If you like real poker prominence poker is not for you. They have it sat up with boosts and bonuses they have it rigged so flushes and full houses are bad bets. You even get points for making bad bets they title it bad bets flush or bad bets straight. This is the kind of poker people get shot for playing in The olden days. Its considered cheating. I uninstalled mine. When u cant go all in on a flush because some other person got the same thing its ridiculous. And how about them people that make outrageous bids. They should be forced to show their cards.
You gotta know when to fold 'em in this game. Sometimes when u have a low flush its not worth it. I do feel like they need to stop allowing people to spam all in.
3 Likes
Online poker has always been bad with the algorithm on cards. I once mapped out 10,000 hands in a data base on poker stars and one of the worst stats was, hands that were all in pre-flop that had a 70% chance or better to win lost 64% of the time. The math with online poker does not work. Which looks worse in fake money poker because these guys don’t seem to care and push all in with 7-4 off suit against your pocket higher pair and flop full houses or four card flushes repeatedly.
I have so many 1-2 card outs hit against me on the river which normally only has close to a 2-4% chance of happening and it happens about 20%, if not more, of the time.
I also wonder sometimes about certain players. I have seen so many players never even look at there cards and just bet/raise everything and hit whatever they need constantly. I sometimes wonder, bots?
Its because of this, my online play style is so different from when I play live games at the nearby casino.
6 Likes
Or maybe kids … Hahaha i have had to deal with what i asume are kids a lot going all in a 7 2 unsuited preflop sitting after two people bet… Im like okay … Lol
1 Like
But im still learning… Maybe thats the only way to play that shit. Hehehee
The math in Prominence is absolutely correct.
Extremely loose online play is responsible for producing the results that casino players consider unusual.
What prevents casino players from playing very loose like some online players do? What would happen if someone came to a casino game and played like these online players? How can we replicate that in Prominence?
Changing the ‘algorithm’ is not an option. It’s an unbiased evenly distributed random shuffle every hand. Changing it would mean rigging the deck to make it SEEM more like what some people expect.
6 Likes
Mayor, don’t change anything!
The challenge of this game is the diversity of the players and the differences found in the levels of play.
A ring game with a buy-in of 250k, is not played the same as a 10k game. Ranked games will change as the season progresses, ie. bronze tourneys at the start of the month attract a different style of play than platinum games during the final week of the month.
If players want to play a more serious game, they have the option of forming a group and playing a private game.
Saturday night games are different than Monday morning games. A morning game on the west coast of the US may include a night-owl from Eastern Europe.
thanks for a great game!
5 Likes
People who play only AK get so mad when they lose. Lmfao. Im like you play only one hand AK isnt all that… But ya know everyone is an expert. Lol. When i lose its 99 percent of the time im making stupid calls… Being chicken shit…or i gotta go to work. Hahahha but i own them.
2 Likes
Mayor,
I guarantee you the math is not correct. I am no pro mainly because I cant read people very well, though high functioning I am a part of the spectrum, so all I have is the math and I have all these numbers and stats in my head but I guess I could start making spreadsheets again.
I average playing about 20 hrs a week in the casino and 10-12 hrs online so about the same number of hands because online your not waiting for cards to shuffle etc,. and I do understand the difference between players who throw play chips around and real money but a 2 card out on the river, which is only about a 4.2% chance should not hit 20% of the time either way.
3 Likes
You are correct! Anything written for a computer is not reality! I programmed mainframe computers for 30 years.
Please remember that every player at the table is receiving cards from the sane deck, so stop blaming the cards dealt.
Games written to be played on computers are there to provide entertainment. Period!
See you at the tables
3 Likes
No I don’t believe you’re right! There are games that I sit for alot of hands folding because all I’m getting is trash cards but one person at the table is always getting primo hands then there are days I get primo hands and no one else does then there’s the bad beat days then straight days , flush days , full house days, the list goes on and circles around to two pair days . I don’t know if any casino that has real games setup like that. For instance yesterday all day was full house day . Today if I ever get to play because servers are down on Xbox is probably flush day . Pay attention to this game you’ll see what I mean .
1 Like
Hey Mayor does the game algorithm lean in favor of new players?
Are rank, bankroll, or achievements in any way affecting outcomes?
I remember reading many years ago (probably in a previous version of this forum, as this seems to be a brand new one) a more detailed explanation of how PP handles card shuffling in games. If how it was explained then is still how it’s being done, it’s too complicated and a bit sus. Something about taking the cards as they were played and sending them to some server and using some strange shuffling based on the seating order of the players, and really strange things like that.
I honestly do not like to toot my own horn, nor try to make an appeal from authority (or, in this case, expertise), but I do have a Master’s degree in computing science and I have worked in the industry for several decades now, and while I’m not an expert in cryptography, I would say I am relatively knowledgeable about it.
It can be mathematically proven that the best way to shuffle a simulated deck is to just use a regular old Fisher-Yates shuffle algorithm using a high-quality random number generator. If a cryptographically strong pseudorandom number generator (CSPRNG) is used, then the quality of the randomness is mathematically indistinguishable from true randomness (something you could get eg. from sampling resistor noise or the like). The only thing that can affect the quality of this randomness is the initial seed being used, but a non-deterministic source can be used to make this seed random and unpredicatble enough (eg. the starting time of the round at millisecond precision).
After that, just deal cards from the top.
This is the best possible shuffling and card dealing algorithm. This can be mathematically argued. You cannot get any better than this. Adding your own stuff into it is not going to increase the quality of the randomness. If you deviate from this, or add anything to this, there are only two possible outcomes: Either the quality of the randomness remains the same (in which case your additions are a waste of everybody’s time and only adds a potential source of bugs, as code complexity increases), or the quality of the randomness decreases. The quality literally cannot increase by adding your own stuff to this algorithm, no matter what you do. Please understand this fact of computing science and mathematics.
The possibility that the quality decreases when you add your own stuff to that basic algorithm is actually relatively high. Biases may be inadvertently introduced. Uneven distribution of the randomness may be inadvertently introduced. Some particular value or a group of values outright being less likely than others may be introduced. Some particular ordering following another ordering may become more likely than it should.
There is literally nothing you can add to the basic Fisher-Yates shuffle + CSPRNG that will make it better. That’s mathematically impossible. You can only make it worse, not better. That’s why it’s better to not add anything to it. To not change it. In this case, keeping it simple and straightforward is the best course of action. The simpler the implementation, the less chances of bugs.
If PP is still using that overly complicated method explained years ago, as a fellow developer I would strongly recommend changing it to just a Fisher-Yates + CSPRNG, with the initial seed being eg. the starting time of the round at millisecond accuracy (plus some other time if you really want). This way you can make sure that the shuffling is indeed fair and indistinguishable from true randomness, and you can mathematically back up that claim. Your own custom algorithm won’t do that.
2 Likes
No matter what the algorithm used to sequence the cards, it makes little divergence to the outcome of each hand played.
Every player at the table is dealt cards from the same deck. There is no way to pre-determine who will check, who will raise, who will call, who will fold or who will bluff.
Poker is not just a card game, it is a people game using cards.
It matters a ton lot what algorithm they use to shuffle the cards… If the algorithm isn’t good enough it’s very likely that one player is getting more favorable than others or what not. It might not favors a specific user, but it still makes the game more fake, which isn’t help the game experience. Other apps even certifies their shuffle algorithm to make their app more trustworthy.
Damn right! This game is crap. Playing heads up numerous times. I’ve gotten a straight and my opponent gets a full house LUDICROUS!! A total of 11 cards(5community/4 down;2 per plyr/ 2 burned) are exposed. Fu*king crap!! I’ve watched ALOT of WSOP. After even 3,4,5 hours, not one time has anyone gotten a straight much less a full house. And that’s with a full table of players. That’s only one example I’ve cited. I already uninstalled the game once. But, and this makes want to puke, it seems to be the best game (I) can find).
I think you mean not one of them WON with a straight or a full house? Did you count how many of them folded a hand that ultimately would have been a straight or a full house?