RNG - Fair or Unfair (1 Viewer)

[shorticus]

This is and interesting conversation from Doug Polk’s podcast. Doug asks, if using a randomizer to determine whether you should be calling or folding in certain spots fair or foul.

This is a great question as I can see both sides of the argument. What say you guys?

 

[Burke]

You’re saying something like 50% of time I’ll call and 50% of time I’ll fold so using a tool to help you make that 50/50 decision?

 

[The_dude]

IIRC Dan Harrington recommended using your watch as a type of randomizer in Harrington on hold em so it’s not exactly a novel concept. If I’m ok with that I guess I’m ok with using a software RNG.

 

[Burke]

^yep was going to provide the same anecdote. Ok in my book

 

[Legend5555]

This is and interesting conversation from Doug Polk’s podcast. Doug asks, if using a randomizer to determine whether you should be calling or folding in certain spots fair or foul.

This is a great question as I can see both sides of the argument. What say you guys?

Fair. You can use all kinds of things to do this even at a live table.

 

[tabletalker7]

Fair. You can use all kinds of things to do this even at a live table.

At a live table I literally flipped a coin once to figure out if I wanted to call or fold. The coin said call. I rivered the straight.

 

[FDLmold]

Totally fair. I sometimes bring a d20 to a game to help me randomize. Or to make it seem like I am randomizing anyway.

 

[upNdown]

This is and interesting conversation from Doug Polk’s podcast. Doug asks, if using a randomizer to determine whether you should be calling or folding in certain spots fair or foul.

This is a great question as I can see both sides of the argument. What say you guys?

Haven't heard the podcast, but it probably violates the letter of the law, at least on some sites.
If you all think it's the same as using your watch, then use your watch.
I guess my point would be that we're not computers. As good as we might think we are at being random, we absolutely are not. So if a player uses a random number generator to make sure he's actually being random, then he's using an external source that likely does give him an advantage (at least at being random) and I think most sites have rules against using external tools.
It's kind of a stupid question and probably never a big deal, but if you're making me give an answer, I'll go with foul.

 

[Moxie Mike]

This is a great question as I can see both sides of the argument. What say you guys?

David Sklansky articulated something to this effect a long time ago - I think it was in The Theory of Poker. He didn't advocate using a RNG to randomize certain close decisions... he said something to the effect of creating a mechanism... i.e. 'if the river is a red five, then bet' to sort of randomize various decisions.

As far as ethics goes... I don't think there's much of an argument against using anything that isn't 'cheating'. People make decisions based on all sorts of factors... facial tics, nervous fingers, the hand over the mouth, the way a cigarette is smoked... little unconscious gestures that reveal the cards in their hands.

 

[shorticus]

As good as we might think we are at being random, we absolutely are not. So if a player uses a random number generator to make sure he's actually being random, then he's using an external source that likely does give him an advantage

This is the reason I see both sides. It’s virtually impossible to call 36% of the time over “eternity” without assistance of some sort.

People make decisions based on all sorts of factors... facial tics, nervous fingers, the hand over the mouth, the way a cigarette is smoked... little unconscious gestures that reveal the cards in their hands.

These are learned skills in my opinion. It’s not something that just anyone can do or learn. It’s not “cheating”, but it feels like it’s a form of assistance that gives an advantage from my perspective.

Edited: grammar

 

[pltrgyst]

Flip a coin, flip a chip, roll a die -- all ok by me.

 

[Highli99]

Solution is to play in such a manner than your opponent truly is indifferent to Calling or folding. Get there you’ve already won.

 

[Frogzilla]

For live, I think it depends on whats the randomizer.

App on your phone? App on your smart watch? Analog randomizer, that’s not available to other players, like dice or a coin? Not ok in my book.

Card suits? Shuffling your tournament chips? Tourney clock? 100% fine by me

 

[grebe]

Live should be analog in my humble opinion. IF I were playing for high stakes, I would advocate for no phones at the table. I like what @Frogzilla said, I'll go with that.

 

[upNdown]

This is and interesting conversation from Doug Polk’s podcast. Doug asks, if using a randomizer to determine whether you should be calling or folding in certain spots fair or foul.

This is a great question as I can see both sides of the argument. What say you guys?

I assumed he was talking about online?

 

[shorticus]

I assumed he was talking about online?

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/doug-polk-podcast/id1575599439?i=1000528881408

 

[grebe]

I assumed he was talking about online?

eh, online you have no control over what people use. Although I play mostly online because of circumstance, I always assume people are using technology against me. A randomizer is the least of my worries.

 

[shorticus]

It was about a month ago, but I’m catching up on his podcast now.

 

[upNdown]

eh, online you have no control over what people use. Although I play mostly online because of circumstance, I always assume people are using technology against me. A randomizer is the least of my worries.

Sure, but it still might have been the point of the discussion. Dnegs has been hawking GGpoker nonstop, and he's been talking a lot about the rules they have to help the rec players. And according to him, they're pretty serious about no external tools. Like he said they have the capability of detecting if somebody is playing perfect GTO (because humans can not do that perfectly, without assistance.) Obviously this means things like HUDs, and external database computers, but I'm pretty sure he's gone so far as to say that preflop charts aren't even allowed. So I'm guessing that was the context of the conversation.
And when has polk ever been concerned with live, anyway?

 

[buzzmonkey]

IIRC Dan Harrington recommended using your watch as a type of randomizer in Harrington on hold em so it’s not exactly a novel concept. If I’m ok with that I guess I’m ok with using a software RNG.

Andy Beal did this when he was playing the Corporation.

 

[moose]

I see a rush on these in the future:

 

[grebe]

Sure, but it still might have been the point of the discussion. Dnegs has been hawking GGpoker nonstop, and he's been talking a lot about the rules they have to help the rec players. And according to him, they're pretty serious about no external tools. Like he said they have the capability of detecting if somebody is playing perfect GTO (because humans can not do that perfectly, without assistance.) Obviously this means things like HUDs, and external database computers, but I'm pretty sure he's gone so far as to say that preflop charts aren't even allowed. So I'm guessing that was the context of the conversation.
And when has polk ever been concerned with live, anyway?

The problem with making rules you cannot enforce is that only those willing to break those rules will be the ones that utilize them, giving the benefit to the "bad guys". How can you enforce using a randomizer anyways? It's a separate program, and a pretty simple one at that.

Also, how bad would it be to the game if someone is using a randomizer....compared to say a bot...or a HUD? Although, you can say they are both equally evil if they are against the rules, one has a much higher impact to the game. If I made a top 10 list of shit that's wrong with online poker, a randomizer would not make that list. Seems silly to worry about it then, unless you are looking for podcast fodder....which I get, and I guess would make up for an interesting hour.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Using any electronic help of any kind during the play of a hand is out of line IMO and should be explicitly forbidden.

In fact, I'm firmly in the camp of "No devices on the table," particularly if we're talking about a public cardroom. I know that's way outside the norm in a culture where people never put their damn phones down, but at the very least, using a phone or other device should be prohibited during the play of a hand.* So, yes, using electronic RNGs would be a no-no. Same with hand simulators, GTO solvers, or anything else of the sort. Even a common calculator.

The only tools you're supposed to use the table are your natural senses and your brain. Using any kind of electronic help at the table is augmenting your cognitive ability during a hand, which is not only against the spirit of the game, but is a sort of pay-to-win situation. Doesn't matter if the electronic help is outright telling you how to play the hand or just helping you sort out some ratios. All of that is relevant to your skill at the game. (If it weren't, of course, people wouldn't seek to use these things to improve their results.)

Where this leaves Harrington's watch, I'm not sure. After all, if you can use a watch as an improvised RNG, how is that materially different from using RNG software? (Suppose for the sake of argument that there's no distinction to be made between an electronic watch and a mechanical one.) It's not materially different, but it exists in a weird place relative to this argument, because watches are so commonly worn by lots of people. It's not like it's a specialized device or piece of software that you're bringing to the table explicitly to glean some GTO benefit.

But if it's being worn to the table specifically for that purpose, it would fall into "augmenting your cognitive ability," if only a little. And if it's an electronic "watch" that's actually a multi-functional device, that puts it into the same category as a phone or tablet.

The one final straw that puts me so firmly into the "No devices" camp is that the people wanting to use these devices are almost 100% winning players looking to bolster their win rates. It's not like we're talking about letting a new player in his first game keep a hand-value chart on the table. Consistently winning players are already getting paid to play the game. It can be enough of a challenge just keeping the recreational gamblers happy and losing game after game, without the consistent winners using electronic assistance to squeeze even more blood out of them.

Imagine one such winner (i.e., using RNG software) stacks a loser, and then the loser asks him why he made some play during the hand. Obviously the winner wouldn't want to be honest about it, which should tell you a lot right off the bat. But suppose the winner does explain: "I used RNG software to help optimize my folding, calling, and raising frequencies based on the situation, so that there's no correct play on your end." Or suppose losing players just happen to notice the software by chance, whether or not they even know what it does. This would clearly be awful for the game—even more awful than the use of the RNG in the first place.

Spoiler: *

Yes, I do mean to include prohibiting people from listening to music during a hand. Wearing headphones plugged into a networked device is a wide open door to cheaters to feed each other information, e.g., peeping weak dealers or players' hole cards from odd angles and messaging the results to a player at the table, à la Casino.

It also tends to needlessly hold up the game and create awkward/tense ruling situations that are bad for everyone, like when headphones guy one-chip calls, his opponent tables and wins, and then headphones guy makes a stink about having to pay $500 because he thought the bet was only $50.

Listen to music between hands if you must, but during a hand, no one should be connected to an electronic device in any way, unless it's for a bona fide medical reason. (And to be clear, "It helps me stay focused" is not a bona fide medical reason.)

TLDR: Foul.