popcash said:
Anyone who thinks the online shuffles are rigged is half right. They are actually random, however the site software evaluates every shuffle to see if there are enough strong hands to make the game exciting and bring conflict to the game. If not, the shuffle is discarded and the next random shuffle is produced. That's why there are so many monster hands in online poker. The sites want quick and fatal conflicts to speed up play... the faster your game or tourney is over, the more games they can run ($$$). The more monster hands out there, the more excitement. If online poker used every single random shuffle produced by the software, it would be so boring no one would play.
These are the simple facts of online play... we simply have to accept it or quit playing.
This doesn't even make sense. The A.I. would have to watch the players at a specific table for thousands of
hands in order to be able to determine what players think what hands are strong enough to give action with. Obviously AA/KK/AK, but from there it's all opinion. I've seen one person play JJ completely different than another enough times to know that a computer that is able to determine what
my playstyle is along with
everyone else's at my table and adjust the cards we are getting accordingly (which is what this software would be doing, throwing out hands we wouldn't play aggressively, or at all) is impossible.
Maybe one table.
Maybe ten tables. But to the scale that you see in online poker? No. It would be too ineffecient and costly to run the servers, especially since the rake is capped at most tables.
I want to quote something again in specific:
The more monster hands out there, the more excitement. If online poker used every single random shuffle produced by the software, it would be so boring no one would play.
As random as it could possibly be (because there is no such thing as a random number generator) it wouldn't be boring. There are a certain # of cards in the deck, and eventually AAAA will be beaten by a royal flush. Possibly even 100 hands in a row. Possibly not even in your lifetime. For someone that claims to have as much experience in card theory, or at least live poker, you seem to be somewhat daft.
You have no argument, you have no evidence.
Did I leave anything out?
