The fairness debate

Ron, you know how much I value your opinions, and I can understand that the rudeness and the vehemence of some posts here may sound insulting.
In reality, many simply want an improvement of a site they LIKE and appreciate. Why not? They see some “irregularities” (for lack of a better term) again and again, which I know for sure bother many serious players (although they don’t post here), irregularities which could be perhaps rectified.
This is important feedback.
@Anonymouse05 put it very well, in my opinion.
Don’t be angry, Ron! :slight_smile:
I won a tournament earlier, but I wasn’t happy about it. Somehow I knew I could play like a donk, chase the river and hit whatever I needed.
It is interesting how some who deny even the thought that an improvement might be a good idea, say: “I don’t play very often”, or are players who joined the site a short time ago. I wonder on what basis they judge.
But actually I’m sure that the players’ feedback is not ignored, but carefully considered.

You should not think, though, that I am not grateful to Replay for the free entertainment they offer me. Quite the opposite, and I try my poor best to give something in return, like being a pleasant person at the tables (this is not always an easy task!), or posting once in a while some “nonsense” in the Forum (spare me your comments here LOL).


Well, some is not ignored and some is carefully considered…some being the operative word…

Yes, isn’t it a shame they don’t carefully consider all MY suggestions? How dare they? Here is something I’ve proposed many times and I’m still waiting for it: in my opinion, every table should be decorated with dozens of red roses! Wouldn’t it be wonderfully romantic?
OK, joking. :laughing:



Re my comment "I think you have your answer. :slight_smile: " about "feedback’.

It is true that Replay, in general, is very receptive to feedback. They appreciate it.
The exception is feedback that questions the integrity of the RNG.
And when I say “Replay”, I am referring to the only connection most of us have with the company, which is the staff and the working volunteers.
I don’t think I am exaggerating when I say that Replay considers players who question the RNG as a cancer on the site. The “wrong” kind of feedback/opinion on the RNG usually results in some combination of the following responses:
—You are a bad player lashing out.
—You don’t understand math.
—If you think its unfair why don’t you leave?
—You just need a little help…Let me tell you how to be a better player.
—I hate this thread. It is an insult.

The first 4 are attacks on the person rather than the argument. That normally wouldn’t be tolerated.
The last response(“I hate this thread”) is the most honest. Despite the regular bugs & hiccups in the software & servers, some have the honest opinion that the RNG is perfect and infallible. They want criticism of the RNG silenced.
So…I was not contradicting your excellent post. I was making a somewhat cryptic comment on the responses to your post. I’m sorry for my unclearness,

Now, I’ll raise the issue which usually simmers below the surface.
It is called ‘The Fairness Debate’ but the main focus is the integrity of the RNG.
Is it prudent to allow players to give opinions on the integrity of the RNG or should they be censored as if they were talking religion, sex or politics?
Is this thread insulting? The argument can certainly be made. The fairness of the deal is central to the site’s reputation. On the other hand, silencing opinion critical of the site is not the way to bolster confidence in the site.
As much as many want this debate to go away, it won’t. If it isn’t allowed in the forums, it will grow on the tables. If is isn’t allowed on the tables, it will continue in the minds of the players. Thought can’t be stopped, only redirected.
Is the RNG juiced? Who knows.
But even a juiced site will survive if it allows the kind of respectful opinion Anonymouse05 pens.
As with almost all social sites on the web, Replay will sink or swim based on it’s preference for the opinionated over the perpetually offended.


Isn’t it interesting how people in positions of authority will try to silence someone who is close to an uncomfortable truth? Good post, @Whittaker.

So look, I could keep posting crazy hands ad infinitum and a sizable portion of the people I run into on the tables will continue being more adamant than me about the card dealing being goofy. It’s a very common discussion among players.

The bottom line is this: I don’t care if it is intentional or unintentional, but I want it to be acknowledged.

If it’s intentional for the purposes of entertainment value and selling more play chips to keep the site running, that’s great. I’m okay with this as a business model. Just stop outright lying about it.

If it’s unintentional, either by an implementation error or a defect within the algorithm itself, it would be wise to examine this sooner rather than later. Is it possible for it to become a legal liability?

Maybe they want the controversy? Could that be why the issue hasn’t been put to rest? At this point I’m willing to consider any reasonable explanation other than staff and volunteers continuously toeing the company line: “Nothing is wrong with the pRNG.”


Look at you getting all demanding. #POKER HANDS MATTER!
We’re up to post 1966. Maybe by the time we get to 2019 we’ll have an answer. Until then play, don’t play, protest, counter protest, it’s all good. I really don’t think that the number of posters on the forum represent any kind of majority of the players on Replay. It’s a video game, like Farmville or CandyCrushSaga.
Sometimes the forums are more entertaining than the actual table games.


Maybe I should take another month off.

Tongue in cheek my friend. I shoulda used a smiley.

1 Like

Fair enough. Internet’s got me in srs bsns mode right now. Still, I should probably “enhance my calm”. Thanks.

Oh, and in case it wasn’t clear to everyone earlier, I’m not upset about the crazy cards. Since I know what to look for, it’s actually been a very profitable two weeks for me. The thing that irritates me is the pure dismissal and/or lying about it. I think most will understand my perspective in regards to that.

1 Like

I just wanted to jump in real quick as a representative of the staff to be clear about how much we appreciate and rely on your feedback. All of it, @miri123! :wink:

Both positive and negative feedback is essential to building an honest community and gaming experience. We want everyone to feel free to express their opinions openly.


Thank you, Pageaux! I feel honoured that there will always be a place for me in the rubbish bin. :slight_smile:


(Silly you! <3)

Felt like the site hasn’t been as rigged recently. I have beaten others fairly and gotten beaten fairly. In fact it’s been almost suspiciously fair :wink:

1 Like

well the site has gone south on me i only play the 20k omaha hi/lo now i did the numbers it will take me 631.236 days to lose the rest of my chips everyone must have a mission

1 Like

I get more upset each time I play lately. I have complained before about how I think this site is ‘somehow’ fixed. I’m not smart enough to know how that is, but I do know about cards in real life. I’m also sure that as long as you do not buy any chips, I never have, the bad cards you are consistently dealt and the unreal beats you suffer, will never get better. Too bad. Takes all the fun out of the game.

1 Like

You might find this interesting.


I’ve been a player now for awhile, with some success, some failures. But to be constantly beaten by unlikely hands, at crucial moments on a continuous basis, is taking the fun out of the whole thing.
I constantly see, for example; Ace in the pocket, with what ever, doesn’t matter. Make a bet or call, then get rewarded with an Ace in the flop, only to see after the hand has played out. All the Aces on the table.
Not occasionally, but far to regularly to be considered normal card distribution, in a game of chance!
I average a half a dozen hands of 9 2 in a tournament. I’ve seen the same pair given in consecutive games on multiple occasions, I am continually given low ranking cards for hand a after hand, when I have won, consequently folding. Only to have them be the best hand in the hand and when I do call likely cards; ie ranking face cards and solid kickers, to be beaten by ridicules combinations!!
IF, your site, logarithms are legit?? Then some work needs to be done, to get close to the real thing.
Yours etc etc
Former player!


I just finished the data collection on how often I flop a set while holding a pocket pair. I did this to provide some actual data on at least 1 aspect of the pRNG.

I saw 1023 pocket pairs and flopped (or would have flopped) 120 sets. Note that, as long as I saw the flop, I noted it, even if I was no longer in the hand.

(120/1023) X 100 = 11.73%, it should be 11.75%, for a difference of 0.02%

The whole data set is here

A minor quibble - if you’re excluding the times you flopped (or would have flopped) quads, then your likelihood of getting a set on the flop when you have a pocket pair falls to 11.51%. The key question is whether that’s a statistically significant from your observed 11.73%.

Running this through a spreadsheet, we find an “expected value” of 117 sets in 1023 trials. However, this occurs with very low probability - less than 4% of the time. We have to expand this to the range 117+/-11 in order for us to capture one full standard deviation from this mean (about 68% of results), and 117+/-21 to capture two standard deviations from this mean (about 95% of results). Your observation of 120 sets in 1023 trials is well within this range.

Additionally, I think it’s notable that you flopped (or would have flopped) quads once after seeing 1023 pocket pairs. Statistically, this would happen roughly once out of every 408 hands, so you’d “expect” to see it 2-3 times on average. However, this is a very low-probability event, so there’s still a 20.44% chance it would happen just once in 1023 trials. Meanwhile, the chance of it happening twice is 25.65%, and thrice is 21.43%.

If the RNG were “juiced for action,” I’d expect to get quads on the flop given a pocket pair 5+ times with a sample size of 1023 - something that should happen with less than 11% probability.


This is a long thread, much makes sense, much is attributes to :the machine" vs “the human”.

Pre-flop Bingo is a real pain here…I seem to be forced to play this way in the first 20 minutes, or I have no leverage when unlimited buy-ins end. The BINGO yahoos, go in big, then lose it cos thats all they know, BINGO.
I have a suggestion to consider, that is to implement the Manila version of poker, using 32 cards, 7’s to ace, and ace does not count as 1, and all the other rules regarding Manila Poker rules. The advantage would be, it just might eliminate the bingo ideaology because in manila, each get 2 cards dealt, and 1 card pre-flop. So if you are holding 7 9, and the preflop 1st card is Ace, would you go bingo all in ?
And, no rags to mess things up like the 2,3,4,5 and 6’s. This game is very popular elsewhere in the world, especially Australia and parts of Europe. It does not HAVE to be Texas holdem everywhere, suggest to consider some balance here to ?