Set mining on Replay is a super good strategy because so many people only raise with QQ+ and then get aggressive when they flop overpairs. So, if your perceptions about how the cards will fall are correct and working for you, then that is great.
If you can track data that shows that flops are meaningfully different from what would be expected over larger sample sizes (1000+ hands to start), that would be compelling evidence.
I would love to do this. Would there be any way that we, as players, could organize this into a pool of data?
Maybe nobody in the games you play, but not where I live. Consistent winners donāt fall for that reasoning, and they also donāt post how the site is rigged. So many people play any 2 suited cards that they must suspect they have found some secret recipe for success.
In a way, this makes the āflush mythā a self reinforcing cycle. We see more flushes, so assume there are more flushes, so play more suited cards, so see more flushes, and so on.
And this may be the most salient point made to date in this thread. If everyone is playing on the same setup, the pRNG isnāt the determining factor in long-term win/loss rates. That brings me back to my original position that its nearly irrelevant if the deal is true or not. If its random for you then its random for me. If its skewed for you, its skewed for me. Since we canāt know for sure one way or the other and since no one can seriously claim its set up to specifically benefit/harm certain players, just play the game and let the chips fall where they may.
Absolutely, if one isnāt receiving a fair shake here due to the site and not the play. Why hang out, go somewhere elseā¦
-Larry
What gave you guys the impression that the folks who suspect the RNG is juiced are consistent losers?
Some people hear what they want to hear and project their feelings onto everything. Things that donāt fit their narrative must be demeaned. Setting up straw-men arguments is just one tactic. Its not even worth responding to some of the things said here but I will point out a few things:
Let anyone who wants to take it seriously. Let others over complicate the game needlessly in attempts to sound smart. Its an entertainment site loosely based on poker. When Iām in the mood for this type of entertainment, this is where I go. When I want to take poker seriously, I play real poker. The fact that people get so worked up over every little thing that doesnāt agree with whatever opinion they hold is sad. I have fun and I want them to have fun. Iām not telling them what to think and Iād appreciate them returning the favor. In the immortal words of Charlie Brown, āGood Griefā.
This is my absolute favorite quote of all time. Can I please post it in the ādaily quotesā thread? Well said!!!
well I am one that takes advantage of the patterns I see. in fact, couple times it has helped me make it to the payouts.
couple hands that I remember were I held JJ and was short stacked. the preflop action got crazy before it even got to me, and I knew something was not right and folded. I knew two things, 1 I was either going up against another pocket pair. 2 knew someone would be playing any ace they had in their hand. Iām glad I listen to my gut and folded,even though my head was saying go all in. right on cue Ace hit the flop and another one on the turn and someone held AK.
a hand I was involved with few days ago, I had flopped 3 of a kind and there was two suited cards on flop. before it got to me the bets and raises again got out of hand. I said to myself I have to fold this because I knew what was happening, I said someone is on flush draw and is going to hit on turn or river, so yes I folded a flop 3 of a kind and sure enough right on the river the third suited card hit and player hit their flush.
so yes I can sense something is not right and can make folds that I doubt many others would had made.
Quickly gathering recent thoughts hereā¦
I agree that if the RNG is a bit weird at times, it isnāt picking winners and losers. Iām not an advocate for the position that the RNG is intentionally seeking people out for river beats or whatever. The craziness will affect everyone equally and good players are going to win consistently on their own.
However, I do think it is necessary to point out strange phenomenon when it does occur. I mention it here to see if others are seeing the same thing.
You mean you donāt want to be one of the cool kids who fling around poker strategies and terms that sound good but are only necessary at high stakes for money? You want to risk being mocked and shunned by these wizards of smart? If thatās ok with you, be my guest. Think about it before you go ahead though. You donāt want to upset the guy who thinks he needs to protect his checkback range against an opponent who is holding a beer in one hand and has his other one 3-knuckles deep up his own nose. They learned nothing from Wile E Coyote - just shoot the damn bird already! If your opponent canāt even spell ABC poker, never mind play it, youāre probably ok keeping it basic. LMAO
If I ever become one of them, please shoot me. Treat me as a turned Zombie; aim for the head LOL.
Nobody said that anybody else was a consistent loser, just that the fact that there are consistent winners and losers indicates that ājuicedā or not, everybody here is playing the same game.
Itās great how you can make fun of people for being good at poker while also claiming to be good at poker. And you are expert enough to claim (with no evidence) that you have identified patterns in the play that arenāt ārealā poker while claiming that others are taking this site too seriously. Hilarious
I donāt have much trouble reading English.
When it is said that āthose playing winning poker donāt usually complainā about the RNG, it clearly means that the ācomplainersā are mostly those playing losing poker.
Well, as far as data is concerned: I see the hands that I am dealt and they look pretty random to meā¦
Sorry I missed your message.
Yes, there werenāt any dramatic hands. You donāt need one to milk out a player. My observation is that you can never win in these sites. In fact I wanted to ask you this: have you ever won any money in any of these sites over a period of time?
I have lost quite a few times betting on pair jacks.
Once someone said in the game chat, āOnly way to play a pair jacks is playing it wrongā.
Thatās a good one. I think this is true for pair 10ās also. Anything under ten you may fold. Anything above jack you may not fold, but you have a good probability to win. 10ās and Jās are the cut over points. Even 9ās I think.
Added: except you bet high, and reduce the hands to two or three.
Disagreed, based on my last hand in todayās Bounty Adventure tournament. 
I been playing mostly free online backgammon, ( Iāll get to the point ), and I play real dice backgammon on wood boards, preferred.
They are not the same, you can outmaneuver in online gammon, think you got it in the bag, and the opponent wins with a string of doubles at the last moment. It just does not happen in real dice game of gammon.
In real poker I prefer to play manila, ( 32 cards, 7ās to Ace ),
You get dealt 2 cards each, and one community card before bets begin. So if ya holding a 7 8, and a J is the first community card, ya in with a chanceā¦faster and cleaner due to less junk cards. Unfortunately I donāt see manila online, even free.
Ok, here, free poker and a few other places a similar thing happens with the dealing of the cards, so many questionable things that are far from real.
I have come to a conclusion and I think itās to do with the physics of real games, and the mechanical algorithm in computer games.
The computer, the program is āfixedā, it has no free fall, itās robotic be it computer dice rolls or computer generated card deals. A programmer will understand this and better explain what happens INSIDE the program/robot. Mathematicians may understand it also and better explain,
Even keno comes under the same principleā¦I used to go to casinos for the entertainment of watching the balls fall, and win more often than the computer keno. I no longer play keno unless itās real balls.
The moral is, itās the programming behind the dice rolls, cards dealt, keno etc etc.
It cannot and will not ever be the same as real free fall. You cannot put the physics of āfree airā into a computer and expect a similar outcome. The math does not allow it because the algorithm, or āmatrixā starts at mechanical zero and returns to mechanical zero in computer programs.
Therefore, the art is in the programer/sā¦can they produce as near as possible to the real, rather than pseudo-random ?