Joined: Aug '10
Location: Indonesia
Age: 43 (M)
Posts: 68
Hi All,
As many of you are probably aware, most online poker sites use a random number generator (RNG) to determine how cards are dealt. This means that every card is assigned a number, and the number corresponding to each card is drawn randomly.
Recently, however, I read that, on sites where a "juiced" deck is used, action cards (primarily aces, kings and queens) can be assigned 3 numbers each. This would mean that the ace of diamonds, for example, could be assigned the numbers 7, 23, and 41. If any of those 3 numbers are selected by the RNG, the card would be dealt, in fact making it 3 times more likely to fall. Once this card is dealt however, the other numbers assigned to it would be eliminated.
Essentially, a "juiced" deck is a deck that contains more than 52 cards. If we use the illustration above, we would be playing with an 80 card deck (40 numbered cards and 40 face cards). In the article I read (sorry, I can't find the link), it said that use of a "juiced" deck is common in online poker, but fell short of naming specific sites.
So my question is...
Which sites use a "juiced" deck?
PS I bet the rigtards are gonna have a field day with this. Bring on the magic river!
PPS If you don't know what I'm talking about, please don't comment.
Joined: May '08
Location: Netherlands
Age: 53 (M)
Posts: 6197
Another losing player spamming their rant.
Its a desease i tell ya, its gettin bigger and bigger, losing players now infecting break-even players, getting far more complicated to deal with. Next thing is break-even players infecting winning players, then online poker is gonna be dead.
Joined: Aug '10
Location: Indonesia
Age: 43 (M)
Posts: 68
Posted by doomdy: Another losing player spamming their rant.
Its a desease i tell ya, its gettin bigger and bigger, losing players now infecting break-even players, getting far more complicated to deal with. Next thing is break-even players infecting winning players, then online poker is gonna be dead.
OMG how ffs we can stop these morons
Sorry, who's the moron? I suggest you do some research!
Don't you think a site like pokertableratings would easily see these anomalies in the RNG systems? There is millions of hands played every day, if it was rigged that way it wouldn't be hard to see.
Of course if you play micro stakes you're gonna see a lot of suck outs because about 50% of the players are willing to go all in with QJo pre flop.
Joined: Aug '10
Location: Indonesia
Age: 43 (M)
Posts: 68
Posted by doomdy: Stopped reading after 15sec, all rigtards articles.
Why is it that when I ask an intelligent poker question, I get ridiculed, Perhaps you should take a look at the the usual drivel that litters the forum i.e. "we must kill rigtards now" (oh, sorry that's your post isn't it?)
Perhaps I should take my question to a more serious poker forum?
Joined: Aug '10
Location: Indonesia
Age: 43 (M)
Posts: 68
Posted by zeroster:
Posted by hooley99:
Recently, however, I read that, on sites where a "juiced" deck is used
Could you give us the source please. I'd like to read that for myself.
If you want us to do some research the least you could do is tell us where you read it.
edit. Sorry, looks like we posted at the same time.
The link that I posted was removed by admin unfortunately.
This is an extract of the article written by D. M. Vadnais, in which he talks about 'verified' and 'action' RNG's...
"Should you opt to calculate the number of times you’ll be dealt the power pockets, you’ll want to argue the “4 to 6 times in every 100 hands”. Yet, pre-argument, please understand that the RNG’s used by many Internet poker sites are skewed toward the ‘dealing out’ of action cards; noting that it’s table action that generates their rake revenue.
And, action cards are most often identified as Aces, Kings, Queens, Jacks, and Tens. Of note, many of the professional players who sometimes compete on-line, have a propensity for describing this type of ‘deal’, or RNG, as a “juiced deck”.
And, the underlying parameters of a “juiced deck” are not at all difficult to comprehend. Where a ‘verified’ RNG will use 52 numbers in it’s source database (1 number for each of the 52 cards), an ‘action’ RNG might use 92 numbers in it’s source database….1 number for each of the 52 cards, 8 extra numbers for the four Aces (2 for each Ace), 8 extra numbers for the four Kings (2 for each King), 8 extra numbers for the four Queens (2 for each Queen), 8 extra numbers for the four Jacks (2 for each Jack), and 8 extra numbers for the four Tens (2 for each Ten).
As an example, the Ace of Spades could be number 1, number 53, and number 54 in the ‘action’ RNG 92 number source database. If, or when, any of the three numbers are selected, all three numbers get eliminated from the source database prior to another card being dealt.
The Queen of Diamonds could be number 9, number 61, and number 62. If, or when, any of the three numbers are selected, all three numbers get eliminated from the source database prior to another card being dealt.
The Jack of Clubs could be number 13, number 69, and number 70. If, or when, any of the three numbers are selected, all three numbers get eliminated from the source database prior to another card being dealt.
Obviously, in each instance, all 3 numbers get deleted from the source database because the RNG can not deal out the same card twice in one hand. That’s an ‘action’ RNG; that’s a “juiced deck”.
And, you should know that it’s not all that difficult to determine whether or not you’re playing with an ‘action’ RNG, whether or not you’re playing with a ‘juiced deck’. To do so, take note of all the cards you get to see at the end of every hand. Count the number of Aces, Kings, Queens, Jacks, and Tens that you’ve seen.
And, remember that the total of all 5 ‘paint’ cards (20) represents approximately 38.5% of the number of cards in the deck (52). If you have seen 15 cards, and 9 of those cards were ‘paint’ cards, you’ve been witness to an anomoly….60% of the cards were ‘action’ cards.
It’s an anomoly because it’s happened once. In time, as you continue to watch the exposed cards, and continue to make the ‘paint’ card percentage calculations, and continue to come up with numbers like 46%, 48%, 54%, 58%, 63%, 65%, and 69% (all exceeding the 52 card deck legitimate 38.5%), there should be no doubt in your mind that the RNG is loaded with a source database of greater than 52.
It ain’t an anomoly, it’s a juiced deck. Sure, the players participating in a hand will likely be more inclined to play the hand when they hold paint pocket cards, yet, should you end up with a comparison of 38.5% versus 55.5%, you ain’t playing with a 52 card RNG database….for certain, it’s a juiced deck.
Thus, using a juiced deck as a baseline, if y’all are going to have ‘pocket power’ about 4% to 6% of the time, I suggest that y’all need to make the most of the ‘action’ cards when you do get them."
Joined: Oct '09
Location: Spain
Age: 60 (M)
Posts: 2851
Posted by hooley99:
And, you should know that it’s not all that difficult to determine whether or not you’re playing with an ‘action’ RNG, whether or not you’re playing with a ‘juiced deck’. To do so, take note of all the cards you get to see at the end of every hand. Count the number of Aces, Kings, Queens, Jacks, and Tens that you’ve seen.
And, remember that the total of all 5 ‘paint’ cards (20) represents approximately 38.5% of the number of cards in the deck (52). If you have seen 15 cards, and 9 of those cards were ‘paint’ cards, you’ve been witness to an anomoly….60% of the cards were ‘action’ cards.
It’s an anomoly because it’s happened once. In time, as you continue to watch the exposed cards, and continue to make the ‘paint’ card percentage calculations, and continue to come up with numbers like 46%, 48%, 54%, 58%, 63%, 65%, and 69% (all exceeding the 52 card deck legitimate 38.5%), there should be no doubt in your mind that the RNG is loaded with a source database of greater than 52.
It ain�t an anomoly, it�s a juiced deck. Sure, the players participating in a hand will likely be more inclined to play the hand when they hold paint pocket cards, yet, should you end up with a comparison of 38.5% versus 55.5%, you ain�t playing with a 52 card RNG database�.for certain, it�s a juiced deck.
Wow! Read the whole thing and talk about unscientific (unless I missed something?)
Sorry Hooley, but what you just wrote here is just plain nonsense IMO.
Just about ALL "paint cards" are in all players Ranges. From 7 down, most cards are NOT in most people´s Ranges. Of course you will see a much higher % in the cards you eventually get to see at the end of a hand! Where do you get your percentages confirming a "juiced deck" or not? You just grab them out of thin air as far as I can read.
It´s the same with all these threads. Starts off with some basic math and very basic satistics, and goes on to completely fall apart when a "point" has to be proven. As far as I can tell, the real Math stops with the card counting and the explanation of what a "juiced deck" can be, and then concludes with a very "emotional" statement with absolutely no basis in mathematics or statistical analysis.
Joined: Aug '10
Location: Indonesia
Age: 43 (M)
Posts: 68
Posted by IslandJack:
Wow! Read the whole thing and talk about unscientific (unless I missed something?)
Sorry Hooley, but what you just wrote here is just plain nonsense IMO.
Just about ALL "paint cards" are in all players Ranges. From 7 down, most cards are NOT in most people's Ranges. Of course you will see a much higher % in the cards you eventually get to see at the end of a hand! Where do you get your percentages confirming a "juiced deck" or not? You just grab them out of thin air as far as I can read.
It's the same with all these threads. Starts off with some basic math and very basic satistics, and goes on to completely fall apart when a "point" has to be proven. As far as I can tell, the real Math stops with the card counting and the explanation of what a "juiced deck" can be, and then concludes with a very "emotional" statement with absolutely no basis in mathematics or statistical analysis.
Why?
Yes, I see your point. All hole cards would have to be exposed in order to do a proper analysis.
How about if we just counted paint cards that we see on the board? Surely that would give a fairly clear picture over several hundred hands. In fact, i'm going to go do that now on stars. I'll let you know how it goes.
Joined: May '11
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 58 (M)
Posts: 1372
It's an anomoly because it's happened once. In time, as you continue to watch the exposed cards, and continue to make the 'paint' card percentage calculations, and continue to come up with numbers like 46%, 48%, 54%, 58%, 63%, 65%, and 69% (all exceeding the 52 card deck legitimate 38.5%), there should be no doubt in your mind that the RNG is loaded with a source database of greater than 52.
That data would be skewed as it doesn't take into account the times when the non paint card averaged over the expected frequency. Put simply he's only counting the times when there is an average number of paint cards whilst not counting the times when the number of paint cards is bellow average.
Furthermore, watching the exposed cards, in anything other than a heads up game, will give a totally useless data set as many, if not most, of the cards dealt will not be exposed. What he is doing here is only looking at the cards that get to showdown which unsurprisingly are often 'paint' cards.
Also, D. M. Vadnais gives no source for his assertion that poker rooms actually use these techniques, so in the end it's just his hypothesis. All he has done is shown how a deck COULD be rigged, he has gone no way towards proving that this actually happens.
Of course this doesn't mean he's wrong, but at the same time it proves nothing. As I said it's just his hypothesis. __________________________ Edit.
Looks like IslandJack got there before me. Damn my flaky internet connection and it's 20 minute outages.
