Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

paddy power poker

13

Comments

  • #62
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,076 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Antikythera wrote: »
    Well that's as maybe, but where online poker is concerned, they are not doing it. [1]

    [1] Citation needed


  • #63
    mark renton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,696 ✭✭✭mark renton


    Actually computers have always struggled with precise random number generation


    and earlier hand example AA v 72 rainbow, 72 wins 12% of the time, if the 72 is suited the 16.5% - which is a 6/1 shot in a 2 horse race

    AA is the best pocket pair but by no means a certainty every time


  • #64
    Antikythera
    Closed Accounts Posts: 214 ✭✭Antikythera


    marco_polo wrote: »
    [1] Citation needed

    Just go and look for yourself. Open your eyes and you won't miss it.
    john47832 wrote: »
    16.5% - which is a 6/1 shot in a 2 horse race

    5/1


  • #65
    SlowJack
    Registered Users Posts: 95 ✭✭SlowJack


    Antikythera wrote: »


    5/1

    6.06/1....;)


  • #66
    nix
    Registered Users Posts: 4,909 ✭✭✭nix


    Antikythera wrote: »
    Just go and look for yourself. Open your eyes and you won't miss it.



    5/1

    All we can find are idiots waffling on like you are without any actual "evidence", since it soooo easy to find, why don't you provide some credible sources?

    You're not going too? I wonder why that is.... :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    BeanbagBallbag
    Registered Users Posts: 181 ✭✭BeanbagBallbag


    SlowJack wrote: »
    6.06/1....;)

    16.5% = 165/1000
    165 = ~ 1/6 * 1000


    83.5% = 835/1000
    835 = ~ 5/6 * 1000

    83.5 : 16.5 = ~5 : 1 = 5/1

    (5.06/1)


  • #68
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 38,998 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    SlowJack wrote: »
    6.06/1....;)
    If you are going to most something smart at least make sure you are right.

    16.5% is roughly 1 time in every 6 (1 in every 6.0600)
    That means its a 5/1 shot, not a 6/1 shot.

    1 time in 2 is an even money shot or 1/1, it isn't 2/1


    This has to be one of the owrst threads on the forum.


  • #69
    Antikythera
    Closed Accounts Posts: 214 ✭✭Antikythera


    nix wrote: »
    All we can find are idiots waffling on like you are without any actual "evidence", since it soooo easy to find, why don't you provide some credible sources?

    You're not going too? I wonder why that is.... :rolleyes:

    Thanks. If you're not seeing it, there's really nothing I can do for you.


  • #70
    Antikythera
    Closed Accounts Posts: 214 ✭✭Antikythera


    nix wrote: »
    You're not going too? I wonder why that is.... :rolleyes:

    Going where too? Let me know where it is and I'll tell you if I'll go too.


  • #71
    nix
    Registered Users Posts: 4,909 ✭✭✭nix


    Provide links to credible sources.... thought that was obvious..

    And oh look, I was right :)

    Just you talking out your ass.......AGAIN


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    nix
    Registered Users Posts: 4,909 ✭✭✭nix


    Wait i think you may be right about it being rigged,

    Source: http://www.billrini.com/2004/11/30/proof-that-online-poker-is-rigged/

    :rolleyes:


  • #73
    mark renton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,696 ✭✭✭mark renton


    Mellor wrote: »
    If you are going to most something smart at least make sure you are right .

    :confused:


    Mellor wrote: »
    This has to be one of the owrst threads on the forum.

    :rolleyes:

    lmao with the irony, i nearly fell off the chair


  • #74
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 38,998 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    john47832 wrote: »
    :confused:





    :rolleyes:

    lmao with the irony, i nearly fell off the chair
    The poster make a smart comment about it being 6.06/1
    His whole point was wrong. He doesn't understand odds.

    Mine was a typo. Quite common really. I am actually aware how to spell worst.

    If you can't see the difference then its not surprising you have trouble keeping you balance while sitting in the chair.


  • #75
    Dave147
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭Dave147


    Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?


  • #76
    Antikythera
    Closed Accounts Posts: 214 ✭✭Antikythera


    nix wrote: »
    Wait i think you may be right about it being rigged,

    Source: http://www.billrini.com/2004/11/30/proof-that-online-poker-is-rigged/

    :rolleyes:

    Lol, you really are new to this aren't you.
    Dave147 wrote: »
    Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

    Depends on connection speed.


  • #77
    mark renton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,696 ✭✭✭mark renton


    Mellor wrote: »

    Mine was a typo. Quite common really. I am actually aware how to spell worst.
    .

    Yes typos are common - even happened to me once, but when you are having a go at the content quality of others posts then at least ensure you own is up to standard


  • #78
    mark renton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,696 ✭✭✭mark renton


    Antikythera wrote: »



    Depends on connection speed.

    i was going to add confused to his comment - but which algorithm did you use to decipher that post


  • #79
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 38,998 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    john47832 wrote: »
    Yes typos are common - even happened to me once, but when you are having a go at the content quality of others posts then at least ensure you own is up to standard
    If I was having a go at the spelling, then my own typo would of been quite ironic.
    But I referred to the fact that the "correction" was completely wrong. So I don't think it's all that funny. A bit unfortunate.

    You forgot the R in YOUR above. Again not massively funny, just unfortunate given the post it's in.


  • #80
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 38,998 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    john47832 wrote: »
    Antikythera wrote: »



    Depends on connection speed.

    i was going to add confused to his comment - but which algorithm did you use to decipher that post
    Lol, my thoughts too.
    I've read it a few times now and I'm still lost


  • #81
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    pokerstars_five_aces.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,076 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Still only quads though :p

    http://kickasspoker.blogspot.com/2007/10/bogus-five-aces-stars-hand-that-wont.html


  • #83
    nix
    Registered Users Posts: 4,909 ✭✭✭nix


    Antikythera wrote: »
    Lol, you really are new to this aren't you.



    Depends on connection speed.

    No, that's all i could find when i went looking for "proof that online poker is rigged", it just highlights my point that you're talking out your ass and YOU haven't got a clue what you're talking about with your claims.

    And yet again you prevail in failing to support your claims, /golfclap


  • #84
    mark renton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,696 ✭✭✭mark renton


    That picture is not valid nuxx - how can twiceasright have won 24000 from previous pot when the blinds and ante combine to at least 34000


  • #85
    premierstone
    Registered Users Posts: 7,706 ✭✭✭premierstone


    john47832 wrote: »
    That picture is not valid nuxx - how can twiceasright have won 24000 from previous pot when the blinds and ante combine to at least 34000

    I doubt its validity either but not for the reason you have stated, twiceasright was the sb in the last hand so he obv raised , bb folded and he thus won the bb + 4 antes which equals 24,000


  • #86
    mark renton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,696 ✭✭✭mark renton


    premierstone wrote: »
    I doubt its validity either but not for the reason you have stated, twiceasright was the sb in the last hand so he obv raised , bb folded and he thus won the bb + 4 antes which equals 24,000

    so your saying the chips twiceasright has put in are not included in the win?

    then in that case the win should be 23,000 - no?


  • #87
    zuroph
    Registered Users Posts: 11,097 ✭✭✭✭zuroph


    You’ve got to be kidding me. I’ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It’s just common sense


  • #88
    Hank Scorpio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    lol :D


  • #89
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 38,998 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    premierstone wrote: »
    I doubt its validity either but not for the reason you have stated, twiceasright was the sb in the last hand so he obv raised , bb folded and he thus won the bb + 4 antes which equals 24,000
    That wouldn't of happened, the pot would of been bigger had SB of raised.

    He was BB last hand. It was folded to him, so 10,000 was refunded (the extra in for the BB over the SB), the pot was 4 x 1000 antes, SB's 10,000 and his match of SBs amount = 24,000
    john47832 wrote: »
    so your saying the chips twiceasright has put in are not included in the win?

    then in that case the win should be 23,000 - no?

    As above, he was BB.
    Antes are also separate to blinds so they would of counted.


    Its a fake. But not for those reasons.
    It's a screen shot of two tourneys plus a fake chat box


  • #90
    Dave147
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭Dave147


    Mellor wrote: »
    Lol, my thoughts too.
    I've read it a few times now and I'm still lost

    Google it.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Antikythera
    Closed Accounts Posts: 214 ✭✭Antikythera


    nix wrote: »
    No, that's all i could find when i went looking for "proof that online poker is rigged"

    Why would you go looking for "proof that online poker is rigged" when you're so convinced it's not?

    It doesn't make sense; it's a bit like someone who doesn't believe in leprechauns spending his time looking for leprechauns.


Advertisement