More PokerStars Weirdness

I have stopped playing there – at least for now. Their change in all-in protection predicated the decision. I’ll acknowledge the odds it will happen are light but that is still -EV. Now they’ve come up with another way of being different.

Originally Posted by Alex Scott

I can confirm that this is correct. It is not possible to draw a card which you have already discarded at PokerStars, even in Triple Draw.

Incidentally, having the ability to spread games with both a blinds and ante is on our wish list. Obviously if we get it developed, draw is one of the prime candidates for such a structure.

Regarding 8-handed - I remember supporting that when the decision was originally made (quite a while ago now), but research and a great deal of discussion led to 6-max being chosen (hey, at least we didn’t go with 5-max, ugh). I believe graphics issues were a factor in this (it can be difficult to fit 8 lots of 5 cards on the table screen without overlapping something important).

The above thread is from 2plus2. It covers any game where the deck can be resuffled because the dealer has run out of cards. This happens from time to time in a number of games. Just what games it applies to aren’t that clear. For example the normal thing that happens in a stud game when the cards get short is to deal community cards at the end. This may or may not have changed; I doubt it has. In draw games where it can occur not getting paired affects “the luck of the draw”. This is a MAJOR change in cards. This affect the game’s odds. Yes, the ‘improvement’ would appear to be across the board. But, it affects the game and separates online play from Bricks and Mortar.

There has been a on-going conversation by the conspiracy crowd about stacked or action decks being used at sites. That could be done by the software. But, most sites are audited to show their shuffle falls within the standard deviations expected. This ‘new idea’ alters that significantly.

I guess we could all ignore PokerStars’ innovations like this and all-in protection. But both change the game as it is played online. All-in was a change to accommodate the nature of online play. But, this goes far beyond that. The protection aspect is -EV. This is actually +EV but – again – it impacts the odds and fairness of the random shuffle.

Worst case:

You start a 2-7 game with 2-3-5-7 and everybody plays and they all do big draws.  In the process you dump 2 cards on each draw.  Assuming somehow the reshuffle takes place on the final draw, you eliminate 2 stinking cards while they’ve a ton of cards they can’t/won’t get.   That sucks!

ADDENDUM:

I am indebted to Iggy for sending me to a thread about Kahnawake that’s has to scare all the sites using their server facilities. We’ve all had a say about the Norton-Absolute-Ultimate situation. But, that now appears just the tip of the iceberg.

It is time for some of the major overseas sites to reconsider the U.S. Skins have long been a staple in the online community. Holding companies could create such skins and provide the overseas sites with deniable plausibility that listed companies are involved directly in the U.S. Market.

This entry was posted on Friday, September 26th, 2008 at 2:07 pm and is filed under Site Talk.