setting me straight. I now understand that RePlay’s computer programing is perfect and there is just no room for improvement.
I now understand that any Replay players out there, that believe this site programing could be improved for the betterment of all it’s players… well…they are all just a bunch of fruit cakes.
I want to thank Whittaker for his response…he understood the Post.
I read all your posts and you are chronically negative and biased against ReplayPoker. In the latest post you created a mythical poker site and imagined hands as a basis for determining that Replay Poker is ill-programed. Wiz, come on.
Wow,
I have to say Craig… you did come off as " all up in Gee’s __ ", if you didn’t mean it that way no big deal, but after see’n a post somewhere on the deffinition of “player rep” , what a week ago or so, I’m even more confused now…
Sure we don’t vote for reps, but your comment sounded like it was from a community rep… I would think that a player rep, would rep for players with mgmt… or did I flunk english…If players were unable to contact staff directly, then sure we’d need a player rep… even as is, its fine to explain in length to someone like Craig, and let him talk to staff at thier convienience… but that almost assumes there is a chat client avail for me to go to Craig, and have that discussion… and there isn’t…
As for Gee’s post… I have had the same experience in a MTT here… gett’n “plain” cards, never see’n too much wierd stuff… then other times, its like Gee says it is here… What Gee fails to account for " possibly ", are those like me who have play’d 15+++ different online poker sties, and have knowledge of the limits of randomness from computers… I can say, that from my perspective, Replay seems more normal than other poker sites…
The conspiracy theory posts seem to be getting more insidious. Usually they are just bad players fooled by small sample sizes. But recently on this forum, there have been posts that pretend to systematically compare this site to other experiences and then become extremely defensive and evasive. They compared it to another site based on 1 day of playing or “five minutes into the site”, and yet they are certain that they have identified a difference. The person then claims that they never said the site was rigged at all, only that there is something slightly wrong with the programming, as if the implications weren’t exactly the same. It seems like these types of posts could be shills for other sites.
I have played a lot on Replay, and while I cannot vouch specifically for the RnG, there are plenty of “normal” poker hands where nobody has a great hand or nobody really connects with the flop. People have natural cognitive biases that make them remember the crazy hands, and especially in a free money site with many multiway pots, there will be a lot of big hands at showdown. The confidence based on little evidence and defensiveness displayed by these conspiracy theorists removes any shred of credibility.
The reason that I comment on these threads is not just that they are annoying and not because I am certain that I am correct, but because I at least understand how one would go about trying to assess the fairness of the site. None of these conspiracy theorists present the data and the sample size that they would need to actually make their point. I was curious about the deal at one point, so I looked back at hundreds of my previous hands, and I noticed that the distribution of hands and results was not actually that surprising.
If you want to make a case that something is wrong with the game, do this:
Here are some examples of anomalies that might be considered meaningful:
My point is that there is a relatively high probability of improbable outcomes occurring when looking at a large sample size (e.g., opponents flopping sets, losing with a flush to a full house, etc.), so to show that there is a problem, you would need either really really weird results (which I guarantee you will not find, based on my own 180,000 hands of experience) or tracking every single hand over a huge enough sample size to find smaller irregularities. I don’t believe that any conspiracy theorist would (or should) put in the time and effort it would take to actually develop the evidence of a problem.
Joe is so damn salient; ya gotta love it.
I have different theory… it is the “old folks home alone with nothing better to do” theory. Look, the truth is old folks do more than just drool a lot. We all know that. Down at the dog park where I go there is an 85 year old lady who has binoculars and she is always looking at the sky. Why? Because she sees hidden messages in the contrails of jet planes. When she recognizes a new message she gets very happy.
It is no wonder that people have their pet dramas, things they see that appear odd, different, and maybe even sinister. Hell, when you learn that Napoleon lives across the street, you want to tell people. So we get told about how Replay Poker is gaming us (couldn’t resist).
Some old people here see patterns, shifts, personalities in the face cards. Jacks remind some people of their uncle Jack. Queens remind others of New York City. And so on and so forth.
In the end it is harmless and I guess is fun. But it sometimes gets me aggravated.
Scratch
I got a better sample Joe,
Go play my fav MTT, the BB 500 B&R , and no kidding, go AI every hand for 28 minutes…
You’re thinking I’m crazy, but what happens is as they get chips and be more selective,
sure you see less ppls hands, but in the beginning, you see 4-5 ppl per hand…
you still get to see every flop, and every showdown usually for over 100 hands in a row…
You get a really good sense of how many times the hand that shudda won… won
and how many times some random crap won…
One possible take on all of this is the fact that, people that make loose calls do win a share of the overall hands they play. RNG won’t account for “in general” looser play… from site to site, buyin to buyin, ect ect ect… Looking at any data set, still can’t account for a higher % of donks… because you can’t see thier cards if they didn’t call the bet… unless you work for the site, and have the raw data of everyones hand…
Yes, I get it… they are saying there are more of xxxx kinda hands than there should be… I don’t buy that… I bet even if Replay created a numeric way for the person to the right of the dealer to cut the cards… ppl would then say somehow that, that gave Replay a opportunity to fix the deck.
I think of " fairness ", and I think… Leaderboard formulas, distribution of MTT buyins per 24 hrs, lack of higher buyin across all 3 types, format of promotions… but not really RNG issues.
That would be a way to test the fairness, but you would need to do it thousands of times. If somebody is all in with 77 and gets called by AA, the 77 will win ~20% of the time, so even if it was all in 77 vs AA every single hand, you would have to run it over 1,000 times to even start to see if it was fair.
If you run it 1,000 times and the results are
My point being that it takes a lot of sampling to tell if the deal is fair, even keeping the cards constant. Based on my experience, the result is closest to number 1, but it’s hard to measure scientifically. If somebody says “I lost to 77 with AA twice in the same day”, that is actually not that surprising of an outcome.