Doe's anyone know whether most people learn how to play deepstack tournaments before playing cash tables?-- Must be a cheaper way to learn surely?
I'd imagine the majority of players start out in tournaments due to the attraction of a big score relative to their initial investment and also because your maximum loss is clearly defined and capped in any given game. This certainly isn't always the case though. With the exception of my very first few games, I have always played cash (for many years). It is only very recently that I have decided give tournaments a bash.
Although deepstack tournaments will give you a bit of extra experience in playing deeper, the differences are still significant enough that the only way to really 'learn' cash is to play cash.
Thanks Duesenberg, I reckon that a player should be able to show a consistent 20% return in tournaments before venturing into cash, just my opinion.
oh dear you couldnt make this s hit up 2 mins ago in 50 pound rebuy pocket AA mugged on river AGAIN yawn variance my ar se bye bye skypoker
I find it strange that you are absolutely convinced that Sky is rigged against you, so much so that you state that you will only play freerolls and then the very same day you play a £50 rebuy (I assume you mean £50 prize pool and not buy in!)
Anyway given that you have done so please feel free to post the hand history of this and the previous 15 AA hands where you have been outdrawn.
Doe's anyone know whether most people learn how to play deepstack tournaments before playing cash tables?-- Must be a cheaper way to learn surely?
I'd imagine the majority of players start out in tournaments due to the attraction of a big score relative to their initial investment and also because your maximum loss is clearly defined and capped in any given game. This certainly isn't always the case though. With the exception of my very first few games, I have always played cash (for many years). It is only very recently that I have decided give tournaments a bash.
Although deepstack tournaments will give you a bit of extra experience in playing deeper, the differences are still significant enough that the only way to really 'learn' cash is to play cash.
Thanks Duesenberg, I reckon that a player should be able to show a consistent 20% return in tournaments before venturing into cash, just my opinion.
A good idea in theory. All I'd add is that I've come across a fair few players on cash tables with mighty impressive sharkscope graphs who, in my opinion at least, are pretty bloomin' awful at cash. Being good at one format doesn't automatically equate to being good in another.
This is news to me and a bit worrying. It would certainly explain things for allibone. Could you tell me when it was established that the RNG isn’t good and do you have more information on the new one that will be better please?
Not Pop Corn to heal wounds ......... try Sugar Coating.
This is news to me and a bit worrying. It would certainly explain things for allibone. Could you tell me when it was established that the RNG isn’t good and do you have more information on the new one that will be better please?
Not Pop Corn to heal wounds ......... try Sugar Coating.
Unsurprisingly, you make no sense again You stated something as a fact. You should be able to back it up if it’s correct. Can you answer the question please?
This is news to me and a bit worrying. It would certainly explain things for allibone. Could you tell me when it was established that the RNG isn’t good and do you have more information on the new one that will be better please?
Not Pop Corn to heal wounds ......... try Sugar Coating.
This is news to me and a bit worrying. It would certainly explain things for allibone. Could you tell me when it was established that the RNG isn’t good and do you have more information on the new one that will be better please?
What are you talking about? Where has anyone said there's a problem with the RNG? If there was, the Gambling Commission or the Alderney authorities would demand the immediate cessation of it's use. As far as I know, there is a new generation of the Sky Poker software coming, but it is not to replace the RNG. Unless of course you know differently and can back this up with evidence.
I am a rare contributor on the forum, but thought I would add a comment to this thread. I sometimes think that the poker industry does not do enough to promote integrity and as a consequence I can understand why some people question whether bad beats are variance or something more sinister. As I cannot prove either way I would never shout them down.
I have been playing poker online for several years, but have never really understood how the random number generator works on different sites, how often it is independently verified and whether or not it could be exploited to suit a particular poker site's / company's corporate goals. Often bad beats are explained away as variance, but an individual poker player never knows whether across all the hands dealt by a poker site the variation suffered by individual poker players is smoothed out across all the poker players. Instead we take it on trust.
When someone makes an accusation I have seen responses suggesting the poker player should provide it or cannot prove it. However, the person making the accusation will never be able to prove it as he or she does not have the information available. However, I would argue that individual poker sites could do more proactively to prove the randomness of the random number generator, have it independently verified and publish such audits. It is possible this already occurs, but I am just now aware of it. If it does occur, then you could always refer the person making the acquisition to the results of the independent audit which is published.
When the industry suffers with full tilt, ultimate poker etc I would have thought greater emphasis might be placed on promoting integrity. However, I don't think enough is done in my opinion.
Finally I have often seen the comment that it is not in the interests of the poker companies to fix the randomness of the cards, but I do have one theoretical concern in this area. A key concern for many poker sites is to maintain as large a client base as possible. If weaker players lose money less quickly and successful players which withdraw money from the site win less often than their play merits, then this could be to the advantage of the poker site. Could this be programmed into a random number generator? I have no idea, but then again that is the problem for many players - we have no idea how it all works, it is never explained to us, we do not know if it could be theoretically exploited and hence the accusations and speculation will continue to occur.
Having stated all of the above, I like playing on sky poker and will continue to play on sky poker.
I am a rare contributor on the forum, but thought I would add a comment to this thread. I sometimes think that the poker industry does not do enough to promote integrity and as a consequence I can understand why some people question whether bad beats are variance or something more sinister. As I cannot prove either way I would never shout them down.
I have been playing poker online for several years, but have never really understood how the random number generator works on different sites, how often it is independently verified and whether or not it could be exploited to suit a particular poker site's / company's corporate goals. Often bad beats are explained away as variance, but an individual poker player never knows whether across all the hands dealt by a poker site the variation suffered by individual poker players is smoothed out across all the poker players. Instead we take it on trust.
When someone makes an accusation I have seen responses suggesting the poker player should provide it or cannot prove it. However, the person making the accusation will never be able to prove it as he or she does not have the information available. However, I would argue that individual poker sites could do more proactively to prove the randomness of the random number generator, have it independently verified and publish such audits. It is possible this already occurs, but I am just now aware of it. If it does occur, then you could always refer the person making the acquisition to the results of the independent audit which is published.
When the industry suffers with full tilt, ultimate poker etc I would have thought greater emphasis might be placed on promoting integrity. However, I don't think enough is done in my opinion.
Finally I have often seen the comment that it is not in the interests of the poker companies to fix the randomness of the cards, but I do have one theoretical concern in this area. A key concern for many poker sites is to maintain as large a client base as possible. If weaker players lose money less quickly and successful players which withdraw money from the site win less often than their play merits, then this could be to the advantage of the poker site. Could this be programmed into a random number generator? I have no idea, but then again that is the problem for many players - we have no idea how it all works, it is never explained to us, we do not know if it could be theoretically exploited and hence the accusations and speculation will continue to occur.
Having stated all of the above, I like playing on sky poker and will continue to play on sky poker.
Some really good points in there TOOTRUE.
There are plenty on here who know more than me about the RNG so I will leave that to them. I do think many of the suggestions you mention regarding the RNG, although possibly not all, are already in place. It would be good to offer this info to players questioning the integrity of sites though.
It is also a valid point that sites could benefit if the money stayed in the poker ecosystem longer as it would be being raked more often. However, it is a big leap to think it then becomes worthwhile. It would be very elaborate to design an RNG to skew results in this way.
If we take Stars as an example. They redesigned their rewards programme with the apparent intention of achieving the scenario you mentioned. It now does not benefit the regs as much which should mean more money staying in the poker ecosystem longer and they obviously then earn more from any pool of funds on the site as said money is raked more often. If redesigning a rewards system can achieve this then I do not see why they, Sky or any other site would rig an RNG and risk everything when there is a more above board way of achieving their financial goals.
anybody questioning the rng on this site need to give their heads a wobble dont you think the rng has been tested tested tested thousands of times to get a licence to operate and as for reprogramming the rng , well , thats utter pish if you ask me oh we,re after a new manager anybody will do
anyway thats all from me as i see any negative comment is always gonna be defended by the sky apologists. anyone who plays on here regularly knows what i mean. all online poker sites are the same hollywood hand rubbish and i wont bother anymore. enjoy keeping your heads in the sand guys good luck, you will need that rather than skill.
It's not just sky that he's accusing. He doubts the integrity of all the RNGs out there.
after talking on here today i decided to forget it and have one last go which ended in hand two as i posted before. the people responding to the post seem obsessed with the idea of me having pocket AA beaten and moaning about it but that was not my only point. its not just me having bad beats i see it happen every other hand on here to everyone at the table and i wasnt suggesting the rng was rigged solely against me. Yeah bad beats happen but they happen a helluva lot on here for it to be simply variance. The main thing i will take from these forum comments is that i should just accept everything that happens without question because i am obviously a s hit player with absolutely no understanding of either poker or its vagueries and also that everyone who plays on skypoker apart from me is a poker genius especially the sharkscope high ranking players who love to jump on such forums to belittle everybody else.
Have you read the thread about rating your poker happiness in poker chat here? There's some chill out stuff, and lots about frustration. It's learning how to handle it is the difficult part. There's hundreds of threads on this forum, get involved more, we won't bite, often.
Comments
Anyway given that you have done so please feel free to post the hand history of this and the previous 15 AA hands where you have been outdrawn.
Could you tell me when it was established that the RNG isn’t good and do you have more information on the new one that will be better please?
Not Pop Corn to heal wounds ......... try Sugar Coating.
Unsurprisingly, you make no sense again
You stated something as a fact. You should be able to back it up if it’s correct.
Can you answer the question please?
I have been playing poker online for several years, but have never really understood how the random number generator works on different sites, how often it is independently verified and whether or not it could be exploited to suit a particular poker site's / company's corporate goals. Often bad beats are explained away as variance, but an individual poker player never knows whether across all the hands dealt by a poker site the variation suffered by individual poker players is smoothed out across all the poker players. Instead we take it on trust.
When someone makes an accusation I have seen responses suggesting the poker player should provide it or cannot prove it. However, the person making the accusation will never be able to prove it as he or she does not have the information available. However, I would argue that individual poker sites could do more proactively to prove the randomness of the random number generator, have it independently verified and publish such audits. It is possible this already occurs, but I am just now aware of it. If it does occur, then you could always refer the person making the acquisition to the results of the independent audit which is published.
When the industry suffers with full tilt, ultimate poker etc I would have thought greater emphasis might be placed on promoting integrity. However, I don't think enough is done in my opinion.
Finally I have often seen the comment that it is not in the interests of the poker companies to fix the randomness of the cards, but I do have one theoretical concern in this area. A key concern for many poker sites is to maintain as large a client base as possible. If weaker players lose money less quickly and successful players which withdraw money from the site win less often than their play merits, then this could be to the advantage of the poker site. Could this be programmed into a random number generator? I have no idea, but then again that is the problem for many players - we have no idea how it all works, it is never explained to us, we do not know if it could be theoretically exploited and hence the accusations and speculation will continue to occur.
Having stated all of the above, I like playing on sky poker and will continue to play on sky poker.
Tbh I’m very surprised that Sky allow people such as yourself to make unfounded claims against them on their forum
There are plenty on here who know more than me about the RNG so I will leave that to them. I do think many of the suggestions you mention regarding the RNG, although possibly not all, are already in place. It would be good to offer this info to players questioning the integrity of sites though.
It is also a valid point that sites could benefit if the money stayed in the poker ecosystem longer as it would be being raked more often. However, it is a big leap to think it then becomes worthwhile. It would be very elaborate to design an RNG to skew results in this way.
If we take Stars as an example. They redesigned their rewards programme with the apparent intention of achieving the scenario you mentioned. It now does not benefit the regs as much which should mean more money staying in the poker ecosystem longer and they obviously then earn more from any pool of funds on the site as said money is raked more often. If redesigning a rewards system can achieve this then I do not see why they, Sky or any other site would rig an RNG and risk everything when there is a more above board way of achieving their financial goals.
dont you think the rng has been tested tested tested thousands of times to get a licence to operate
and as for reprogramming the rng , well , thats utter pish if you ask me
oh we,re after a new manager anybody will do
He doubts the integrity of all the RNGs out there.
There's some chill out stuff, and lots about frustration. It's learning how to handle it is the difficult part. There's hundreds of threads on this forum, get involved more, we won't bite, often.