[runeblaze]

> Today many online poker sites use the Fisher–Yates algorithm, also called the Knuth shuffle (which sounds delightfully like a dance). It’s easy to implement and delivers satisfactory results.

Assuming CSPRNG and fisher yates, why is it only "satisfactory"...? What's better...?

[eterm]

Satsifactory in this context is good, not bad.

We live in a euphemistic world where "satisfactory" is presented to failures to not hurt their feelings, but the word also and originally means it's good enough, i.e. delivers an unbiased shuffle.

[pfg_]

But it's not just good enough, it's optimal. It is equivalent to picking a random deck from the set of all possible decks assuming your random source is good. More random than a real shuffle.

[VanTheBrand]

Right and that’s what satisfactory means, the condition was satisfied.