Hearts card dealing rigged?

[David White]

I'm not sure if this is an XP game, but this is the closest NG I could find
that anyone goes to.

The Hearts game does not appear to deal the cards in a remotely random
manner. Certain characteristics occur far too often, such as a 4,3,3,3
distribution of the 13 spades, or the 2,3,4,5 of hearts each being with a
different player. Although the computer players are hopeless players, and I
win more games than my three electronic opponents combined, it does get a
little tiresome when you see the same thing happening so often. If the 3 and
4 of hearts are on the table and I'm next with the 5, you can almost count
on it that the last player will play the 2. It's as though the programmer
decided that card distribution should be more even than would occur with a
properly shuffled real deck of cards, and rigged the deal to some extent, or
maybe it's just a lousy random generator being used. Anyway, if someone
knows why the cards are dealt this way, I'd like to hear it.

David

 

[Laura \( '_' \)]

I've noticed this also,
I doubt anyone has a solution though...

--
@---}--
Laura.....
Liverpool, England

"Do you know where you're going to?"
: I'm not sure if this is an XP game, but this is the closest NG I could
find
: that anyone goes to.
:
: The Hearts game does not appear to deal the cards in a remotely random
: manner. Certain characteristics occur far too often, such as a 4,3,3,3
: distribution of the 13 spades, or the 2,3,4,5 of hearts each being with a
: different player. Although the computer players are hopeless players, and
I
: win more games than my three electronic opponents combined, it does get a
: little tiresome when you see the same thing happening so often. If the 3
and
: 4 of hearts are on the table and I'm next with the 5, you can almost count
: on it that the last player will play the 2. It's as though the programmer
: decided that card distribution should be more even than would occur with a
: properly shuffled real deck of cards, and rigged the deal to some extent,
or
: maybe it's just a lousy random generator being used. Anyway, if someone
: knows why the cards are dealt this way, I'd like to hear it.
:
: David
:
:

 

[mikos55]

David, Laura, quite a delay in responding but I have morethan a suspicion about the way the cards are dealt as well.
The last game I played: North played a low spade, East played the King of Spades, I played a low spade and West played the Ace of spades... all good. Next hand: West who led played the Queen of Spades!! I stopped the game and vowed not to play again on Vista windows until I find another program tthat is not rigged. I;m going to Check out Joe Anderson, an expert on online games. I have sent him and email with the same message as this one. Good luck David and Laura

 

[chicago76]

On topic, for Windows Vista. The hearts game does not appear to shuffle the deck randomly true. Also, I beat the computer nearly two out of three games without cheating. The other three computer players win about 1/3 of the games combined. Believe it or not, when I am beating the computer consistently, the computer will actually cheat. It will take cards that it should not have been able to take so it will defeat me, usually at a critical point in the game. Talk about frustating. Anyone else have this experience? I have a fast computer with lots of memory. Speed and memory are not the problem. No other problems with the computer.

 

[kasjas]

I have always noticed that as soon as I win quite a few games in a row, the entire game changes and it becomes essentially impossible to win. In the past, I just got tired of it, and would reset the statistics and start over with the process repeating itself. HOWEVER, WHEN I GOT A "0" SCORE ON MY BIRTHDAY, I decided that no matter how obnoxious Microsoft got I would NEVER reset the stats that showed my best score as a "0"....my playing has been a living hell since that date. I am now at a 34% average in close to 200 games, since that magic score date, and the way the tricks play out is absolutely a joke.

Time and time again I'll start out scoring "0" til all my imaginary friends are at very high scores....suddenly, I'll draw the Queen under the most preposterous of circumstances, and keep drawing her until I have gone from my "0" to surpassing their 80s and 90s scores, and more often than not, I lose by one point....over and over and over again.

I am really tempted to go ahead and reset the scores and start keeping track again to try to validate this but really would love to know if anyone else has any insights on this.

 

[mikos55]

You folks win a lot more games than I. I see a pattern to the card distribution as well but
just as important, I see the queen of spades being put out at absolutely ridiculous times
during a game.
The card generator Microsoft employs for dealing the cards is cheap and easily simple.. I have searched and tried to contact that fellow I mentioned in my last entry, but he did not have an answer.
I love the game live and to a certain extent the game still entertains me but it is not as much fun knowing the game is rigged to a certain extent. I'll keep the search going though. Thanks for responding back kasjas

 

[kasjas]

JUST WANTED TO LET EVERYONE KNOW!!! After living for one month in "Hearts Hell" because of a ZERO score in my profile, yesterday I just said the hell with it and reset the stats....

IMMEDIATELY THE GAME WENT BACK TO NORMAL BEHAVIOR....I get very low "best scores" and a high percentage of wins.

Microsoft definitely is rigged to PUNISH PERFECT SCORING

 

[mikos55]

That's great news Kasjas. I got a zero score one time as well and did not notice any change except a growing doubt that the cards were distributed randomly and that the Queen of spades would come out in a trick that would never have happened during a live game being played by even average players.
Also, Kasjas, what about the original entry to this post from David White? I find my issues are more to his issues than a simple reset of the statistics.The suspicion that the cards are not being randomly distributed continues and so does my search for an answer.
It's great that you see a randomness. This brings me hope. I run Vista home premium.
thanks for responding so promptly!

 

[cristo111]

Hearts Sux!!!!!!! When I had Windows XP my winning percentage was always over 75%, in the last few years since I’ve had windows 7, I can barely keep it over 50%. 90% of the time I have to fight to come from behind, it never played like this in the past. I used to love playing this game and now I am growing to hate this f'n game, it ****es me off so much, I end up quitting a lot of the time. The cards just are not dealt randomly enough to suit me. More than 50% of the time I get stuck with the bitch in my hand, that’s not random to my count and when North leads with a heart and I have only the king or ace, 99% of the time I know damn well that the fn’ bitch is going to be in the West, that’ BS. I also agree with the 2, 3, 4, of hearts problem, it’s not fair! MS needs to fix this ****IN’ GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[lawman64]

I am hooked on hearts - the Windows 7 version. I play it constantly. I am up to almost 4,000 games on my latest run and currently have an average of 81%. This has taken me almost exactly a year to the day (my first zero score was Nov 7th 2013 so I am guessing). It stops recording zero scores after 5 and my fifth zero score was before the end of November so it's a fair assumption.

Yes the games is rigged. Yes the deals are not random. However, once you understand this it becomes a battle between you and the computer in terms of being able to "shoot the moon." The computer wants to give you a bad hand especially on the first round because once it gets in front of you the cards generally become worse on subsequent rounds. If however, you shoot the moon on the first hand and get in front of the computer, it appears to take it easier on you for the subsequent rounds. The computer is also extremely predictable. It will do almost anything to avoid taking a heart with the exception of being able to get rid of the King/Ace of Spades. If north leads a spade (for instance), and east plays a heart, if south (you) doesn't play the Queen of Spades, west will take it with the ace or king if it has it. That is usually the only time one of the opponents will take a heart by choice. You can also use this to your advantage since if you are trying to shoot the moon and have (for instance) already taken 20 points. If you have the ace, queen, and 10 of hearts in your hand and west (once again for instance) has the king, jack and nine of hearts; if you lead the 10H, it will play the nine, you play the queen, it will play the jack and then you finish it with the ace to their king. It does not have the smarts to take one for team and take your queen with its king.

Anyway hope this helps future players. As an aside, I've just come to conclusion that if I'm up to 3900+ games in a year, that means I am playing (on average) about 11 games per day. Since at a guess each game takes about 10 minutes (ballpark), that means I am spending almost 2 hrs/day EVERY DAY playing hearts. I obviously have no life .

 

[entbedford]

Where are you getting the stats from? I play the XP version and there are no obvious stats.

Having played quite a bit I never noticed the PC cheating.

There are a few tactics that make shooting the moon easier - for example if you are short of the ace and/or king of hearts keep some winning non-hearts for the last couple of hands - the PC "knows" you are shooting the moon and holds on to the highest hearts until the end.

For no particular reasonI might just mention that I have just won a perfefct game of four straight moons (after many years of trying). See screenshot attached.

Should I quit playing now and get a life?

 

[lawman64]

No stats on the XP version. I have that on my old laptop. Don't find it as much fun without the statistics since it's trying to increase my win percentage that drives me on. When I first started doing this my win percentages for my first thousand was just under 60%. The next thousand got me into the seventies and then it took me four or five thousand more games before I managed to hit 80% for a thousand games. Currently at just under 81% atm for 4,215 games. Managed exactly 81% for 4,000 but dropped a bit for last 215. I must get back over 81%. Haha!

Congrats on your perfect score. That's not easy to do.

 

[lawman64]

Well (to anybody that cares) I reached 5,000 games and did not get back to 81%. Won 794 out of the last 1,000 so it left me at 4,034 wins (80.68%) out of 5,000 games. Still not bad I suppose, but disappointed that I couldn't get back over the 81% mark.

Totals for each 1,000 games were:

815
798
812
815
794

In theory, I think I'll quit for a while but in practice I probably won't. .

Anyway, happy Hearts playing.

 

[lawman64]

Finally got back to 81% after playing 5,653 games. Have now won 4,579 (81.001). So far, for this latest 653 games have won 545 (83.46%) . If I can keep up the pace will beat my old record for 1,000 games of 81.5%. Just as a matter of interest for 500 games won 420 for an 84% average.

Happy hearts playing.

 

[lawman64]

Since it now appears I'm talking to myself, I am going to use this as a way of cataloging my game history. I have now played 6,000 games and I did beat my 81.5% average for 1,000 games by a significant amount. I ended up winning 837 games out of 1,000. After doing so well on the first 500 games, I was hoping to hit 84% and it looked like I was going to make it because with 60 games to go I only needed 48 wins to get there. However, for about 10-12 games the cards just didn't fall right, and I ended up with only 45 wins out of the last 60 games to end up with the 83.7% average.

I think I may quit for a while, but I keep saying that and don't.

Either way, happy hearts playing.

 

[cristo111]

Hearts Sux!!!!!!! When I had Windows XP my winning percentage was always over 75%, in the last few years since I’ve had windows 7, I can barely keep it over 50%. 90% of the time I have to fight to come from behind, it never played like this in the past. I used to love playing this game and now I am growing to hate this f'n game, it ****es me off so much, I end up quitting a lot of the time. The cards just are not dealt randomly enough to suit me. More than 50% of the time I get stuck with the bitch in my hand, that’s not random to my count and when North leads with a heart and I have only the king or ace, 99% of the time I know damn well that the fn’ bitch is going to be in the West, that’ BS. I also agree with the 2, 3, 4, of hearts problem, it’s not fair! MS needs to fix this ****IN’ GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[cristo111]

Hearts Sux!!!!!!! When I had Windows XP my winning percentage was always over 75%, in the last few years since I’ve had windows 7, I can barely keep it over 50%. 90% of the time I have to fight to come from behind, it never played like this in the past. I used to love playing this game and now I am growing to hate this f'n game, it ****es me off so much, I end up quitting a lot of the time. The cards just are not dealt randomly enough to suit me. More than 50% of the time I get stuck with the bitch in my hand, that’s not random to my count and when North leads with a heart and I have only the king or ace, 99% of the time I know damn well that the fn’ bitch is going to be in the West, that’ BS. I also agree with the 2, 3, 4, of hearts problem, it’s not fair! MS needs to fix this ****IN’ GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[coelacanth10]

I am hooked on hearts - the Windows 7 version. I play it constantly. I am up to almost 4,000 games on my latest run and currently have an average of 81%. This has taken me almost exactly a year to the day (my first zero score was Nov 7th 2013 so I am guessing). It stops recording zero scores after 5 and my fifth zero score was before the end of November so it's a fair assumption.

Yes the games is rigged. Yes the deals are not random. However, once you understand this it becomes a battle between you and the computer in terms of being able to "shoot the moon." The computer wants to give you a bad hand especially on the first round because once it gets in front of you the cards generally become worse on subsequent rounds. If however, you shoot the moon on the first hand and get in front of the computer, it appears to take it easier on you for the subsequent rounds. The computer is also extremely predictable. It will do almost anything to avoid taking a heart with the exception of being able to get rid of the King/Ace of Spades. If north leads a spade (for instance), and east plays a heart, if south (you) doesn't play the Queen of Spades, west will take it with the ace or king if it has it. That is usually the only time one of the opponents will take a heart by choice. You can also use this to your advantage since if you are trying to shoot the moon and have (for instance) already taken 20 points. If you have the ace, queen, and 10 of hearts in your hand and west (once again for instance) has the king, jack and nine of hearts; if you lead the 10H, it will play the nine, you play the queen, it will play the jack and then you finish it with the ace to their king. It does not have the smarts to take one for team and take your queen with its king.

Anyway hope this helps future players. As an aside, I've just come to conclusion that if I'm up to 3900+ games in a year, that means I am playing (on average) about 11 games per day. Since at a guess each game takes about 10 minutes (ballpark), that means I am spending almost 2 hrs/day EVERY DAY playing hearts. I obviously have no life .

 

[coelacanth10]

lawman 64,
I too am hooked on Windows 7 hearts, I hope not pathologically, and ended up on this board because I started questioning the randomness of the deals. My current success rate is 2589/4023=.6435495. I'm convinced that in order to win, one must be aggressive in attempting to shoot the moon, but this would occur even if the deal was random, because in close games, one's success decreases markedly(it becomes more of a random event). I agree with the abnormal frequency of 2,3,4,5 distributions, and the absence of logic in an opponent more commonly leading the queen of spades without reason, which i never do myself. I have tended to get long strings of successes, then equally long strings of losses, and I don't know what this means, as I use the game to determine my own level of mental alertness, being 64 years of age. I believe that taking the queen before pulling hearts almost always results in a failure to shoot the moon. In other words, if one relies on taking a string of hearts with a lower card, such as a ten, then the computer will beat you every time, if you have already committed to shooting the moon. It is also clear to me that an opponent prefers to shoot the moon and lose the game, such that there is little or no strategy to win by that method. Recently I have found that the computer spends more time developing voids when its hand contains the black queen, whereas in the past, it always seemed relatively safe to lead one round of high clubs or diamonds. As for shooting the moon, I have often done so on the last hand, and frequently on the first one. My success rate when I have the black queen and zero or one other spade is terrible, and two others is poor, but four others is excellent as one can pull out spades from one's opponents successfully. Ultimately, everything revolves around the presence of high card spades and especially the length of that suit. Nice hearing about your experiences with the game. Its good to compare notes with an expert.

 

[lawman64]

lawman 64,
I too am hooked on Windows 7 hearts, I hope not pathologically, and ended up on this board because I started questioning the randomness of the deals. My current success rate is 2589/4023=.6435495. I'm convinced that in order to win, one must be aggressive in attempting to shoot the moon, but this would occur even if the deal was random, because in close games, one's success decreases markedly(it becomes more of a random event). I agree with the abnormal frequency of 2,3,4,5 distributions, and the absence of logic in an opponent more commonly leading the queen of spades without reason, which i never do myself. I have tended to get long strings of successes, then equally long strings of losses, and I don't know what this means, as I use the game to determine my own level of mental alertness, being 64 years of age. I believe that taking the queen before pulling hearts almost always results in a failure to shoot the moon. In other words, if one relies on taking a string of hearts with a lower card, such as a ten, then the computer will beat you every time, if you have already committed to shooting the moon. It is also clear to me that an opponent prefers to shoot the moon and lose the game, such that there is little or no strategy to win by that method. Recently I have found that the computer spends more time developing voids when its hand contains the black queen, whereas in the past, it always seemed relatively safe to lead one round of high clubs or diamonds. As for shooting the moon, I have often done so on the last hand, and frequently on the first one. My success rate when I have the black queen and zero or one other spade is terrible, and two others is poor, but four others is excellent as one can pull out spades from one's opponents successfully. Ultimately, everything revolves around the presence of high card spades and especially the length of that suit. Nice hearing about your experiences with the game. Its good to compare notes with an expert.

Coelacanth, nice to hear that I'm not alone on my hearts journey. I have managed to cut back somewhat recently and have only played 282 games in the last month. I'm still running at a little under 82% for those games so things are still going pretty much the same as usual. It was interesting to read about being aggressive to win - that is absolutely the right strategy and not just for shooting the moon. Because the hands are rigged if you just passively go along with the computer you will lose a good amount of the time since the cards have been dealt so that you will fail. To beat the computer, you need to try and outfox it and to do that you must force the pace. If I have the queen of spades, I often play all my high cards first so that eventually when one of the other players does take over I have only low cards left. It doesn't always work, but using that strategy often gets me out of a jam. In addition, don't always play your lowest card first. As an instance, if you have the 2 and 5 of diamonds, the computer will expect you to lead the 2 and the hands will be set up such that if you do, west will then play a high diamond and north and east will be able to also play high diamonds. The next time when you lead the 5, west will have the queen of spades and north and east will have the 3 and 4 and you end up with queen. If on the other hand you lead the 5, the high diamond will still come in from west, but you will still have the 2 to save yourself. Shooting the moon is still the secret to a high win percentage. Its rare these days for me to win a game and not shoot the moon at least once. As to your mental alertness comment, funnily enough I play for a similar reason. I'm also not a youngster any more and I think strategy games like hearts keep you sharp. Anyway, hope you read this and continue to keep playing.

Happy hearts playing,

lawman.