Seems like it is the typical disconnect about publishing code. As
patty_bush mentions above, the executives running the show at the online
poker sites probably haven't encountered yet the politics of code
publishing and understanding how it would help them (at least on the RNG
side).
I too remember the event long ago you are mentioning. I vaguely recall
it was the old Planet Poker site, back when it first launched and before
poker was big enough for such a story to reach anyone's ears. It was as
you describe — not rigged but a badly coded algorithm that limited
the number of possible deck setups. The code was eventually published,
and it was obvious that the programmer who wrote it was just an idiot; it
was too poorly done to be any sort of setup and it didn't stack the deck
in any interesting way.
I agree that proprietariness of certain interface aspects probably
gains some competitive edge. Although, none of the site's client software
is really any good. For example, there is no reason at all you shouldn't
be able to play online poker with one hand! For limit, it's
call/raise/fold, which Pokerroom gets right, but
all the sites get NL wrong. I have to mouse to the text box, type a
number, and then hit bet/raise. How dumb! I should be able to hit return
twice to accept or somesuch. BTW, I am obsessed with this single-hand
play because I have this grand idea that I'm going to buy an exercise bike
and play online poker while exercising.
Anyway, it always worries me that the RNG's are buggy when I see how
buggy the damn client software is. As I said in the post, I doubt we've
got serious fairness issues. If there are bugs, they are probably hurting
everyone about equally — maybe hurting the passive players a bit
worse if their odds of catching draws is somehow skewed against them, or
hurting aggressive players worse if the odds of drawing are accidentally
better. But, there is no point for them to keep these thing secret.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-05-19 15:55 (UTC)Seems like it is the typical disconnect about publishing code. As patty_bush mentions above, the executives running the show at the online poker sites probably haven't encountered yet the politics of code publishing and understanding how it would help them (at least on the RNG side).
I too remember the event long ago you are mentioning. I vaguely recall it was the old Planet Poker site, back when it first launched and before poker was big enough for such a story to reach anyone's ears. It was as you describe — not rigged but a badly coded algorithm that limited the number of possible deck setups. The code was eventually published, and it was obvious that the programmer who wrote it was just an idiot; it was too poorly done to be any sort of setup and it didn't stack the deck in any interesting way.
I agree that proprietariness of certain interface aspects probably gains some competitive edge. Although, none of the site's client software is really any good. For example, there is no reason at all you shouldn't be able to play online poker with one hand! For limit, it's call/raise/fold, which Pokerroom gets right, but all the sites get NL wrong. I have to mouse to the text box, type a number, and then hit bet/raise. How dumb! I should be able to hit return twice to accept or somesuch. BTW, I am obsessed with this single-hand play because I have this grand idea that I'm going to buy an exercise bike and play online poker while exercising.
Anyway, it always worries me that the RNG's are buggy when I see how buggy the damn client software is. As I said in the post, I doubt we've got serious fairness issues. If there are bugs, they are probably hurting everyone about equally — maybe hurting the passive players a bit worse if their odds of catching draws is somehow skewed against them, or hurting aggressive players worse if the odds of drawing are accidentally better. But, there is no point for them to keep these thing secret.