Poker

[STNeish]

So... I've played poker most of my life.  I'm not a bad player.  However, playing poker in this game, I simply can't seem to get a decent hand for love nor money.

So, I decided to keep track of a few hands, to see just what sort of things I was getting.  I wrote down 50 hands, and noted what the winning hand was.  What I found was kind of surprising.

 

First of all, through 50 hands, 41 of my hands were nothing.  That is, I was playing high card.  The highest card of those, with one exception, was an 8.  The one exception was an ace, but it lost to 2 pair.

8 other hands were single pairs.  3 of them were low pairs (3s, 6s, 7s).  2 of them were higher, (Ks, As).  All lost to higher pairs or other higher hands.

My ONE good hand was 3 of a kind (2s).  It ALSO lost, to 3 of a kind (3s).

 

So, across 50 hands, I lost every hand, and only had what I would consider 3 hands capable of winning, and all lost anyway to higher hands.

Perhaps most surprising however, was WHO was winning.  One player won 48 of the hands.  Another player won 2.  Nobody else won any hands.  That one player didn't win by bluffing or skilful playing, but because he was ALWAYS dealt the highest hand, which is "random."  The two he lost, he folded early.

 

This leads me to the question... IS the poker fair, or is the randomness borked?  Is it possible it's being HACKED?

Just wondering, because my "luck" has been so astronomically bad, I have to wonder.

[kcole4001]

Wow! That is really horrible luck.

 

I haven't played poker for a few weeks, but it used to be pretty balanced.

I wondered whether there were cheat programs available, there were some awfully suspicious bet/win combinations played out quite a lot.

I then took to hiding my hand with my character by adjusting the camera angle in case players were able to somehow access your view angle. (probably just paranoia)

 

The worst thing were the players who would max bet before the flop if they drew a face card.

You don't know what you've got for a hand until at least the first 3 community cards are dealt, and even then it's often a guess whether you have a chance or not.

I was once dealt a pair of aces in the hole and lost to three 2s on the last card.

 

The thing is, if someone's cheating at poker, I just don't understand why they'd bother.

You can't win enough to make it worth while, and in the time it would take to win a few hundred you could easily make more doing almost anything else.

[1898]

I can't see how poker could be hacked but winning 48 out of 50 is nuts.

[STNeish]

Thing is, this was just today.  I play a little poker every day, and have done for about a month... and I can count the number of hands I've won on one hand... and have fingers left over.

[STNeish]

So, haven't played any poker lately, so I played a dozen hands and recorded what I got, for amusement and bemusement.

As I arrived, the hand in progress had ON THE TABLE, a king high diamond flush.  Everyone went all in and split the pot.

 

My first hand, I was dealt a pair of 2s.  Winning hand was a pair of 4s.

Second hand, I had a 2 and an 8.  Winning hand was a pair of 6s.

Third, I had a 2 and a 3.  Winning hand was a pair of 4s.

Fourth, I had an ace and a 2.  Winning hand was 3 aces.

Fifth, I had a 3 and a 6.  Winning hand was a pair of 2s.

Sixth, I had an ace and a jack, which became a pair of jacks.  Winning hand was a pair of kings.

Seventh, I had a 4 and a 6.  It ALMOST would have been a straight, but wasn't.  Winning hand was 2 pair, 3s and 5s.

Eighth, I had a 3 and a 9.  Winning hand was a spades flush, won on the last card.

Ninth, I had a pair of 7s.  Winning hand was 3 sixes.

Tenth, I had a 2 and a 10 that became a pair of 2s.  Winning hand was a pair of 9s.

Eleventh, I had a 7 and 8.  Winning hand was three 2s.

Twelve, I had a 6 and a queen.  Winning hand was thee 7s.

 

I didn't actually play ANY of these hands, folding immediately in each case because EVERY hand, the first person always went max bet immediately.  There was no skill involved, no actual PLAY involved.  Deal, max bet, end.

Really dull... but notice that NOT ONE of my dozen hands had a chance to win.  I swear, I wonder at the RNG in this game.

[kcole4001]

Yeah, the ones who max bet before the flop and win on the last card really make me suspicious, though I don't see them come out on top that often.

If there's a player max betting every hand, whether they win or lose, I always leave after 3 or 4 hands. It's a waste of time to try and play these fools.

 

That pretty well mirrors my experience in GTA casino, however.

I haven't played those games since last year. (and never did any chip glitches, either)

[éX-Driver]

I’ve been saying this since Poker launched online. I think it’s because the card distribution AI is hardwired to give one person at the table the winning hand the majority of the time. This was fine in singleplayer because the NPCs make dumb bets the majority of the time. But it gets wonky in MP because it’s real people who can form actual pattern recognition.

I think R* did this so they wouldn’t have to write an actual AI to make smart bets. Easier to just code one person to get a better hand most of the time.

[STNeish]

One thing about this version of poker is that there's not really much skill in it.  I mean, you're dealt your 2 cards, and there's the 5 on the table... and that's it...  It's all down to luck, no draw means no judgement, no skill.

[DaftSuit]

2 hours ago, STNeish said:

One thing about this version of poker is that there's not really much skill in it.  I mean, you're dealt your 2 cards, and there's the 5 on the table... and that's it...  It's all down to luck, no draw means no judgement, no skill.

There is no difference between drawing your cards and them showing up as common cards on the table.

What you need - in both cases - is to calculate the odds of hitting the cards you need to improve your hand
and compare that to the risk/rewards ratio that the pot offers. 

[Buddy Hightower]

6 hours ago, STNeish said:

One thing about this version of poker is that there's not really much skill in it.  I mean, you're dealt your 2 cards, and there's the 5 on the table... and that's it...  It's all down to luck, no draw means no judgement, no skill.

not true at all...

[1898]

7 hours ago, STNeish said:

One thing about this version of poker is that there's not really much skill in it.  I mean, you're dealt your 2 cards, and there's the 5 on the table... and that's it...  It's all down to luck, no draw means no judgement, no skill.

This Texas Holdem (hoodies and sunglasses) style of poker didn't become popular until way after the RDR timeline. I also wish we could play straight poker. Faro was also very popular at the time but I doubt anyone including me know how to play.

[Buddy Hightower]

54 minutes ago, 1898 said:

This Texas Holdem (hoodies and sunglasses) style of poker didn't become popular until way after the RDR timeline. I also wish we could play straight poker. Faro was also very popular at the time but I doubt anyone including me know how to play.

There is evidence that holdem was played as far back as the early 1900s, however I agree that we should really be playing 5 card draw - like Maverick!!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_hold_'em#:~:text=Although little is known about,California Club by Corky McCorquodale.

Although little is known about the invention of Texas hold 'em, the Texas Legislature officially recognizes Robstown, Texas, as the game's birthplace, dating it to the early 1900s.[2]

[1898]

1 minute ago, Buddy Hightower said:

There is evidence that holdem was played as far back as the early 1900s, however I agree that we should really be playing 5 card draw - like Maverick!!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_hold_'em#:~:text=Although little is known about,California Club by Corky McCorquodale.

Although little is known about the invention of Texas hold 'em, the Texas Legislature officially recognizes Robstown, Texas, as the game's birthplace, dating it to the early 1900s.[2]

Right, I meant popular like it is now.  It's definitely made for TV poker.

[STNeish]

5 hours ago, Buddy Hightower said:

not true at all...

What I mean is, you have no control over your hand.  What you're dealt is what you're dealt.  If you had to discard and draw, you're at least DOING something.  Otherwise, the only skill is in betting, and when everyone just goes all in at the first chance... there's no skill involved.  It ends up just being whatever you're dealt.

[Buddy Hightower]

Fold pre

[GazzaRichNUFC]

I've kept track of how i've done since it launched online, i'm up about 4.5k, i play quite alot, you need to have at least an hour to play properly because you have to be patient and wait for good hole cards or a good flop, force it and you are just gonna lose money.

 

Edited June 6, 2020 by GazzaRichNUFC

[kcole4001]

Some days you do OK, some days you don't.

I only play because I find it enjoyable as long as others play sensibly. If there are max betters at the table, I leave, there's no skill or strategy in that, it's boring AF.

 

The most I can lose is $25, that's a pittance for a well off player, so I don't get concerned, but losing every hand isn't much fun.

[STNeish]

3 hours ago, kcole4001 said:

Some days you do OK, some days you don't.

I only play because I find it enjoyable as long as others play sensibly. If there are max betters at the table, I leave, there's no skill or strategy in that, it's boring AF.

 

The most I can lose is $25, that's a pittance for a well off player, so I don't get concerned, but losing every hand isn't much fun.

That's the thing, I've been here a couple of months now, and NEVER had a good day.  I can count on one hand the number of hands I've won... all together, let alone in any given session.

 

 

 

You know, as I type this, I wonder why we couldn't put a poker table in our saloons...?

[Buddy Hightower]

23 hours ago, kcole4001 said:

If there are max betters at the table, I leave, there's no skill or strategy in that,

Except those are the easiest people to beat.

The issue is the $5 max bet per hand.

[STNeish]

5 hours ago, Buddy Hightower said:

Except those are the easiest people to beat.

The issue is the $5 max bet per hand.

To beat them requires you draw the better hand... which you have no control over.

[RyuNova]

Poker? I hardly know her!

Edited June 7, 2020 by RyuNova

[Krommer]

On 5/26/2020 at 12:55 PM, STNeish said:

This leads me to the question... IS the poker fair, or is the randomness borked?  Is it possible it's being HACKED?

 

This sounds like World of Warcraft level bad random number generation

 

The problem with "random" in a computer game, is that it is simulated. So it is only as good as the random number generator.

In order to be truly random, it would have to be based upon something impossible (such as the decay of a radioactive isotope, try and set that up...)

 

Clever gaming companies getting around this by giving things a "push", like in the example you give it should work differently. Some might program

things so that if what you were saying was happening, the generator would get a push because the odds are that people would be getting better hands. The odds

are also that the one guy would not be winning 48 times (without any "clever" poker playing.) So it shows a flaw in their "poker randomness."

 

I've seen similar things in World of Warcraft, but people always say something like "Random is random!" Yes, except when it really ISN'T.

 

I saw something similar to what the OP saw in GTA Online, just playing blackjack against the NPC; There was a string where the dealer kept getting blackjack, 4 times in a row.

As you can probably figure, that should be impossible. So I walked away and came back to another one, which seemed to be more realistic. It seemed like it kind of got

stuck on whatever random "seed" it was on (again, similar to things with RNG people have seen in Wow.)

 

[STNeish]

Sigh.  Well, finally got some reasonable hands.  I played 5 games, and quit.

 

First hand, I had 3 queens.  Lost to 3 aces.

Second hand, I had 2 pair, Aces over Kings.  Lost to full house, Queens and Jacks.

Third hand, I had 3 aces.  Lost to an Ace high flush.

Fourth hand, I had a full house, three threes and two 7s.  Lost to a straight flush.

Fifth hand, I had 1 pair of aces.  Lost to 2 pair, 2s and 3s.

 

I haven't won a hand since the first day I played the game... that's two months, hundreds of hands.

[STNeish]

44 minutes ago, Krommer said:

 

This sounds like World of Warcraft level bad random number generation

 

The problem with "random" in a computer game, is that it is simulated. So it is only as good as the random number generator.

In order to be truly random, it would have to be based upon something impossible (such as the decay of a radioactive isotope, try and set that up...)

 

Clever gaming companies getting around this by giving things a "push", like in the example you give it should work differently. Some might program

things so that if what you were saying was happening, the generator would get a push because the odds are that people would be getting better hands. The odds

are also that the one guy would not be winning 48 times (without any "clever" poker playing.) So it shows a flaw in their "poker randomness."

 

I've seen similar things in World of Warcraft, but people always say something like "Random is random!" Yes, except when it really ISN'T.

 

I saw something similar to what the OP saw in GTA Online, just playing blackjack against the NPC; There was a string where the dealer kept getting blackjack, 4 times in a row.

As you can probably figure, that should be impossible. So I walked away and came back to another one, which seemed to be more realistic. It seemed like it kind of got

stuck on whatever random "seed" it was on (again, similar to things with RNG people have seen in Wow.)

 

I have a Magic the Gathering game that definitely suffers from this.  I generally play one colour decks, 40 cards.  I always put at least 1/3 mana in any deck, so at a minimum 33% of the deck is mana.  The odds of drawing a hand with no mana is pretty small.  The odds of drawing 10 cards into the deck and getting no mana is ABSURDLY small.  The odds of this happening in 2 straight games... 3 straight... up to 15 straight games... is statistically impossible, yet it happens OFTEN.  I also had a similar experience over at Lord of the Rings online, crafting silver rings.  With all the bonuses I'd put on the job, I had a 77% chance of making a superior ring.  I made 250 rings, and got NO superior results.  Again, statistically impossible.

It even happens in reality, using DICE.  My friends and I used to play a board game called Car Wars.  My cars would ALWAYS crash and explode, no matter what I did.  Any time I had to make a dice check on a manuever, it would fail (1 in 6 chance).  I would then roll on the failure tables to see what the outcome was, and it ALWAYS resulted in the worst possible case.  I'm talking about rolling a 1 on a six sided die 10-12 times in a row... and then again in something like 6 or 10 straight games.  Shouldn't be possible... but it happened.

 

It did work in my favour once, playing D&D.  I had a Ranger character who was renowned as an archer.  I'd prepared some gimmicked arrows with oil in them, the idea being I'd hit a target, the oil would spill, and then a fire arrow would ignite it.  On one occasion, there were a number of orcs on a bridge, blocking our way.  I had three shots per round, so I fired an oil arrow over the orcs, then a regular arrow AT the oil arrow, to spill the oil over the orcs as it passed.  The third shot would be the fire arrow, which would ignite the oil in the air.  The DM said I'd need a natural 20 to hit the oil arrow in flight, then another to hit the oil itself before it dissipated.  I hit both.  It didn't do much damage, but drove the orcs off the bridge. 

[GazzaRichNUFC]

4 hours ago, STNeish said:

 

I haven't won a hand since the first day I played the game... that's two months, hundreds of hands.

 

I mean, maybe you aren't so good? You can't be that unlucky.

 

You are folding the majority of hands right? And not calling big bets when you need one card to make a hand.

Edited June 8, 2020 by GazzaRichNUFC

[STNeish]

24 minutes ago, GazzaRichNUFC said:

 

I mean, maybe you aren't so good? You can't be that unlucky.

 

You are folding the majority of hands right? And not calling big bets when you need one card to make a hand.

The problems are twofold.  First, I've rarely ever been dealt a hand that CAN win.  Someone always has a better hand.  On those rare occasions when I try to push through and play a hand (ie. bluff, since I can't win unless everyone else folds), I lose anyway because everyone is already all in.

 

Can't win if you never get the cards and someone always calls.

[Buddy Hightower]

8 hours ago, STNeish said:

To beat them requires you draw the better hand... which you have no control over.

no, to beat them requires you to play hands that win more than hands that lose.. easy. extremely easy.

[STNeish]

2 minutes ago, Buddy Hightower said:

no, to beat them requires you to play hands that win more than hands that lose.. easy. extremely easy.

That's the point of this thread.  I've never HAD a hand that wins.  There's ALWAYS a stronger hand on the table, so the ONLY way I could possibly win is if the others fold... and if everyone is already at max bet, no one is folding.

[Rev. Gnash]

6 hours ago, STNeish said:

I haven't won a hand since the first day I played the game... that's two months, hundreds of hands.

Bad medicine. You need a mojo bag.

[GazzaRichNUFC]

8 hours ago, STNeish said:

The problems are twofold.  First, I've rarely ever been dealt a hand that CAN win.  Someone always has a better hand.  On those rare occasions when I try to push through and play a hand (ie. bluff, since I can't win unless everyone else folds), I lose anyway because everyone is already all in.

 

Can't win if you never get the cards and someone always calls.

You can't bluff when the max bet is 5 dollars, forget it.

Edited June 8, 2020 by GazzaRichNUFC