In Response to Re: SORT YOUR SOFTWARE : Diogenes is spot on this has been one of the best threads I've seen on here. I play every night and am noticing the same outcomes at critical moments with pocket A's or K's I do understand that we play many more hands online and I don't expect to always win. I love poker and will continue to play on this site regardless of whether my P&L goes further down or back up. I cannot get my head round how many times I bomb out of tournaments when going all in with the best hand. it seems to happen more often in either a big tournament or the bigger stack I am against calls with junk and then I get taken out. I have been on sky for a few years now. my biggest frustration is that I know I am a better player than my results show. my concern is that I will never make that next step up that I desire because of the crazy suck outs that happen far too often. I know this is a gambling site but surely if I am making good moves, calls etc I should eventually see signs of progress!? 99% of the people on here are good and i am enjoying their company at the tables. it would leave a really bad taste if all of us are being disadvantaged by something that Sky is deliberately doing with the software etc. i for one hope this is not the case.... Posted by The_Ruiner
I think the biggest gripe is nearly always about exit hands, as these hands are polarized.Players forget they have sat there for hours seeing nothing but the norm.
In Response to Re: SORT YOUR SOFTWARE : I really love how poker players will say and do anything to avoid looking in the mirror. Posted by hhyftrftdr
I like the community and have read with interest the posts people put up. I have seen lots of your comments on here and I cannot remember any of them being positive perhaps you should look in the mirror once in a while
In Response to Re: SORT YOUR SOFTWARE : I like the community and have read with interest the posts people put up. I have seen lots of your comments on here and I cannot remember any of them being positive perhaps you should look in the mirror once in a while Posted by The_Ruiner
I have a sunny disposition. Anyone on here who has met me will (hopefully!) back me up on that. I just cannot abide a certain type of 'personality' on this forum.
The entitled. The freeroll moaners. The RNG warblers. The riggies.
The day you start blaming the site for your shortcomings is the day you can't be taken seriously.
In Response to Re: SORT YOUR SOFTWARE : Could you expand on this bit please? I'm genuinely curious as to what you think Sky might be doing. My take is that you think that when a favoured player is all in then something happens with the software that makes them win. Correct? Posted by Jac35
thanks for replying. I don't have the answers of what sky's current set up is or the set up of their software in comparison to other sites as I am loyal to sky and stay away from other sites. I can only really comment on what I've seen with my own eyes and at times it is staggering to watch good play from me & others just get smashed with ridiculous cards at the tail end.
what is puzzling me is the regularity that I get in hands way ahead and then somehow the 2 outers appear and I'm left asking myself what I could have done differently! it feels like this happens night after night, although it probably isn't the case. I don't think my level of understanding the game, variance etc is where it should be to compete at this level perhaps? I have myself made terrible plays and got away with it with the help of an outrageous river, but not nearly as often as I make good plays and get turned over. my P&L confirms this to me. maybe I need to accept that what we have on sky is normal, it just seems too far fetched at times
In Response to Re: SORT YOUR SOFTWARE : thanks for replying. I don't have the answers of what sky's current set up is or the set up of their software in comparison to other sites as I am loyal to sky and stay away from other sites. I can only really comment on what I've seen with my own eyes and at times it is staggering to watch good play from me & others just get smashed with ridiculous cards at the tail end. what is puzzling me is the regularity that I get in hands way ahead and then somehow the 2 outers appear and I'm left asking myself what I could have done differently! it feels like this happens night after night, although it probably isn't the case. I don't think my level of understanding the game, variance etc is where it should be to compete at this level perhaps? I have myself made terrible plays and got away with it with the help of an outrageous river, but not nearly as often as I make good plays and get turned over. my P&L confirms this to me. maybe I need to accept that what we have on sky is normal, it just seems too far fetched at times Posted by The_Ruiner
Don't worry about what people think of your reasoning, it's sound. Deliberate corruption is different to an RNG product that is the best it could be, or not, as the case may be. It is possible to manipulate software but that is perhaps a scandal waiting to happen, though nobody would be surprised if it did. The issue is the replication of a shuffled deck and the software required to achieve that. The number generator is so enormous I don't think NASA and the like would have the capabilities to achieve it but there are super computers that do math for special reasons, like trying to find the next largest prime number and such like. Let me assure you of one thing, the providers of the software don't have one. What that means is the numbers (hands) are never replicating accurately enough the hand production and outcomes of a real deck. So, and here's the nub of it, parameters have to be set and a minimum standard is required to gain the licence, anything beyond the minimum would be down to the developers and the poker site to manufacture. It's that simple and, by all my reckoning and seemingly yours too, SKY doesn't appear to be doing more than the minimum and that standard is set to represent the site not the punter.
Doesn't mean it's rigged against you, or me, doesn't mean it's rigged at all but it means it's set within parameters that will achieve a given outcome in a general sense. Degrees of incidence are skewed in the positive because it wouldn't make sense to deliver a product that produced less of a good thing, the upshot is you get lots more big hands than probability would suggest and much more action as a result. The bad play rewards are just part of it and the high number of B.Hunters conceals everything behind mad gambling. The reason for that is good poker players want to play good poker and gamblers want to gamble, who should win those battles most often is just as you suspect but when it doesn't happen you are right to wonder why.
If it looks like a duck, walks like duck and quacks like a duck, it's because it is a duck. G.L and I praise your allegiance to the site without wetting your knickers like some others. Maybe you'll find a way to tweak your game into the positive, hope so.
In Response to Re: SORT YOUR SOFTWARE : Don't worry about what people think of your reasoning, it's sound. Deliberate corruption is different to an RNG product that is the best it could be, or not, as the case may be. It is possible to manipulate software but that is perhaps a scandal waiting to happen, though nobody would be surprised if it did. The issue is the replication of a shuffled deck and the software required to achieve that. The number generator is so enormous I don't think NASA and the like would have the capabilities to achieve it but there are super computers that do math for special reasons, like trying to find the next largest prime number and such like. Let me assure you of one thing, the providers of the software don't have one. What that means is the numbers (hands) are never replicating accurately enough the hand production and outcomes of a real deck. So, and here's the nub of it, parameters have to be set and a minimum standard is required to gain the licence, anything beyond the minimum would be down to the developers and the poker site to manufacture. It's that simple and, by all my reckoning and seemingly yours too, SKY doesn't appear to be doing more than the minimum and that standard is set to represent the site not the punter. Doesn't mean it's rigged against you, or me, doesn't mean it's rigged at all but it means it's set within parameters that will achieve a given outcome in a general sense. Degrees of incidence are skewed in the positive because it wouldn't make sense to deliver a product that produced less of a good thing, the upshot is you get lots more big hands than probability would suggest and much more action as a result. The bad play rewards are just part of it and the high number of B.Hunters conceals everything behind mad gambling. The reason for that is good poker players want to play good poker and gamblers want to gamble, who should win those battles most often is just as you suspect but when it doesn't happen you are right to wonder why. If it looks like a duck, walks like duck and quacks like a duck, it's because it is a duck. G.L and I praise your allegiance to the site without wetting your knickers like some others. Maybe you'll find a way to tweak your game into the positive, hope so. Posted by Diogenes
In Response to Re: SORT YOUR SOFTWARE : Don't worry about what people think of your reasoning, it's sound. Deliberate corruption is different to an RNG product that is the best it could be, or not, as the case may be. It is possible to manipulate software but that is perhaps a scandal waiting to happen, though nobody would be surprised if it did. The issue is the replication of a shuffled deck and the software required to achieve that. The number generator is so enormous I don't think NASA and the like would have the capabilities to achieve it but there are super computers that do math for special reasons, like trying to find the next largest prime number and such like. Let me assure you of one thing, the providers of the software don't have one. What that means is the numbers (hands) are never replicating accurately enough the hand production and outcomes of a real deck. So, and here's the nub of it, parameters have to be set and a minimum standard is required to gain the licence, anything beyond the minimum would be down to the developers and the poker site to manufacture. It's that simple and, by all my reckoning and seemingly yours too, SKY doesn't appear to be doing more than the minimum and that standard is set to represent the site not the punter. Doesn't mean it's rigged against you, or me, doesn't mean it's rigged at all but it means it's set within parameters that will achieve a given outcome in a general sense. Degrees of incidence are skewed in the positive because it wouldn't make sense to deliver a product that produced less of a good thing, the upshot is you get lots more big hands than probability would suggest and much more action as a result. The bad play rewards are just part of it and the high number of B.Hunters conceals everything behind mad gambling. The reason for that is good poker players want to play good poker and gamblers want to gamble, who should win those battles most often is just as you suspect but when it doesn't happen you are right to wonder why. If it looks like a duck, walks like duck and quacks like a duck, it's because it is a duck. G.L and I praise your allegiance to the site without wetting your knickers like some others. Maybe you'll find a way to tweak your game into the positive, hope so. Posted by Diogenes
In Response to Re: SORT YOUR SOFTWARE : me too thanks very much for the insight Posted by The_Ruiner
You have no chance of turning anything around if you listen to his tripe. You've played 10,000 games on here, this is a decent sample. Blaming the software/product is doing you no favours.
Ive been playing poker for only three years for fun mainly,but ive read many articles on how poker has changed from years gone by.
You have to adjust your game if need be, but to continue to berate SkyPoker's software is pointless.All RNG's are obviously a tad different, so your point is to berate skypoker for a change in software? You either feel hard done by, or think that sky are taking the mick.
When it comes to cards dealt ,ive watched many a final table on here, and you seldom see a street.Betting is the key,cards are often irrelevant.
You sound like a father on the touchline at kiddies footie match Reeeeeeffffffeeeerrree!!!!!!!!!.
Poker isn't a game simply defined by maths, when you take that in you may be less angry in life. Many factors are involved, pre flop post flop are pretty standard for even the novice like me, what doesn't seem to be considered are life factors, the guy who mis-clicks, chatting on another table and raises with junk and priced in, AA is not unbeatable, shouldn't be considered to be either. Other factors include folk who play for fun, there are many of us, we will call with junk, hit bottom pair and stay in, if you have a " monster " pre flop we are going nowhere and sometimes we beat your "unbeatable" hand.
There are so many things in life far more important than a game of poker, it will drive you mad if you keep thinking as you do and blaming rng, rigged, etc etc, as others have pointed out if you want to make money at the game study and take the beats cos they will happen.
Calling people names because they disagree is just childish, you seem a well educated chap, unfortunately you let yourself down in that aspect.
I would say good luck, but I honestly don't think you deserve it, wake up and smell the roses my good man.
Poker isn't a game simply defined by maths, when you take that in you may be less angry in life. Many factors are involved, pre flop post flop are pretty standard for even the novice like me, what doesn't seem to be considered are life factors, the guy who mis-clicks, chatting on another table and raises with junk and priced in, AA is not unbeatable, shouldn't be considered to be either. Other factors include folk who play for fun, there are many of us, we will call with junk, hit bottom pair and stay in, if you have a " monster " pre flop we are going nowhere and sometimes we beat your "unbeatable" hand. There are so many things in life far more important than a game of poker, it will drive you mad if you keep thinking as you do and blaming rng, rigged, etc etc, as others have pointed out if you want to make money at the game study and take the beats cos they will happen. Calling people names because they disagree is just childish, you seem a well educated chap, unfortunately you let yourself down in that aspect. I would say good luck, but I honestly don't think you deserve it, wake up and smell the roses my good man. Posted by tomgoodun
In Response to Re: SORT YOUR SOFTWARE : The issue is the replication of a shuffled deck and the software required to achieve that. The number generator is so enormous I don't think NASA and the like would have the capabilities to achieve it Posted by Diogenes
Complete nonsense, Alan.
When you know nothing about computers or computer programming then don't make such statements, unless you want to be known as a complete mammary gland.
In Response to Re: SORT YOUR SOFTWARE : Complete nonsense, Alan. When you know nothing about computers or computer programming then don't make such statements, unless you want to be known as a complete mammary gland. Posted by NoseyBonk
I see you provide no information to support your concvern/comment?
I know nothing about nuclear fusion but I know the sun has been burning for billions of years due to the process?
Thanks for the mammaries, it really takes one to know one, but if you think you need a degree in a particular subject to reference information on it you're probably the biggest mammary here.
Poker isn't a game simply defined by maths, when you take that in you may be less angry in life. Many factors are involved, pre flop post flop are pretty standard for even the novice like me, what doesn't seem to be considered are life factors, the guy who mis-clicks, chatting on another table and raises with junk and priced in, AA is not unbeatable, shouldn't be considered to be either. Other factors include folk who play for fun, there are many of us, we will call with junk, hit bottom pair and stay in, if you have a " monster " pre flop we are going nowhere and sometimes we beat your "unbeatable" hand. There are so many things in life far more important than a game of poker, it will drive you mad if you keep thinking as you do and blaming rng, rigged, etc etc, as others have pointed out if you want to make money at the game study and take the beats cos they will happen. Calling people names because they disagree is just childish, you seem a well educated chap, unfortunately you let yourself down in that aspect. I would say good luck, but I honestly don't think you deserve it, wake up and smell the roses my good man. Posted by tomgoodun
I don't disagree with your general statement and agree with much of it but if you follow the thread you'll see plenty of abuse, sarcasm and other suchlike comments being thrown about. I've got thick skin and enough information to comment intelligently, don't try lay all the antagonism at my door, I'm not actually angry with any individual and couldn't care less what some individuals have got to say here. I've taken the beats, won and lost money over the yeras and often enjoyed the game but these days I'm something of a cynic towards the producers of product and the brokers of control (beyond poker also it has to be said). Freedom of speech is a precious thing, the quality of it is something people often debase, including myself, and in that respect I'm certainly guilty but don't fail in the same way by withdrawing a semblence of respectability by inferring I'm undeserving of your offer of GL, rather diminished your speech. GL to you.
In Response to Re: SORT YOUR SOFTWARE : Thanks for the mammaries, it really takes one to know one, but if you think you need a degree in a particular subject to reference information on it you're probably the biggest mammary here. Posted by Diogenes
Haha Cheers, Alan.
I don't think you need a degree. We're not talking about nuclear science or even heart surgery. We are talking about entry level computing (sorting an array of 52 elements into a random sequence). Stuff we did in the 80s on Z80 based systems. Dunno why you think NASA couldn't do it (?)
In Response to Re: SORT YOUR SOFTWARE : Haha Cheers, Alan. I don't think you need a degree. We're not talking about nuclear science or even heart surgery. We are talking about entry level computing (sorting an array of 52 elements into a random sequence). Stuff we did in the 80s on Z80 based systems. Dunno why you think NASA couldn't do it (?) Posted by NoseyBonk
Commenting on NASA was an exagerated reference that you didn't take literally, so why pretend you did?
Your smooth reference to early computer possibilities seems to bely some very common understanding surrounding large numbers ('google' it)? if it was so easy why do they offer large amounts of money for the discovery of new prime's? Could it be because the numbers are so large it's not so easy?
Talking of 'google'; there is a record of information relating to the difficulties surrounding the creation and performance of RNG'S and we're not talking roulette wheels and single incidence here. Check out the link I related earlier with regard the amount of shuffles in a deck and then explain why the mind-boggling numbers are so easily achieved through rng's? I'm prepared to suggest your claims are not worth the keyboard they're written on but i'll wait for the proof?
In Response to Re: SORT YOUR SOFTWARE :if it was so easy why do they offer large amounts of money for the discovery of new prime's? Could it be because the numbers are so large it's not so easy? Posted by Diogenes
Completely different. Finding primes requires computing power. Poker RNG/sorting/whatever you want to call it doesn't becauase it's simple.
Diogenes,you get players riled because your original post is an outburst and a command.There are thousands of hands per day, with the odd gripe.Ring any bells? Posted by chilling
Fair enough, I get it. It's no different to me getting riled by outcomes, i'M WORKING ON IT...................
Comments
I have seen lots of your comments on here and I cannot remember any of them being positive
perhaps you should look in the mirror once in a while
The entitled.
The freeroll moaners.
The RNG warblers.
The riggies.
The day you start blaming the site for your shortcomings is the day you can't be taken seriously.
Looks like you tick a couple of those boxes.
I don't have the answers of what sky's current set up is or the set up of their software in comparison to other sites as I am loyal to sky and stay away from other sites.
I can only really comment on what I've seen with my own eyes and at times it is staggering to watch good play from me & others just get smashed with ridiculous cards at the tail end.
what is puzzling me is the regularity that I get in hands way ahead and then somehow the 2 outers appear and I'm left asking myself what I could have done differently!
it feels like this happens night after night, although it probably isn't the case.
I don't think my level of understanding the game, variance etc is where it should be to compete at this level perhaps?
I have myself made terrible plays and got away with it with the help of an outrageous river, but not nearly as often as I make good plays and get turned over. my P&L confirms this to me.
maybe I need to accept that what we have on sky is normal, it just seems too far fetched at times
thanks very much for the insight
Sorry it's a Swan...... ugly duck in your eyes.
As I said before, time to look in the mirror.
the_ruiner and diogenes clearly share many things.