Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="mendozaline, post: 680493, member: 24964"] You know, I don't totally disagree with what you just said. My idea of "rigging" might not be exactly what this thread is about, and I appreciate your civility in pointing that out. All I'm saying is "rigging is in the eye of the beholder". If someone conspires to create a situation in which they might be able to win any given hand on command, I'd say that's rigging. If a software team was to invite me into a brainstorming session on how to "rig" the software, I wouldn't suggest that KK wins over AA as you said. I would say, make the software such that at any given time the house could win a hand if it so chose. Period. Let me give you an example. We all know that all hand histories are saved. We save them ourselves. We also know that there exists software that can replay those save HHs. UB recently added a replay feature. So, if hands can be replayed, they can also be "re-used" in situations where the house wants Seat 3 to lose to Seat 6. Compared to some machine control code I've seen, that would be fairly routine for a high level programmer. So, what else might be possible. When I worked in a software team, I can remember many a meeting where someone from Marketing or Manufacturing or Field Support would come to one of our meetings and when someone asked them if they had any issues, they would say, "would it be possible to........(fill in the blanks)....." The answer from the development team was always the same, "anything's possible if that's what you want us to work on." So, my idea of "rigging" is to make the software such that X can beat Y at any given point in time. When you look at it that way, we aren't disagreeing all that much. In all honesty, I'm just trying to avoid being naive about this whole thing. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us