Random Number Generators (RNG)- Are they really that random?

[TuesdayBlue]

What do you peeps think about RNG ? Are they really that random when you can almost predict e.g. if some-one is holding an Ace you will see at least 1 hit the table , or 2 cards same suit, if the flop drops 2 cards of the same suit as theirs then the turn or river will bring the flush. I know it's not 100% of the time, but very close, imho.

 

[fundiver199]

If you want to become a winning poker player, you need to focus your attention on your decision making rather than distractions like, how the board runs out. Best of luck at the tables

 

[Kenad_MNE]

on pokerstars it feels like every 2nd hand has to be an action flop, doesnt feel random at all...

 

[KozakAlex]

What do you peeps think about RNG ? Are they really that random when you can almost predict e.g. if some-one is holding an Ace you will see at least 1 hit the table , or 2 cards same suit, if the flop drops 2 cards of the same suit as theirs then the turn or river will bring the flush. I know it's not 100% of the time, but very close, imho.

I played a lot of hands at one time. I can say that I have seen incredible situations on the table. I thought for a long time that it was twisted and this is specifically to take away my money. Then I became older and smarter and came to the conclusion that there is no deception. Anything can happen, and that's why it's random. To win MTT or wherever you need to have a special day of luck and add a little skill and tricks like bluffing.

 

[DevaCat]

What do you peeps think about RNG ? Are they really that random when you can almost predict e.g. if some-one is holding an Ace you will see at least 1 hit the table , or 2 cards same suit, if the flop drops 2 cards of the same suit as theirs then the turn or river will bring the flush. I know it's not 100% of the time, but very close, imho.

I'm near 100% sure that this isn't true, because PT4's luck bell curve tells me so. Some days I run good, some days I run bad. It's a random walk. The key thing is not even caring what cards come down- and when I'm multitabling, I often don't even see the turn and river if stacks have gone in. And if you can genuinely predict cards, then PokerStars side bet feature would be insanely profitable for you (note: you can't, so it won't be).

 

[iwont20]

I dunno, but I've definitely seen some patterns in all the rooms I play. They don't last all the time, I'm not sure the exact length, but if you're playing (or watching) a lot of tables and paying attention, you can notice some reoccurring things happening for a while, and then things go back to "normal" or to another "set of patterns". I even made some of my decisions based on these patterns (which were bonkers according to poker theory) that turned out to be correct, as long as the pattern continued.

I know it's a taboo topic and an ultimate fish talk, which is looked down upon by the vast majority to say the least, but you can't ignore some obvious anomalies, if you pay enough attention to notice them.

 

[successlaw]

There is no such random in informatics ..there is one kind of algorithm bases on some formulas

 

[GrannySmit77]

I prefer live poker for that specific reason. Although I'm not that good with technology to have proof, I don't think the RNG is completely random. There must be some sort of algorithm, if only one person wins all the time the others would quit playing. I only play ocasionally online but I have seen weird things happen both in cash and tournaments. So I personally don't think the RNG is random.

 

[bonart]

It is quite obvious to me that there are more than a few online players that play hands that most would frown at. Noticed a player with a 43 unsuited deliberately jamming it in to beat both pocket AA and KK in one hand.

Seems like he knows he was holding the nuts and can predict the outcome.

Algorithm designed and written out in a program created by a human.
Think that will never be as random as live poker.

 

[bkn77]

Speaking from a STEM background, I don't believe there is a truly random RNG (yet). I have heard that many computers actually make use of user inputs (i.e. mouse movements and maybe time between keyboard clicks) to modify their RNG's to increase their 'randomness'.

That being said, current RNG's are definitely sufficient for online poker to approximate a shuffled deck. It would take a pretty strong computer with a lot of data regarding the frequency of each card being dealt to figure out any inconsistencies in a single RNG. I'd be a bit surprised if online poker rooms didn't have multiple RNG algorithms's that they switch between.

Confirmation bias is also something to consider here. Our brains are hard-wired to remember the bad beats more than the good ones, by way of a survival mechanism. Evolutionarily speaking we tend to remember bad experiences more, simply because it used to be bad experiences = someone dying. So it can seem like the game is rigged when it isn't (I sure as hell remember holding KK's with an ace on the flop more than the times I have an over-pair or flopped a set).

That being said, one could always try analyzing hand histories to look for inconsistencies, if one was so inclined.

 

[ADRI7HO]

I will not rule out anything until proven otherwise.Sure, there are weirdness online.

 

[Alizona]

Yes any RNG is more than random enough for any game even tho some mathematician is sure to proclaim that it isn't TRULY random... oh so what, it's close enough.

Here's what people who think poker is rigged are missing...

...there are only 52 cards in a deck, and thus, even the rarest event in the game is gonna happen fairly frequently because 52 is not a very big number at all.

Just for example... why do you think casinos stopped dealing single-deck blackjack and went to the ridiculous six-deck or eight-deck "shoe" to deal the cards from? It's because 52 cards didn't provide enough randomness. If a lot of the tens in the deck happened to randomly end up in the bottom half of the deck, sharp blackjack players could take advantage of the casino and win a lot of money by increasing their bet sizes when they saw the situation developing... it's called "card-counting" in the industry, I'm sure everybody has heard of it by now... But the point is, 52 cards is the reason why so many players think "poker is rigged". If poker could use 6 or 8 decks, it probably would... but it can't, so we're stuck with only 52 cards to provide ALL our randomness...

 

[CDancer_1983]

If you want to become a winning poker player, you need to focus your attention on your decision making rather than distractions like, how the board runs out. Best of luck at the tables

I agree. doesn`t matter how RNG works, what IS matter how you play your game!

 

[digdug0037]

RNG is not so random on a certain couple of sites. There is no way ACR is a legit site. Prove me wrong

 

[tomk7788]

RNGs are 85% random according a study from a prestigious mathematics institution.

 

[TuesdayBlue]

Thank you , there are some very interesting replies.

 

[danoscar]

Hello. I believe they are but I strongly feel that algorithms are not truly random. For example, recently on one of our favored sites, bubble time and the first player hadd 55, second 77, and the one with the most chips had KK. The flop went down with one king, not wet. The 1st went all in, followed by the second and third. The third player having the most chips by far had KK and wiped the other two out. It was not the play of those folks, it is the odds of that occurring and seemingly the one with most chips wins. That appears to not be random, but an algorithm which "sets" people up to lose.

 

[antonis32123]

Some idiots that like playing splash games , for penies or more expensive , to get a ticket , they show their talent of RNG read and then RNG maniipulation , and they are doing this on purpose , not just only to win,,but to try break some balls in the procedure . Then you see how random RNG can be ....... Not even KK or AA can defeat these players or the leaks of RNG . if poker rooms wanted they could invent or use the most progressed and advanced RNG , totally random , a game of luck , but they donot want this , they want to play games with the players' pockets , minds and mentality , it's clear as crystal . Regs like the fact that many ways to play hand are fixed , menaing they know them and they win towards wrong betting lines , they just try to become better thieves with cr** hands , better bingo RNG manipulators , they watch their masters in twitch or live videos , no pity for them , tag and crash .

 

[TuesdayBlue]

Hello. I believe they are but I strongly feel that algorithms are not truly random. For example, recently on one of our favored sites, bubble time and the first player hadd 55, second 77, and the one with the most chips had KK. The flop went down with one king, not wet. The 1st went all in, followed by the second and third. The third player having the most chips by far had KK and wiped the other two out. It was not the play of those folks, it is the odds of that occurring and seemingly the one with most chips wins. That appears to not be random, but an algorithm which "sets" people up to lose.

Totally agree seen this happen so many times especially with the chip leader.

 

[iamKK]

What do you peeps think about RNG ? Are they really that random when you can almost predict e.g. if some-one is holding an Ace you will see at least 1 hit the table , or 2 cards same suit, if the flop drops 2 cards of the same suit as theirs then the turn or river will bring the flush. I know it's not 100% of the time, but very close, imho.

RNG is as random as it can get even tho you may think that it’s rigged it’s probably because you might have encountered bad beats. We tend to remember our bad beats so well that we almost forget all the good runs we have had. However you might be right it could be rigged depending on what platform you play on so I would suggest you to play on well know sites to ensure your security.

 

[puzzlefish]

All I have to say is that if you see that it isn't random, then believe in what you are seeing. All these same arguments keep being made to justify it. You either believe them or you don't. If you don't, then stop depositing to your online poker sites.

 

[capujoss]

A lot of times I feel as if the hands are dealt with the intention to trap someone by giving them, for example, a flush, with their opponent holding a full house.

 

[DS3]

All I have to say is that if you see that it isn't random, then believe in what you are seeing. All these same arguments keep being made to justify it. You either believe them or you don't. If you don't, then stop depositing to your online poker sites.

Or alternatively keep playing but limit your exposure. Build bankrolls via free rolls and tickets won. Someone can be somewhat skeptical, yet not have to make deposits at all and keep playing.

This is particularly applicable to those who love poker and have no choice but to play on line.

 

[bkn77]

RNG is not so random on a certain couple of sites. There is no way ACR is a legit site. Prove me wrong

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. So....prove yourself right?

RNGs are 85% random according a study from a prestigious mathematics institution.

I'd actually be pretty interested in reading about that, do you have a citation I could read?

 

[bkn77]

Hello. I believe they are but I strongly feel that algorithms are not truly random. For example, recently on one of our favored sites, bubble time and the first player hadd 55, second 77, and the one with the most chips had KK. The flop went down with one king, not wet. The 1st went all in, followed by the second and third. The third player having the most chips by far had KK and wiped the other two out. It was not the play of those folks, it is the odds of that occurring and seemingly the one with most chips wins. That appears to not be random, but an algorithm which "sets" people up to lose.

Again, like I said earlier, it's easier to remember the times these improbable (but possible) situations occur. A one-off event is not evidence of manipulation, you'd need a large sample size of events to demonstrate these sites aren't using proper RNG algorithms.

Obviously, I'm not saying it's impossible for them to manipulate things. I'm simply stating that there are ways to prove (or disprove) it, but recalling rare/unlikely occurrences like that isn't the way to do it.