Interesting transcript from Howard Lederer in a razz S&G with him tonight regarding the RNG and card shuffling at Full Tilt. Figured some people would be interested in reading...
Caitlin215 (Observer): i understand that FTP uses action cards placed at random intervals to speed up play is that true in ring games as well as tourneys or are they just used in tourneys Howard Lederer: our deal si totally random Howard Lederer: action flops would be hard to program Caitlin215 (Observer): well i had the opportunity to meet chris recently and i was talking to him about ftp someone over heard and asked him if ftp used action cards and he said yes placed at totally random intervals but i wasnt sure if he was just talking about toruuneys esfd283: how would that be possible Howard Lederer: you misheard Shangri La (Observer): what are action cards? Howard Lederer: he wwas either joking Caitlin215 (Observer): i guess i did then Howard Lederer: or you misheard Howard Lederer: the notion of action cards is funny to us Shangri La (Observer): to ftp? Howard Lederer: because we know how hard it would be to pull off Dakon (Observer): strange thing to joke about Howard Lederer: and the risk of discovery would be huge Howard Lederer: our deal is rnadom on three levels Howard Lederer: first we used an audited rng Howard Lederer: but we also use a deck queue Howard Lederer: basically each deck on the site is put in a queue after it is used Howard Lederer: then when we need a deck we pick one at random Howard Lederer: then we run it through the rng Howard Lederer: then after each round has been dealt Howard Lederer: the remaining cards are shuffled during the action Caitlin215 (Observer): wait the deck that s in play is shuffled during the action Howard Lederer: there is no way to know what is coming because trhe cardes are not set Howard Lederer: right cait Caitlin215 (Observer): now is that fair to shuffle the deck once its in play? Howard Lederer: since the deck is not set, you can't cheat Caitlin215 (Observer): ok thta makes sense Howard Lederer: we areonly suffling the cards that remain Caitlin215 (Observer): but how would u be able to cheat unless u found a way to ping the deck off the server Howard Lederer: if some how you could crack the deck, it wouldn't help you at our site Howard Lederer: I am not suggesting that it would be easy
> Interesting transcript from Howard Lederer in a razz S&G with him tonight > regarding the RNG and card shuffling at Full Tilt. Figured some people > would be interested in reading...
> Caitlin215 (Observer): i understand that FTP uses > action cards placed at random intervals to speed > up play is that true in ring games as well as > tourneys or are they just used in tourneys > Howard Lederer: our deal si totally random > Howard Lederer: action flops would be hard to > program > Caitlin215 (Observer): well i had the opportunity to > meet chris recently and i was talking to him about > ftp someone over heard and asked him if ftp used > action cards and he said yes placed at totally > random intervals but i wasnt sure if he was just > talking about toruuneys > esfd283: how would that be possible > Howard Lederer: you misheard > Shangri La (Observer): what are action cards? > Howard Lederer: he wwas either joking > Caitlin215 (Observer): i guess i did then > Howard Lederer: or you misheard > Howard Lederer: the notion of action cards is > funny to us > Shangri La (Observer): to ftp? > Howard Lederer: because we know how hard it > would be to pull off > Dakon (Observer): strange thing to joke about > Howard Lederer: and the risk of discovery would > be huge > Howard Lederer: our deal is rnadom on three levels > Howard Lederer: first we used an audited rng > Howard Lederer: but we also use a deck queue > Howard Lederer: basically each deck on the site is > put in a queue after it is used > Howard Lederer: then when we need a deck we > pick one at random > Howard Lederer: then we run it through the rng > Howard Lederer: then after each round has been > dealt > Howard Lederer: the remaining cards are shuffled > during the action > Caitlin215 (Observer): wait the deck that s in play > is shuffled during the action > Howard Lederer: there is no way to know what is > coming because trhe cardes are not set > Howard Lederer: right cait > Caitlin215 (Observer): now is that fair to shuffle the > deck once its in play? > Howard Lederer: since the deck is not set, you > can't cheat > Caitlin215 (Observer): ok thta makes sense > Howard Lederer: we areonly suffling the cards that > remain > Caitlin215 (Observer): but how would u be able to > cheat unless u found a way to ping the deck off > the server > Howard Lederer: if some how you could crack the > deck, it wouldn't help you at our site > Howard Lederer: I am not suggesting that it would > be easy
> ------- > looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
the good news: a nice idea to shuffle the deck during play, it makes it way harder to cheat. the bad news: your play may actually change the next card to come. it doesn't really matter theoretically, but i feel uncomfortable when i know that, if i had bet one second later, i probably would not have been outdrawn and stuff like this.
> the bad news: > your play may actually change the next card to come. > it doesn't really matter theoretically, but i feel uncomfortable > when i know that, if i had bet one second later, i probably > would not have been outdrawn and stuff like this.
> andreas
Agreed, but it also means that next time you chuck 72o and the flop is 772 you dont feel quite so bad.
> Caitlin215 (Observer): well i had the opportunity to > meet chris recently and i was talking to him about > ftp someone over heard and asked him if ftp used > action cards and he said yes placed at totally > random intervals but i wasnt sure if he was just > talking about toruuneys
I was railbirding too at the table during the bustout bonanza where this was discussed.
This Caitlin215 asked if there were action cards dealt, to which Chris Ferguson replied something like "Yes, at the correctly expected rates".
So, what are the expected rates?
well, 52:1
It's funny how Caitlin misunderstood the joke.
PS. The bad english is only mine and not a correct transcript, it was more fun when it happened, but you had to be there =)
Reminds me of a time i was at a table IRL with Juanda. Some guy took a pot of him, so Juanda asks the guy.. " u play on FTP?''' Guy says yes... Juanda says whats your username?... so the guy tells him... Juanda then pretends to use his cell phone and says he is callin the programmers to rig his account.
hahahah funny at the time, but really not that funny either.
_______________________________________________________________ * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Chris is hilarious! I saw on the U.S. Poker Championships on ESPN in the early rounds:
In an allin pot one guy had KK, another had Kx with a K on the board. Chris says: "You know if a king comes there's a split pot." Everyone looked at him confused and someone asked why? He replies: "That would be 5 kings and they'd have to split the pot!"
Off subject but shows Chris' sense of humor.
_______________________________________________________________ Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
> Interesting transcript from Howard Lederer in a razz S&G with him tonight > regarding the RNG and card shuffling at Full Tilt. Figured some people > would be interested in reading...
> Caitlin215 (Observer): i understand that FTP uses > action cards placed at random intervals to speed > up play is that true in ring games as well as > tourneys or are they just used in tourneys > Howard Lederer: our deal si totally random > Howard Lederer: action flops would be hard to > program > Caitlin215 (Observer): well i had the opportunity to > meet chris recently and i was talking to him about > ftp someone over heard and asked him if ftp used > action cards and he said yes placed at totally > random intervals but i wasnt sure if he was just > talking about toruuneys > esfd283: how would that be possible > Howard Lederer: you misheard > Shangri La (Observer): what are action cards? > Howard Lederer: he wwas either joking > Caitlin215 (Observer): i guess i did then > Howard Lederer: or you misheard > Howard Lederer: the notion of action cards is > funny to us > Shangri La (Observer): to ftp? > Howard Lederer: because we know how hard it > would be to pull off > Dakon (Observer): strange thing to joke about > Howard Lederer: and the risk of discovery would > be huge > Howard Lederer: our deal is rnadom on three levels > Howard Lederer: first we used an audited rng > Howard Lederer: but we also use a deck queue > Howard Lederer: basically each deck on the site is > put in a queue after it is used > Howard Lederer: then when we need a deck we > pick one at random > Howard Lederer: then we run it through the rng > Howard Lederer: then after each round has been > dealt > Howard Lederer: the remaining cards are shuffled > during the action > Caitlin215 (Observer): wait the deck that s in play > is shuffled during the action > Howard Lederer: there is no way to know what is > coming because trhe cardes are not set > Howard Lederer: right cait > Caitlin215 (Observer): now is that fair to shuffle the > deck once its in play? > Howard Lederer: since the deck is not set, you > can't cheat > Caitlin215 (Observer): ok thta makes sense > Howard Lederer: we areonly suffling the cards that > remain > Caitlin215 (Observer): but how would u be able to > cheat unless u found a way to ping the deck off > the server > Howard Lederer: if some how you could crack the > deck, it wouldn't help you at our site > Howard Lederer: I am not suggesting that it would > be easy
Eeeenteresting. Thanks for posting this, VeeRob. I've wondered if sites do this. It makes a lot of sense for security reasons. Though I do wonder how much they tax their entropy pool by constantly reshuffling.
In article <Xns963DA5AB629E0scoropogm...@140.99.99.130>,
ScotchRox <ScotchRox***NOSPAM***@***NOSPAM***gmail.com> wrote: >Eeeenteresting. Thanks for posting this, VeeRob. I've wondered if sites >do this. It makes a lot of sense for security reasons. Though I do >wonder how much they tax their entropy pool by constantly reshuffling.
>-ScotchRox
Actually, the way things are done, it actually is less taxing on the "entropy pool" since cards are only requested as needed. Hence, the entire deck need not be set before a hand is dealt. If there are only 5 people preflop, only 10 cards are requested initially. If there is no flop, no further cards are requested.
The actual process is that basically there are banks of decks. There is a 52 card deck, a 51 card deck, etc. More correctly, there are banks of unique indices, 0..51, 0..50, etc.
As some examples, when the down cards are ready to be dealt to a full table, the table would ask for 18 cards from a 52 card deck. 18 random cards are selected using a Knuth algorithm from a 52 card deck. The actual random numbers are selected from a hardware TRNG (not a PRNG) meaning it is TRULY random on a quantum physics level. This source is XOR'ed against an PRNG as a failsafe against hardware malfunction. The process of obtaining the 18 cards from the 52 card deck caused the deck itself to be reordered.
Hence, the next request for cards from the 52 card deck would start with a different initial state than the previous request.
The request for cards returns 18 unique indices between 0 and 51.
Now, when it comes time to deal the flop, the table asks for 3 cards from a 34 card deck. The table knows what cards are left in it's own deck. All the RNG returns is 3 indices between 0 and 33, which are used to pick from the remaining cards in the table's deck. Again, the process of choosing these new indices causes the 34 card deck (or more correct, the set of indices from 0 to 33) to be reordered.
This means that all tables are basically shuffling decks for each other, and that the timing of the hand affects the outcome (in two ways... first, the TRNG itself will return different results depending on when it is queried, because it is not a PRNG and is stateless... it's is truly random... second, even if the TRNG returned the same numbers, other tables could have modified the state of the indices before you made your request).
And yes, this effectively makes rabbit hunting useless. I actually like this. It removes any guilt about folding a hand. You can't say "I would have won had I called preflop" because the board would have been different.
> In article <Xns963DA5AB629E0scoropogm...@140.99.99.130>, > ScotchRox <ScotchRox***NOSPAM***@***NOSPAM***gmail.com> wrote: >>Eeeenteresting. Thanks for posting this, VeeRob. I've wondered if >>sites do this. It makes a lot of sense for security reasons. Though >>I do wonder how much they tax their entropy pool by constantly >>reshuffling.
>>-ScotchRox
> Actually, the way things are done, it actually is less taxing on the > "entropy pool" since cards are only requested as needed. Hence, the > entire deck need not be set before a hand is dealt. If there are only > 5 people preflop, only 10 cards are requested initially. If there is > no flop, no further cards are requested.
> The actual process is that basically there are banks of decks. > There is a 52 card deck, a 51 card deck, etc. More correctly, > there are banks of unique indices, 0..51, 0..50, etc.
> As some examples, when the down cards are ready to be dealt to a full > table, the table would ask for 18 cards from a 52 card deck. > 18 random cards are selected using a Knuth algorithm from a 52 card > deck. The actual random numbers are selected from a hardware TRNG (not > a PRNG) meaning it is TRULY random on a quantum physics level. This > source is XOR'ed against an PRNG as a failsafe against hardware > malfunction. The process of obtaining the 18 cards from the 52 card > deck caused the deck itself to be reordered.
> Hence, the next request for cards from the 52 card deck would start > with a different initial state than the previous request.
> The request for cards returns 18 unique indices between 0 and 51.
> Now, when it comes time to deal the flop, the table asks for 3 cards > from a 34 card deck. The table knows what cards are left in it's own > deck. All the RNG returns is 3 indices between 0 and 33, which are > used to pick from the remaining cards in the table's deck. > Again, the process of choosing these new indices causes the 34 card > deck (or more correct, the set of indices from 0 to 33) to be > reordered.
> This means that all tables are basically shuffling decks for each > other, and that the timing of the hand affects the outcome (in two > ways... first, the TRNG itself will return different results depending > on when it is queried, because it is not a PRNG and is stateless... > it's is truly random... second, even if the TRNG returned the same > numbers, other tables could have modified the state of the indices > before you made your request).
> And yes, this effectively makes rabbit hunting useless. I actually > like this. It removes any guilt about folding a hand. You can't say > "I would have won had I called preflop" because the board would have > been different.
> Perry
And thank YOU, Perry. Very informative. I wish FTP posted something about this on their website. I couldn't find anything on there about the RNG or the shuffle algorithm the last time I looked for it.
-Brian "ScotchRox" Peterson (ScotchRox on GamesGrid, Scotch Rocks on PS and FTP)
>> In article <Xns963DA5AB629E0scoropogm...@140.99.99.130>, >> ScotchRox <ScotchRox***NOSPAM***@***NOSPAM***gmail.com> wrote: >>>Eeeenteresting. Thanks for posting this, VeeRob. I've wondered if >>>sites do this. It makes a lot of sense for security reasons. Though >>>I do wonder how much they tax their entropy pool by constantly >>>reshuffling.
>>>-ScotchRox
>> Actually, the way things are done, it actually is less taxing on the >> "entropy pool" since cards are only requested as needed. Hence, the >> entire deck need not be set before a hand is dealt. If there are only >> 5 people preflop, only 10 cards are requested initially. If there is >> no flop, no further cards are requested.
>> The actual process is that basically there are banks of decks. >> There is a 52 card deck, a 51 card deck, etc. More correctly, >> there are banks of unique indices, 0..51, 0..50, etc.
>> As some examples, when the down cards are ready to be dealt to a full >> table, the table would ask for 18 cards from a 52 card deck. >> 18 random cards are selected using a Knuth algorithm from a 52 card >> deck. The actual random numbers are selected from a hardware TRNG (not >> a PRNG) meaning it is TRULY random on a quantum physics level. This >> source is XOR'ed against an PRNG as a failsafe against hardware >> malfunction. The process of obtaining the 18 cards from the 52 card >> deck caused the deck itself to be reordered.
>> Hence, the next request for cards from the 52 card deck would start >> with a different initial state than the previous request.
>> The request for cards returns 18 unique indices between 0 and 51.
>> Now, when it comes time to deal the flop, the table asks for 3 cards >> from a 34 card deck. The table knows what cards are left in it's own >> deck. All the RNG returns is 3 indices between 0 and 33, which are >> used to pick from the remaining cards in the table's deck. >> Again, the process of choosing these new indices causes the 34 card >> deck (or more correct, the set of indices from 0 to 33) to be >> reordered.
>> This means that all tables are basically shuffling decks for each >> other, and that the timing of the hand affects the outcome (in two >> ways... first, the TRNG itself will return different results depending >> on when it is queried, because it is not a PRNG and is stateless... >> it's is truly random... second, even if the TRNG returned the same >> numbers, other tables could have modified the state of the indices >> before you made your request).
>> And yes, this effectively makes rabbit hunting useless. I actually >> like this. It removes any guilt about folding a hand. You can't say >> "I would have won had I called preflop" because the board would have >> been different.
>> Perry
>And thank YOU, Perry. Very informative. I wish FTP posted something >about this on their website. I couldn't find anything on there about the >RNG or the shuffle algorithm the last time I looked for it.
>-Brian "ScotchRox" Peterson >(ScotchRox on GamesGrid, Scotch Rocks on PS and FTP)
You are quite welcome. I know it's been on the todo list for some time to get a detailed explanation about the RNG as well as the auditing we've had done on it.
"Yes, we use action cards, but at totally random intervals." That is isomorphic to not using action cards at all. I.e., an action card has an equal chance of coming off the deck as any other random card.
|
