Please don't ridicule newbie's they put their money in and entitled to question r.n.g. if they lose. If you think the Tax man is cheating you would you question it.
The op hasn’t been ridiculed, Pingu made an excellent post highlighting all the common factors. Questioning the r.n.g. just highlights a persons failings, it isn’t the same as the tax man “ cheating you” Tax is paid as a percentage of earnings ( income tax), r.n.g is a random number generator, if you could explain what they have in common please could you enlighten me, in legible English language.
He said , She said, by now O.P probably run away to blow his brains out.
We'll keep a welcome on the Forum.
I can't give advice to newbie players (on how to play) as I play for fun, not reward. I'm the guy with 45 allin call any two anytime, so wouldn't want my advice. However he wont want negative comments or ridicule either. He's not the first with this sort of post nor will he be the last so reason I asked for sticky in beats&brag with all the positive posts to refer this type of poster to ,save all the negative comments they get now. I don't care if you like my comments I've been here long enough to know who the good guys are and ask them to support new disillusioned players coming on here with this type of question. fwiw
OP has played over 6600 games on Sky, stretching back to August 2015.
He is not a newbie, so perhaps keep your sanctimonious drivel to yourself.
Firstly, I agree with goldon. I don't like to see any player ridiculed and particularly not any player new to poker. There is no need to do so when it is possible to offer a reasoned explanation which might provide comfort to a new player and perhaps encourage them to continue to play poker after what they might have considered to be a bad initial experience.
I think I recall a thread a long time ago in which the point was raised about how many players just seem to play one main or one mini and they are never seen again. I think that it is quite possible that many new players experience what they would regard as a bad experience by being on the wrong side of variance and a percentage of these non-returning players probably do so because they feel that on-line poker is fixed. I have no evidence to back this up, it is merely my feeling. New player retention on any site must be a key factor for companies that offer on-line poker and providing as much comfort as possible in explaining away any concerns is surely more likely to seem them return rather than ridiculing them on a forum.
On the subject of RNG I have been continuing to try to understand this a little better despite being poor at maths / programming and have one question which perhaps those with more knowledge might be able to answer. For a RNG in poker to work fairly which of the following is required: 1) the algorithm and / or seed generation to be working as designed, or 2) the resulting hands produced by an RNG to eliminate all or almost all variance over the long term (whatever is defined as the long term), or 3) both 1 and 2.
The reason for asking the question is that we all assume that variance is eliminated by the RNG in the long term, but for an RNG to work as designed or even to be fair is this actually required and how long is the long term? I don't know and wondered if others did.
The more I read the more interested I become.
Finally for the avoidance of any doubt I continue to enjoy playing on Sky and I am not accusing Sky of being fixed.
a) He's not new to poker b) No-one has ridiculed him c) You clearly have a bee in your bonnet with Sky/the RNG despite your claims to the contrary, otherwise why else would you be so interested in it?
a) He's not new to poker b) No-one has ridiculed him c) You clearly have a bee in your bonnet with Sky/the RNG despite your claims to the contrary, otherwise why else would you be so interested in it?
Once again you offer no constructive advice in this thread to O.P. only to criticise me, the bee is buzzing round your head.
a) He's not new to poker b) No-one has ridiculed him c) You clearly have a bee in your bonnet with Sky/the RNG despite your claims to the contrary, otherwise why else would you be so interested in it?
Once again you offer no constructive advice in this thread to O.P. only to criticise me, the bee is buzzing round your head.
What constructive advice would you like him to give? He comes on a poker forum and asks a ridiculous question. He’s not new to poker. He’s played over 6500 games in just over 2 years. He’s struggling with his game a bit and is probably very frustrated and maybe wants to find a reason other than he isn’t very good as to why he’s losing.
a) He's not new to poker b) No-one has ridiculed him c) You clearly have a bee in your bonnet with Sky/the RNG despite your claims to the contrary, otherwise why else would you be so interested in it?
Once again you offer no constructive advice in this thread to O.P. only to criticise me, the bee is buzzing round your head.
What constructive advice do you give to a guy who has played over 6600 games on this site but complains that 45 beat his AK?
You tell him we all play on this site with the same R.N.G. we all get the bad beats. He is not alone. If you can't afford to lose your money then don't Gamble. The cards come out on the flop you make the choice to play or fold .... if you play then the result is down to you. All in's are Bingo calling down the streets you have option to fold. Poker is to enjoy and have fun ...... if not take a break and come back when you fell more positive.
You tell him we all play on this site with the same R.N.G. we all get the bad beats. He is not alone. If you can't afford to lose your money then don't Gamble. The cards come out on the flop you make the choice to play or fold .... if you play then the result is down to you. All in's are Bingo calling down the streets you have option to fold. Poker is to enjoy and have fun ...... if not take a break and come back when you fell more positive.
I refer you to my sanctimonious drivel comment above.
And saying ''All in's are bingo'' really isn't 'constructive' or even remotely accurate. Maybe time for you to crawl back to the rail, and the safe haven of your drivel thread.
On the subject of RNG I have been continuing to try to understand this a little better despite being poor at maths / programming and have one question which perhaps those with more knowledge might be able to answer. For a RNG in poker to work fairly which of the following is required: 1) the algorithm and / or seed generation to be working as designed, or 2) the resulting hands produced by an RNG to eliminate all or almost all variance over the long term (whatever is defined as the long term), or 3) both 1 and 2.
The reason for asking the question is that we all assume that variance is eliminated by the RNG in the long term, but for an RNG to work as designed or even to be fair is this actually required and how long is the long term? I don't know and wondered if others did.
I disagree with 2 - A random number generator should not have an inbuilt attempt to negate variance, as by definition, it becomes no longer random. It's like saying "The Roulette wheel keeps landing on Red so we should make it land on Black a few times" - This should occur naturally over a large sample because Maths, anyway. (Apologies if I have misunderstood what you're saying there)
The bolded bit is interesting to me though, and probably others in the thread. I'll try to answer this without over-complicating things too much.
tl;dr warning - Maffs. Sorry
In Poker (and statistics), we have the idea of an expected value, i.e. what is the average outcome going to be. If we get AA in pre against KK for 100 big blinds each, we know we win 80% of the time. In this case, our EV is +60 big blinds, give or take a tiny amount for any dead money and rake which I'll disregard here. I know that even Poker players who aren't particularly good at Maths will be aware of the concept, and it's not attempting to be patronising or anything by explaining EV, it's merely for completeness and because there probably are people who aren't aware of the concept reading the thread.
Obviously, if we get in AA v KK for 100bb, we can never actually win exactly 60 big blinds - We either win 100bb or lose 100bb (and occasionally we'll chop the pot when there's a straight or a flush on the board but meh). That's what creates variance. If we could choose to 'cash out' for exactly 60bb profit every single time we had that situation before any flops were dealt, there would be no variance.
In Statistics, there is something called 'Standard Deviation'. Standard deviation is basically a measure of spread, i.e. how far results are away from the mean, and how likely they are to fall within a particular range. With standard deviations, you can basically say "If it's within N standard deviations either side, it's gonna fall in that range X% of the time".
Standard deviation is proportional to the square root of sample size, which is important. Basically, if I increase the number of trials by a factor of 100, my standard deviation only increases tenfold.
If I flip a coin once, I have a standard deviation of 0.5 If I flip a coin 100 times, I have a standard deviation of 5 If I flip a coin 10,000 times, I have a standard deviation of 50 If I flip a coin 1,000,000 times, I have a standard deviation of 500
As the number of coin flips gets bigger, the standard deviation becomes small in comparison to the number of coin flips.
Being within two standard deviations either side happens roughly 95% of the time. I flip a coin 100 times, I would expect to win 50. I would win between 40 and 60 flips (+/- 2 standard deviations either side) 95% of the time when I flip 100 coins.
If I flip a coin 1,000,000 times, I would expect to win 500,000. I would win between 499,000 and 501,000 flips 95% of the time when I flip a million coins. Falling outside of that range can be considered as either running pretty good or pretty bad, depending on which side you end up obvs.
1000 flips either side when talking about winning 500k flips is pretty insignificant, whereas 10 flips either side when talking about winning 50 flips makes a pretty huge difference. This is basically what people refer to when they say "Play more hands to eliminate variance".
It's also why people say "Play more hands to find out your winrate", because over time, regardless of running good or bad, your results will get closer and closer to being a true reflection of your ability.
---
Now, if instead of flipping a coin, you have a winning Poker player. Our winning Poker player has 55% equity when he plays a HU SNG, on average.
If winning player plays 100 HU SNGs in a month with an average of 55% winrate, he has an EV of 55 wins and a standard deviation of 4.97(ish, I rounded this). If he runs bad and is two standard deviations below EV, he's only going to win 45 of those and still lose money over that period of time, even though he's a winning player. Winning exactly half would be a pretty normal result.
However, if our winning player plays 10,000 times in a month with an average of 55% chance of winning, he has an EV of 5500 wins, and a standard deviation of 49.7 - If he runs bad and is two standard deviations below EV, he's going to win like 5400 games still, so he'll still be up a fair amount of £££ despite running bad, even with rake.
If our player only won 5000 HU SNGs despite such an edge, it would be so unlikely (As in billions to one) that it would be either proof of a biased RNG, or far more likely, that our winning player isn't actually as good as he thought he was.
So, to answer the bolded question - Variance is not eliminated by the RNG at all, nor should it be. It's eliminated by large samples and probability.
As for what defines 'long term' to 'eliminate' variance - In the winning player example above, the player could argue that he's played enough so that even if he runs bad over a long period of time, he'll still win a reasonable amount of money by the end of the month and be able to withdraw enough to pay the bills, whatever the deck throws at him, so he could say that he's 'eliminated' variance in that sense. Using this definition, 'how long is long term' also depends on how much of a winning player you are.
However, it is ultimately subjective, as it depends on the definition of when variance has been 'eliminated', and that'll depend on who you ask. Strictly speaking, variance is never really eliminated, ever.
You tell him we all play on this site with the same R.N.G. we all get the bad beats. He is not alone. If you can't afford to lose your money then don't Gamble. The cards come out on the flop you make the choice to play or fold .... if you play then the result is down to you. All in's are Bingo calling down the streets you have option to fold. Poker is to enjoy and have fun ...... if not take a break and come back when you fell more positive.
I refer you to my sanctimonious drivel comment above.
And saying ''All in's are bingo'' really isn't 'constructive' or even remotely accurate. Maybe time for you to crawl back to the rail, and the safe haven of your drivel thread.
You tell him we all play on this site with the same R.N.G. we all get the bad beats. He is not alone. If you can't afford to lose your money then don't Gamble. The cards come out on the flop you make the choice to play or fold .... if you play then the result is down to you. All in's are Bingo calling down the streets you have option to fold. Poker is to enjoy and have fun ...... if not take a break and come back when you fell more positive.
I refer you to my sanctimonious drivel comment above.
And saying ''All in's are bingo'' really isn't 'constructive' or even remotely accurate. Maybe time for you to crawl back to the rail, and the safe haven of your drivel thread.
Nothing constructive from you yet again complain all the time about what other say. pop into free play and spend the evening ...... that beneath you ......
Nothing constructive from you yet again complain all the time about what other say. pop into free play and spend the evening ...... that beneath you ......
Which post(s) have you made in this thread entire forum that are constructive?
I miss the "block" button. #SortItOutSky #ForumIsRigged
On the subject of RNG I have been continuing to try to understand this a little better despite being poor at maths / programming and have one question which perhaps those with more knowledge might be able to answer. For a RNG in poker to work fairly which of the following is required: 1) the algorithm and / or seed generation to be working as designed, or 2) the resulting hands produced by an RNG to eliminate all or almost all variance over the long term (whatever is defined as the long term), or 3) both 1 and 2.
The reason for asking the question is that we all assume that variance is eliminated by the RNG in the long term, but for an RNG to work as designed or even to be fair is this actually required and how long is the long term? I don't know and wondered if others did.
I disagree with 2 - A random number generator should not have an inbuilt attempt to negate variance, as by definition, it becomes no longer random. It's like saying "The Roulette wheel keeps landing on Red so we should make it land on Black a few times" - This should occur naturally over a large sample because Maths, anyway. (Apologies if I have misunderstood what you're saying there)
The bolded bit is interesting to me though, and probably others in the thread. I'll try to answer this without over-complicating things too much.
tl;dr warning - Maffs. Sorry
In Poker (and statistics), we have the idea of an expected value, i.e. what is the average outcome going to be. If we get AA in pre against KK for 100 big blinds each, we know we win 80% of the time. In this case, our EV is +60 big blinds, give or take a tiny amount for any dead money and rake which I'll disregard here. I know that even Poker players who aren't particularly good at Maths will be aware of the concept, and it's not attempting to be patronising or anything by explaining EV, it's merely for completeness and because there probably are people who aren't aware of the concept reading the thread.
Obviously, if we get in AA v KK for 100bb, we can never actually win exactly 60 big blinds - We either win 100bb or lose 100bb (and occasionally we'll chop the pot when there's a straight or a flush on the board but meh). That's what creates variance. If we could choose to 'cash out' for exactly 60bb profit every single time we had that situation before any flops were dealt, there would be no variance.
In Statistics, there is something called 'Standard Deviation'. Standard deviation is basically a measure of spread, i.e. how far results are away from the mean, and how likely they are to fall within a particular range. With standard deviations, you can basically say "If it's within N standard deviations either side, it's gonna fall in that range X% of the time".
Standard deviation is proportional to the square root of sample size, which is important. Basically, if I increase the number of trials by a factor of 100, my standard deviation only increases tenfold.
If I flip a coin once, I have a standard deviation of 0.5 If I flip a coin 100 times, I have a standard deviation of 5 If I flip a coin 10,000 times, I have a standard deviation of 50 If I flip a coin 1,000,000 times, I have a standard deviation of 500
As the number of coin flips gets bigger, the standard deviation becomes small in comparison to the number of coin flips.
Being within two standard deviations either side happens roughly 95% of the time. I flip a coin 100 times, I would expect to win 50. I would win between 40 and 60 flips (+/- 2 standard deviations either side) 95% of the time when I flip 100 coins.
If I flip a coin 1,000,000 times, I would expect to win 500,000. I would win between 499,000 and 501,000 flips 95% of the time when I flip a million coins. Falling outside of that range can be considered as either running pretty good or pretty bad, depending on which side you end up obvs.
1000 flips either side when talking about winning 500k flips is pretty insignificant, whereas 10 flips either side when talking about winning 50 flips makes a pretty huge difference. This is basically what people refer to when they say "Play more hands to eliminate variance".
It's also why people say "Play more hands to find out your winrate", because over time, regardless of running good or bad, your results will get closer and closer to being a true reflection of your ability.
---
Now, if instead of flipping a coin, you have a winning Poker player. Our winning Poker player has 55% equity when he plays a HU SNG, on average.
If winning player plays 100 HU SNGs in a month with an average of 55% winrate, he has an EV of 55 wins and a standard deviation of 4.97(ish, I rounded this). If he runs bad and is two standard deviations below EV, he's only going to win 45 of those and still lose money over that period of time, even though he's a winning player. Winning exactly half would be a pretty normal result.
However, if our winning player plays 10,000 times in a month with an average of 55% chance of winning, he has an EV of 5500 wins, and a standard deviation of 49.7 - If he runs bad and is two standard deviations below EV, he's going to win like 5400 games still, so he'll still be up a fair amount of £££ despite running bad, even with rake.
If our player only won 5000 HU SNGs despite such an edge, it would be so unlikely (as in billions to one) that it would be either proof of a biased RNG, or far more likely, that our winning player isn't actually as good as he thought he was.
So, to answer the bolded question - Variance is not eliminated by the RNG at all, nor should it be. It's eliminated by large samples and probability.
As for what defines 'long term' to 'eliminate' variance - In the winning player example above, the player could argue that he's played enough so that even if he runs bad over a long period of time, he'll still win a reasonable amount of money by the end of the month and be able to withdraw enough to pay the bills, whatever the deck throws at him, so he could say that he's 'eliminated' variance in that sense. Using this definition, 'how long is long term' also depends on how much of a winning player you are.
However, it is ultimately subjective, as it depends on the definition of when variance has been 'eliminated', and that'll depend on who you ask. Strictly speaking, variance is never really eliminated, ever.
I'm trying to keep off the thread, but I shuddered at the suggestion that folks think the RNG should be designed to eliminate variance & was going to have to enter the fray. Luckily, The Pingu did it for me, & so much better than I ever could.
Taking a step back & viewing the thread, I'm intrigued by the obsession some folks seem to have with RNG's. It's not just Sky Poker, of course, it's every Online site.
Whatever turns you on, I guess, but for me - & we are all different - there are better & more rewarding mysteries we could immerse ourselves in & become fixated about.
Have you ever wondered about the lifecycle of a butterfly?
It begins as an egg laid by a butterfly.
From that egg, emerges not a baby butterfly, but a caterpillar of all things. How that happen? In what way does a caterpillar in any way resemble a butterfly? One is plump & has more legs than a football team, the other is light, delicate &, like Red Bull, has wings.
The caterpillar emerges & after eating itself to grand obesity, somehow & magically becomes an inert pupa.
And then, as if by magic, a while later out pops a fully-formed butterfly.
Now that's something to become fixated & obsessed about.
Comments
He is not a newbie, so perhaps keep your sanctimonious drivel to yourself.
My drivel is no better or worse than yours name calling is childish.
I think I recall a thread a long time ago in which the point was raised about how many players just seem to play one main or one mini and they are never seen again. I think that it is quite possible that many new players experience what they would regard as a bad experience by being on the wrong side of variance and a percentage of these non-returning players probably do so because they feel that on-line poker is fixed. I have no evidence to back this up, it is merely my feeling. New player retention on any site must be a key factor for companies that offer on-line poker and providing as much comfort as possible in explaining away any concerns is surely more likely to seem them return rather than ridiculing them on a forum.
On the subject of RNG I have been continuing to try to understand this a little better despite being poor at maths / programming and have one question which perhaps those with more knowledge might be able to answer. For a RNG in poker to work fairly which of the following is required:
1) the algorithm and / or seed generation to be working as designed, or
2) the resulting hands produced by an RNG to eliminate all or almost all variance over the long term (whatever is defined as the long term), or
3) both 1 and 2.
The reason for asking the question is that we all assume that variance is eliminated by the RNG in the long term, but for an RNG to work as designed or even to be fair is this actually required and how long is the long term? I don't know and wondered if others did.
The more I read the more interested I become.
Finally for the avoidance of any doubt I continue to enjoy playing on Sky and I am not accusing Sky of being fixed.
b) No-one has ridiculed him
c) You clearly have a bee in your bonnet with Sky/the RNG despite your claims to the contrary, otherwise why else would you be so interested in it?
the bee is buzzing round your head.
He comes on a poker forum and asks a ridiculous question. He’s not new to poker. He’s played over 6500 games in just over 2 years.
He’s struggling with his game a bit and is probably very frustrated and maybe wants to find a reason other than he isn’t very good as to why he’s losing.
There isn’t really much debate to be had.
Is online poker rigged?
No
End of discussion
The cards come out on the flop you make the choice to play or fold .... if you play then the result is down to you. All in's are Bingo calling down the streets you have option to fold. Poker is to enjoy and have fun ...... if not take a break and come back when you fell more positive.
And saying ''All in's are bingo'' really isn't 'constructive' or even remotely accurate. Maybe time for you to crawl back to the rail, and the safe haven of your drivel thread.
The bolded bit is interesting to me though, and probably others in the thread. I'll try to answer this without over-complicating things too much.
tl;dr warning - Maffs. Sorry
In Poker (and statistics), we have the idea of an expected value, i.e. what is the average outcome going to be. If we get AA in pre against KK for 100 big blinds each, we know we win 80% of the time. In this case, our EV is +60 big blinds, give or take a tiny amount for any dead money and rake which I'll disregard here. I know that even Poker players who aren't particularly good at Maths will be aware of the concept, and it's not attempting to be patronising or anything by explaining EV, it's merely for completeness and because there probably are people who aren't aware of the concept reading the thread.
Obviously, if we get in AA v KK for 100bb, we can never actually win exactly 60 big blinds - We either win 100bb or lose 100bb (and occasionally we'll chop the pot when there's a straight or a flush on the board but meh). That's what creates variance. If we could choose to 'cash out' for exactly 60bb profit every single time we had that situation before any flops were dealt, there would be no variance.
In Statistics, there is something called 'Standard Deviation'. Standard deviation is basically a measure of spread, i.e. how far results are away from the mean, and how likely they are to fall within a particular range. With standard deviations, you can basically say "If it's within N standard deviations either side, it's gonna fall in that range X% of the time".
Standard deviation is proportional to the square root of sample size, which is important. Basically, if I increase the number of trials by a factor of 100, my standard deviation only increases tenfold.
If I flip a coin once, I have a standard deviation of 0.5
If I flip a coin 100 times, I have a standard deviation of 5
If I flip a coin 10,000 times, I have a standard deviation of 50
If I flip a coin 1,000,000 times, I have a standard deviation of 500
As the number of coin flips gets bigger, the standard deviation becomes small in comparison to the number of coin flips.
Being within two standard deviations either side happens roughly 95% of the time. I flip a coin 100 times, I would expect to win 50. I would win between 40 and 60 flips (+/- 2 standard deviations either side) 95% of the time when I flip 100 coins.
If I flip a coin 1,000,000 times, I would expect to win 500,000. I would win between 499,000 and 501,000 flips 95% of the time when I flip a million coins. Falling outside of that range can be considered as either running pretty good or pretty bad, depending on which side you end up obvs.
1000 flips either side when talking about winning 500k flips is pretty insignificant, whereas 10 flips either side when talking about winning 50 flips makes a pretty huge difference. This is basically what people refer to when they say "Play more hands to eliminate variance".
It's also why people say "Play more hands to find out your winrate", because over time, regardless of running good or bad, your results will get closer and closer to being a true reflection of your ability.
---
Now, if instead of flipping a coin, you have a winning Poker player. Our winning Poker player has 55% equity when he plays a HU SNG, on average.
If winning player plays 100 HU SNGs in a month with an average of 55% winrate, he has an EV of 55 wins and a standard deviation of 4.97(ish, I rounded this). If he runs bad and is two standard deviations below EV, he's only going to win 45 of those and still lose money over that period of time, even though he's a winning player. Winning exactly half would be a pretty normal result.
However, if our winning player plays 10,000 times in a month with an average of 55% chance of winning, he has an EV of 5500 wins, and a standard deviation of 49.7 - If he runs bad and is two standard deviations below EV, he's going to win like 5400 games still, so he'll still be up a fair amount of £££ despite running bad, even with rake.
If our player only won 5000 HU SNGs despite such an edge, it would be so unlikely (As in billions to one) that it would be either proof of a biased RNG, or far more likely, that our winning player isn't actually as good as he thought he was.
So, to answer the bolded question - Variance is not eliminated by the RNG at all, nor should it be. It's eliminated by large samples and probability.
As for what defines 'long term' to 'eliminate' variance - In the winning player example above, the player could argue that he's played enough so that even if he runs bad over a long period of time, he'll still win a reasonable amount of money by the end of the month and be able to withdraw enough to pay the bills, whatever the deck throws at him, so he could say that he's 'eliminated' variance in that sense. Using this definition, 'how long is long term' also depends on how much of a winning player you are.
However, it is ultimately subjective, as it depends on the definition of when variance has been 'eliminated', and that'll depend on who you ask. Strictly speaking, variance is never really eliminated, ever.
pop into free play and spend the evening ...... that beneath you ......
threadentire forum that are constructive?I miss the "block" button. #SortItOutSky #ForumIsRigged +1
As someone who (sort of) "gets" the vague principles of variance, it is nice to get a more accurate and detailed understanding.
Thanks.
Now can we all try and get along, please? In the words of Bertie Bassett, it takes all sorts...
p.s brilliant post, couldn't resist.
Superb post by The Pingu One.
I'm trying to keep off the thread, but I shuddered at the suggestion that folks think the RNG should be designed to eliminate variance & was going to have to enter the fray. Luckily, The Pingu did it for me, & so much better than I ever could.
Taking a step back & viewing the thread, I'm intrigued by the obsession some folks seem to have with RNG's. It's not just Sky Poker, of course, it's every Online site.
Whatever turns you on, I guess, but for me - & we are all different - there are better & more rewarding mysteries we could immerse ourselves in & become fixated about.
Have you ever wondered about the lifecycle of a butterfly?
It begins as an egg laid by a butterfly.
From that egg, emerges not a baby butterfly, but a caterpillar of all things. How that happen? In what way does a caterpillar in any way resemble a butterfly? One is plump & has more legs than a football team, the other is light, delicate &, like Red Bull, has wings.
The caterpillar emerges & after eating itself to grand obesity, somehow & magically becomes an inert pupa.
And then, as if by magic, a while later out pops a fully-formed butterfly.
Now that's something to become fixated & obsessed about.