Card distribution in vint.ee card games

From time to time, questions arise about how cards are dealt in vint.ee games. I will explain: A deck of cards is created and then the java method Collections.shuffle(cardPack) is called. Then the shuffled cards are dealt to the players one by one. So the distribution of cards is completely random. If anyone wants to prove the opposite, please do the following experiment: Play 50 distributions of Saskut, Write down the number of pictures in each distribution. At the end, take the average of these distributions and you will get a number somewhere between 2.7 - 3.3 (the average is 3). You will not get the number 1 or 5. If someone does this experiment and proves the opposite, I will come up with a prize :)

I like this deal - there are disadvantages up to a certain point and then good cards come (I got -660 in a thousand and announced to my opponents that it was now a game and I won)

The following letter came to support: Since I had explained one round of explanations about randomness and card running to this user via email, I decided to answer this letter publicly. Since the writer of the letter promised to play in Vint for a while longer, he will also see the answer here in the forum. And my answer would be: Hello, dear Mr. X, You are right - my only pleasure in this world is to select random users, go to the Vint.ee server and write an algorithm that is more complicated than average, which deals bad cards to these users, and then watch with pleasure from the sidelines and giggle at how they consistently lose. What's even better - our secret agreement with the Freemasons resulted in a secret link in Vint, by clicking on which you can support Vint with 50 EUR and thereby guarantee yourself a good card run for the next hundred games. Vint.ee is not created to make the world a better place, it is created to bully bona fide players. All the best, Vint.ee Team

talented letter I liked it

Mr. X needs to start drinking, because when he's drunk, he'll miss out on this sharing system - a roof is also a good idea, because otherwise the pilot would see my bare butt :)

I'm actually one of those who thinks that "random" isn't really random after all. When you play a lot, there are still certain patterns. At the beginning, you played a thousand or so and 80% of the time, things start to go wrong when someone reaches the botch. Otherwise, you can play almost the entire game so that only one person gets a trump or a straight before the spades, but if someone has the opportunity to end the game with a 120 bid, most of the time someone still has a straight hand. The distribution curve is certainly parabolic for one player, it's just a question of how much you lose in a low position and how much you can win with good cards. Catching the ups and downs of this so-called random period is the most important thing. It works especially well in online poker. All "randomness" is actually legal and good luck to everyone in their search for this formula :D

Raba, if you've been to casinos, you can meet pathological gamblers there who also think that the cards are not controlled by chance, but by something else. Pure human psychology - already at a subconscious level, people tend to blame someone else for their misfortune, and when they get lucky, they believe that they have "caught" the regularity of the system, which in fact does not exist. The most strange thing for me is always the players' belief that if, for example, "red" has come up on the roulette table 12 times in a row, then it is worth betting on "black". One old gambler, who is otherwise an intelligent person, even asks the dealer to come to the corner of another casino to tell him if the same color has come up at least 10 times in a row. Then he runs off with his big beer belly to bet on another color. Mathematically, it is clear that the probability of the result of the next throw does not depend at all on the previous throws. The same applies to the random distribution of cards, and the result of a random distribution does not depend on how many "thousand" points someone has. But I like Meikop's post titled "Dear Mr. X." It's almost as if he wrote it himself.

I've been to casinos myself and I know exactly the cases of some machines being rigged to eliminate certain combinations. The problem was so bad that specialists were brought in from the manufacturer, who were able to eliminate some combinations that unfortunately worked for the casino at first, but after a few months they had to bring in even smarter guys and then they got it so bad that an ordinary person couldn't handle it. If modern technology had been available at that time (15-17 years ago), many smaller casinos would have been bankrupted! Of course, programs have been developed, but even 5 years ago there were many cases where weaker poker sites were "bitten" through. I can say so much about the roulette table that better dealers can actually throw away at least 1/3 of the sector, 75%, and even throw out the rig during the throw, where it should not be thrown under any circumstances, so that the casino would have a so-called plus. Yes, I knew something about mathematical probability, but it still doesn't take into account physical or mechanical factors, which means that when you roll a dice, it could also be mathematically possible that you'll get a "six" a hundred times in a row, but in reality everyone knows that it won't! I've probably played the most tons on this site, and there's definitely a certain pattern there!

You are right about casino machines from a while ago (we are probably talking about 20-25 years ago). Some guys I know discovered in the early 90s that after a certain combination on a specific type of poker machine, if you raise a certain bet, the next combination would always be a small straight. They drove through more or less all the Estonian casinos in a couple of days and managed to pocket a decent amount of money, until the casino staff realized that something was wrong and closed these machines for playing. What I meant, however, is absolute randomness - these old machines were probably programmed differently. You are partly right about the roulette table. Most dealers can really throw into the sector they want if they want (I dare say that better dealers can even throw 1/6 of the table), but this does not affect the probability of a black or red result, because they are known to alternate. The mathematical probability that a "six" will come up a hundred times in a row when rolling a dice is 6 to the power of 100, which is an astronomical number. I don't want to start calculating it exactly now, but it's probably a number of the order of magnitude that if all 7 billion people in the world rolled dice for several decades in a row, then maybe once in one person such a thing could happen. However, the probability is such that this extremely unlikely possibility could also occur on the first roll. For example, if I went to the store right now, I would buy a dice and start rolling. A very, very, very small possibility, but purely mathematically not an impossible (0-probability) event.

As someone who loves precision, I'll correct the inaccuracy in my previous post - the probability that a "six" will come up a hundred times in a row when rolling a dice is of course 1 / (6 to the power of one hundred). 6 to the power of 100 is the number of all possible combinations when rolling a dice 100 times in a row (6 possible outcomes out of a hundred on each roll). However, yesterday, while driving home from work, I was left thinking that Raba's story is absolutely correct regarding the influence of mechanical and other such factors on the probability of events. The dice can be asymmetrical in such a way that some numbers will therefore come up more times than others. The thrower can hold the dice in his hand and perform the throw in a certain way that favors a certain outcome, etc. etc. Thinking further about this, the question also arose as to whether absolute randomness is possible at all. I don't know on what basis a so-called random generator is programmed, but it is clear that some algorithm must be the basis for it as well. But programmers are perhaps better able to analyze this question.