If each is only "lucky" one hand in ten, you need to play sharp to stand a chance. There's always one winner per hand, barring a tie. It would be relatively easy to check/fix, If they say they've checked that, I believe them. If you don't SPECIFICALLY KNOW what the modulo-, index-, and other bugs can arise in a Fisher-Yates when you change the number of cards, then my original post would be meaningless to you. I was making a specific technical suggestion for something that can happen if you apply a 52-card algorithm to a 6-deck boot. (isn't that what hurts most? Ppl don't complain as much when beaten by a better hand that had them outranked from before the flop - well SOME do, but they're SO CERTAIN that their (semi)bluffs are SO CLEVER that there must be rampant cheating. consistent patterns of specific PP vs PP pairings), so I know where ppl are coming from, but what I've seen in the past year and a half in poker corresponds well with what I'd expect, when you adjust for the high percentage of ppl who play long shots. I'll admit that I saw some SERIOUSLY improbable-seeming patterns my first month or two (e.g. As a VIP+ who doesn't buy chips (okay, I bought an inexpensive hat package when I first started, but it was October, leading up to Halloween), I don't doubt their claims of a fair RNG.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |