Freedom of speech goes a long way in a democracy and, for the record, i'm here because I have a sports betting account. I don't need to justify that but those running this site should have to justify bad software and should be made accountable and in a transparent way. But if you have independent evidence of the scrutiny and evidence based accuracy of software then let me have it. It will contradict my exploration of hand production and outcomes from AA to Royals and more besides, all in the positive. How is that if the software isn't behaving in the positive production? Anyone erudite enough to give alternative explanation to what everyone witnesses at these tables?
The current bodies and regulations for scrutiny are non-existent and it takes more than a moan to the gambling commission to get scrutiny and impossible to get accountability. Like most sports and games, poker is tarnished by those that corrupt it at it's source, and the online market is the obvious place to do that. The cold deck of algorithms is by definition corruptable and by complication of reproducing almost infinite outcomes, the online game is only as good as the investment into the software. If you understand that perfection is impossible you have to understand that only a negative or positive value is applied to the software. Positive values create more hand production both pre and post flop and therefore create more gambling, more action and more profit to the site, until they can no longer sustain credibility that is, which skypoker has struggled with for a long time.
As for choice, or not complaining, I pay my way and that earns me the right to demand better, whether it's forthcoming or not and those here that wish to deny anyone wishing to complain are at the root of the problem. Within any collective it is the sycophants that drown out democracy and the fawning foolish that argue black is white and to maintain the consensus. Wake up and smell the coffee or at least give me something intelligent to reply to, rather than sycophantic adoration for SKY,........ poker, that has the international notoriety if not the sense to stretch the game there!
As for p'stars collapsing in on itself- well last I looked they were still market leaders?
And if you believe that a company as big as Sky are corrupt (I know, they only have 20% share of the gambling empire now, but still) then you may as well just give up online poker entirely. Their company revenues dwarf that of Amaya (the owners of stars) and so if Sky are corrupt, we may as well assume that all online poker is bent.
I don't believe that to be the case so I continue to play. If you do, just quit all of it. Stick to playing live from now on.
* I may have not used the most up to date link from the Sky site - presumably there has been a more recent RNG audit than 2009?
So let me get this straight... The guy is saying that Sky is corrupt, unregulated, unaccountable and their RNG is skewed and that they are completely unstrustworthy so his conclusion is...
He wants them to upgrade their software?
If you thought a company was corrupt and trying to fleece you... Why the (insert expletive here) would you want them to 'sort their software'?
If I was of the opinion a company was corrupt I coudn't give a 'Castlemine 4X' what they done with their software I simply wouldn't be playing on the site, period.
For such a mathematics expert it seems your ability to juggle a couple of variables and come to a solid conclusion is ever so slightly lacking.
*calculator still hasn't arrived from ebay & starting to suspect this is a level*
@shakinaces- all licences are given under terms agreed by industry standards, effectively self governing and p*ssing in the same pot if you'll pardon the age old reference. However, your point is understood but those audits are undertaken within the scope of those governing bodies that allow for certain criteria being met but by no means is that a standard that compares with a real deck. If you look further you will find that there are ' expected parameters' that must be met but they, like any gambling software allowances, are subject to falling within a range of accuracy: they are not expected to be an 100% replication of a deck of cards. If you look even further you will find dissenting voices that hold greater weight than mine but you will also find it's supporters and a general attitude of 'it is what it is', a bit like FIFA perhaps, if you take my meaning.
I recognise you're point of view and were it possible in the general scheme of things I would go back to playing live, as it was when I started, many years ago but there isn't the opportunity in the same way. I play whenever I'm attached to sportsbetting (your comments regarding SKY and the bigger picture is my reason for being here) and that's due to my coming from a family of bookmakers, I probably should heed your advice and exercise a vote with my metaphorical feet, which will no doubt happen again because I know the SKYpoker package could be massively improved.
@markycash- for someone that has been complaining about donks at the lowest cash tables, "playing a range as low as 84o", I feel I'm not in any way pressured to test my math against yours, or the factual research I've done, that includes touting for information from most available bodies and avenues for critical information that questions the veracity of software and other related issue's. The vested interests aren't angels but falling short of dumping bodies in the ground, they're no doubt a sight better than those that ran Vegas and the world of gambling, including poker, previously- they were called the MAFIA if you didn't know.
p.s any assumption that SKY is somehow reputable by way of an ethical standpoint because they are so BIG, is a bit much to be honest. Remember the phone-hacking scandals? Any company, however large or small, capable of overseeing that is capable of almost anything and increasing revenue at the expense of ethical opinion, for giant corporations the world over, is an absolute industry standard- until they get caught that is.
p.s any assumption that SKY is somehow reputable by way of an ethical standpoint because they are so BIG, is a bit much to be honest. Remember the phone-hacking scandals? Any company, however large or small, capable of overseeing that is capable of almost anything and increasing revenue at the expense of ethical opinion, for giant corporations the world over, is an absolute industry standard- until they get caught that is. Posted by Diogenes
Thanks for starting this debate Diogenes , im following daily.
I see youve played 120 tournies on sky and are down 235 quid , im over 600 quid down, playing 1200+ tournies. So, im not doing too good.
Im not suspicious of Sky and am happy to play here daily.
Ive won my share of hands that I didnt even belong in, Ive been knocked out by ATC more than I care to mention.
I think , 'if I improve my game, my result will improve' .
Im only human and if my thinking is flawed , well, im here to learn.
Now, if your correct and its actually the RNG thats flawed....I probably should change my thought process.
Maybe I dont need to improve at all, if they fixed the RNG, I could actually be up the top a winning player, where me and you both deserve to be, and most of the players that do well on sky, they will be down the bottom , where they belong.
When you say the RNG isnt quite right , how exactly are you suggesting its tweaked in the wrong direction ?
I ask because, I dont see how SKy can benefit from having a broken RNG, the money sky make comes from the Rake, they care nothing about the outcome of the cards .
@mumsie- 120 tournies and down £235, thats outrageous. However, given I'm most often getting smashed with the best cards and my chips in good, I fail to see the significance? Running bad with good cards, perhaps? Running bad with miracle beats, maybe? AA running (apparently) something like 3 or 4 times the expected standard but still expecting to lose with em, could be? Then the general play of those that ship any 2 in any situation and somehow manage to find those miracle 1 and 2 outers, got to be a chance of that and me playing like a **** of course, particularly when tilting and fishing due to the aforementioned.
Truth is, though I can't admit to playing perfect poker, any slight deviation from those outcomes, what I would call normal results or results within expected probability, I reckon I'd be doing just fine and showing a profit. As it is, £200 is a good p*ss up, maybe I should go out more instead?
To answer your question regarding RNG's, it might help for you to be aware of a strange fact; that since the first deck of cards was invented and every other deck of cards thereafter, there has been no 2 shuffles placing the cards in the same position throughout the deck (thats big math). If you think the RNG investment of your average poker site is capable of matching that then you might wish to understand the implications better. The resulting outcome of trying, if you cannot replicate it !00% is something either in the negative or positive range, there is no other possibility. I ran nearly 500,000 hands through a poker analyser with pokerstars and found my predictions to be mostly right and all in the positive range, whether starting with high pairs and the usual suspects or hand outcomes right through to the river. I did the same here with a much smaller sample, twice, and it was worse and within these latest 120 tournies I'm already witnessing the same.
Perhaps you would enlighten me?
@all- I have my money in banks, I vote for political parties, I buy product from a massive range of corporations, I have private pensions and I have donated to various charities over the years. Guess what? They have mostly all been found to be corrupt- are you going to ask me why I still use them too?
120 MTTs? Monster sample size. Running 500,000 hands through a poker analyser. Man, really wish my life was as exciting and fulfilled as yours. Posted by hhyftrftdr
The 120 tournies was promoted by someone else? Like I had to personally do the analysis on the 500,000 or might it have been done for me ffs? Geez, that's the level of intelligence I'm aiming my comments at- moment of clarity!!!!
@all- I have my money in banks, I vote for political parties, I buy product from a massive range of corporations, I have private pensions and I have donated to various charities over the years. Guess what? They have mostly all been found to be corrupt- are you going to ask me why I still use them too?
In Response to Re: SORT YOUR SOFTWARE : The 120 tournies was promoted by someone else? Like I had to personally do the analysis on the 500,000 or might it have been done for me ffs? Geez, that's the level of intelligence I'm aiming my comments at- moment of clarity!!!! Posted by Diogenes
''Here mate, I've had AK beaten by JT twice in a row, can you run half a million hands through this please? Cheers''.
To answer your question regarding RNG's, it might help for you to be aware of a strange fact; that since the first deck of cards was invented and every other deck of cards thereafter, there has been no 2 shuffles placing the cards in the same position throughout the deck (thats big math). If you think the RNG investment of your average poker site is capable of matching that then you might wish to understand the implications better. The resulting outcome of trying, if you cannot replicate it !00% is something either in the negative or positive range, there is no other possibility. Posted by Diogenes
Where is your proof? Both that it has never happened with a live deck - or that among hands you've been dealt on any poker site, this has happened to you?
lol @ the thought that a small sample of hands from no more than 120 MTT games is going to provide some sort of statistical evidence comparable to that provided by a 500k hand PT/HEM database analysis.
Am surprised the thread hasn't been removed yet - I do congratulate you on your trolling skills
Im not a mathematical wizzkid I am a NAN. Like 90% of people I play for fun and hope I win some times Ive won a bit of cash which is fantastic and had the opportunity of playing for some fabulous prizes like trips to Vegas etc. If you are that unhappy what the **** are you doing still playing on the site and moaning and insulting those of us who really really enjoy playing on this site. All the doubletalk and inuendo's does nothing but give me a headache. We are happy on this site and you obviously are not so find another site pretty please. lots of good luck Nannypat66
In Response to Re: SORT YOUR SOFTWARE : Where is your proof? Both that it has never happened with a live deck - or that among hands you've been dealt on any poker site, this has happened to you? lol @ the thought that a small sample of hands from no more than 120 MTT games is going to provide some sort of statistical evidence comparable to that provided by a 500k hand PT/HEM database analysis. Am surprised the thread hasn't been removed yet - I do congratulate you on your trolling skills Posted by shakinaces
I didn't reference the 120 tournies as a mark for scrutiny, somebody else did, but the 500,000 hands were mine and the simple process of investing in a software programe that collates information for reference, was to check everything from gameplay to hand production and outcomes. I used it through all the sites I played and with good reason, you seem not to understand?
As for proof that such hasn't happened with regard the math required to shuffle a deck of cards the same way twice, why don't you do some math yourself? Reason why not, you can't and that's why your comments are nonsense. Do the numbers or don't comment and make yourself look stupid. Let the troll police do their worst and remove the post, I won't lose sleep over being better informed than you and you skriking through ignorance.
Comments
He wants them to upgrade their software?
If you thought a company was corrupt and trying to fleece you... Why the (insert expletive here) would you want them to 'sort their software'?
If I was of the opinion a company was corrupt I coudn't give a 'Castlemine 4X' what they done with their software I simply wouldn't be playing on the site, period.
For such a mathematics expert it seems your ability to juggle a couple of variables and come to a solid conclusion is ever so slightly lacking.
*calculator still hasn't arrived from ebay & starting to suspect this is a level*
I see youve played 120 tournies on sky and are down 235 quid , im over 600 quid down, playing 1200+ tournies. So, im not doing too good.
Im not suspicious of Sky and am happy to play here daily.
Ive won my share of hands that I didnt even belong in, Ive been knocked out by ATC more than I care to mention.
I think , 'if I improve my game, my result will improve' .
Im only human and if my thinking is flawed , well, im here to learn.
Now, if your correct and its actually the RNG thats flawed....I probably should change my thought process.
Maybe I dont need to improve at all, if they fixed the RNG, I could actually be up the top a winning player, where me and you both deserve to be, and most of the players that do well on sky, they will be down the bottom , where they belong.
When you say the RNG isnt quite right , how exactly are you suggesting its tweaked in the wrong direction ?
I ask because, I dont see how SKy can benefit from having a broken RNG, the money sky make comes from the Rake, they care nothing about the outcome of the cards .
Running 500,000 hands through a poker analyser. Man, really wish my life was as exciting and fulfilled as yours.
lol @ the thought that a small sample of hands from no more than 120 MTT games is going to provide some sort of statistical evidence comparable to that provided by a 500k hand PT/HEM database analysis.
Am surprised the thread hasn't been removed yet - I do congratulate you on your trolling skills
I am a NAN. Like 90% of people
I play for fun and hope I win some times
Ive won a bit of cash which is fantastic and had the opportunity of playing for some
fabulous prizes like trips to Vegas etc.
If you are that unhappy what the **** are you doing still playing on the site and
moaning and insulting those of us who really really enjoy playing on this site.
All the doubletalk and inuendo's does nothing but give me a headache.
We are happy on this site and you obviously are not so find another site pretty please.
lots of good luck
Nannypat66