Rng's - Short term trends.
I have always thought that RNG results and real wheel results looked slightly different. I know it is impossible to create a true random selection using a computer - it's man made and the final result will be man made and so will have a flaw somewhere due to seeding or if using a natural source it will tend to 'trend'.
I have been testing a strat that has so far not failed ( over only 2500 spins - I know it's not enough but -) and would like a few members to give it a try.
It is quite easy but requires a little time and needs a lot of clear spins (no or low bet to collect data)
Take a note of the results in the double street section, marking down the hits in 1-6 7-12 13-18 19-24 25-30 and 31-36.
After about 10 -15 spins a pattern often shows. Wait until 3 streets are showing significantly more hits than the other 3 or even just 2.
Bet on all 3 streets and use a Maty .
My thinking behind this is - as the 3 d/streets are constantly showing ahead of the other 3 it would be unusual for all 3 of those d/streets to suddenly stop showing and go for a large number of spins without showing. I know this is a bit wild but so far I have not been busted to 5 progressions.
I think this would only work with RNG's as real world we know there is no relation to the previous spin - RNG's are different - they are designed by man!
I read once that certain casino's RNG's have a trigger which will recognise a progression and 'help' you to loose - I do not disbelieve this , anything is possible!
Give it a try - if only for fun!
The only certain outcome in roulette is that a number will repeat after 37 spins (European)
Quote: FrayamandaJust thought I would let you take a look at this one!
I have always thought that RNG results and real wheel results looked slightly different. I know it is impossible to create a true random selection using a computer - it's man made and the final result will be man made and so will have a flaw somewhere due to seeding or if using a natural source it will tend to 'trend'.
I have been testing a strat that has so far not failed ( over only 2500 spins - I know it's not enough but -) and would like a few members to give it a try.
It is quite easy but requires a little time and needs a lot of clear spins (no or low bet to collect data)
Take a note of the results in the double street section, marking down the hits in 1-6 7-12 13-18 19-24 25-30 and 31-36.
After about 10 -15 spins a pattern often shows. Wait until 3 streets are showing significantly more hits than the other 3 or even just 2.
Bet on all 3 streets and use a Maty .
My thinking behind this is - as the 3 d/streets are constantly showing ahead of the other 3 it would be unusual for all 3 of those d/streets to suddenly stop showing and go for a large number of spins without showing. I know this is a bit wild but so far I have not been busted to 5 progressions.
I think this would only work with RNG's as real world we know there is no relation to the previous spin - RNG's are different - they are designed by man!
I read once that certain casino's RNG's have a trigger which will recognise a progression and 'help' you to loose - I do not disbelieve this , anything is possible!
Give it a try - if only for fun!
The only certain outcome in roulette is that a number will repeat after 37 spins (European)
Subatomic particles travel at random but do not naturally run into each other. They have to run into each other in order for a nuclear device to explode, or implode, or whatever the hell it does. The RNG was developed so nuclear physicists could get an idea of what random looks like, not so we can all play video poker.
I don't understand Jack Sh*t of it!
All I know is that I've now done 3500 hits on this and shown 1256 points profit - don't knock it till you try it!
Going to try playing the anti to this and I should loose the same - can't wait!!!!
Cheers.
Quote: FrayamandaI have always thought that RNG results and real wheel results looked slightly different.
I would bet my left hand that no human can (without computer help) can distinguish between a RNG and proper real wheel results for any given length a human can observe himself.
Quote: FrayamandaI have always thought that RNG results and real wheel results looked slightly different. )
I've been saying it for 8 years. I got laughed
at, called names, derided, even threatened.
I know bac players who swear they have
'good luck' at real shoes, yet can never ever
beat a shoe created by a RNG. So I don't
talk about it anymore, some of us just take
what we know and don't worry about wising
up anybody else.
1.That skank dealer has it in for me;
2. Auto-shuffler is rigged;
3. Something to do with that shifty little weasel in seat 3.
Quote: mickeycrimmThe problem with the streaks one see's in these electronic games, like roulette, dice, video poker is, if you are a brick & mortar poker player with at least a few thousand hours under your belt, you've seen the same streaks.
It has nothing to do with streaks. Especially at
online casino RNG's, you see things happen on
a regular basis that you only see in a real
wheel or shoe once in a blue moon.
Quote: IbeatyouracesSpeed is the reason why.
100% wrong. If you play a session with a real
shoe, say 70 outcomes, and play a 70 outcome
shoe on a RNG shoe, you're comparing apples to
apples. But you need thousands of hours of real
play to see the difference, and few have it.
Quote: MangoJI would bet my left hand that no human can (without computer help) can distinguish between a RNG and proper real wheel results for any given length a human can observe himself.
I'd not bet my left hand, cos no-one wants it, but I'd say it's 'unproven' that anyone can tell them apart.
Quote: thecesspitI'd not bet my left hand, cos no-one wants it
Yes, but a second one would be nice to habe :)
Quote: thecesspitbut I'd say it's 'unproven' that anyone can tell them apart.
What does someone have to gain by proving it.
Connect the dots..
Quote: IbeatyouracesTo much confirmation bias for you.
'Confirmation bias is the tendency to favor information that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses.'
Sorry, no. That's one of the first things you
learn in researching something. It's a classic
rookie mistake.
Quote: EvenBob'Confirmation bias is the tendency to favor information that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses.'
Sorry, no. That's one of the first things you
learn in researching something. It's a classic
rookie mistake.
But, I'm not a rookie, Bob. I want no confrontation with you, but you and I are diametrically opposed on this issue. I must ask you to put up proof of non random events that occur on machines.
Quote: mickeycrimmI must ask you to put up proof of non random events that occur on machines.
But you must understand, I don't care to
prove it. It's only meaningful that I know
how to tell what's what and what .isn't That
others don't know doesn't concern me.
I only commented at all because it galls
me when the 'experts' huff and puff
and strut their opinions to be the
unquestionable truth.
And poof, I'm gone from this thread.
There's almost a sort of cognitive dissonance that the next result is independent of the previous result.
Our universe is not completely figured out by any known entity. And that is one of the things that makes our universe so fascinating.
The idea that you can predict the future outcome of a random event based on a previous outcome is, in fact, entertaining to contemplate. And that is what makes gambling fun. Entertaining that gut feeling that you know what's going to happen next.
Being right is something that the brain likes to be. And it trains itself by recognizing success in it's predictive powers in many other instances.
But predicting random events is just, very nearly, torture to the brain; assuming you can't learn to enjoy it and dismiss it as what it is, just entertainment.
Quote: EvenBobBut you must understand, I don't care to
prove it. It's only meaningful that I know
how to tell what's what and what .isn't That
others don't know doesn't concern me.
I only commented at all because it galls
me when the 'experts' huff and puff
and strut their opinions to be the
unquestionable truth.
And poof, I'm gone from this thread.
And that's good that you are gone from this thread, Bob. Because, though I respect you so, I will, opposed to your false doctrine, put up the real doctrine to the American kids. Your doctrine has no basis in fact, it comes from your faulty memory. With all due respect, your false memory is not good enough to back up anything. We deal in facts and truths, here brother. It is not right that you would teach the kids of the United States something that simply does not exist. It exists in your mind and your mind only.
I've been banging on machines for 18 years, l've seen all that crap that exists in your mind. It exists in your mind, Bob. It doesn't exist in mine. And I guarantee you, Bob, you ain't even one one hundredth the machine pro I am.
I mean no disrespect to you, Bob. I'm approaching old curmudgeon status too. But this is one issue that I won't let you fly. Your's is a false doctrine being taught to the American kids. Go for it again, and I will and object to it again. Either teach the kids the truth or keep your mouch shut.
Quote: EvenBobAnd poof, I'm gone from this thread.
Evenbob is now taking the coward's way out.
But that's really maybe only about a quarter-a$$ed argument, that I don't even buy even as I try to make it, because he used access to the software code, and even with that, still only was able to usefully exploit that information with the aid of the computer program he developed to accomplish it, and not by ordinary observation and simple calculation. Which would seem to present a pretty clear indication that someone who convinces themselves they are doing that while stuck with these specified conditions...
...is really just wishing and hoping and guessing and making it up, and would probably do about as well by buying some magic mojo dust from the back room of Madame Fatima's shop down the street, and maybe sacrificing a goat or two.Quote: MangoJ...(without computer help) can distinguish between a RNG and proper real wheel results for any given length a human can observe himself.
1) lose their money slowly
2) lose their money quickly
I would only exclude live poker from all other casino games. Oh, and of course I left .1% as a success rate for you professional card counters.
Quote: mickeycrimmAnd that's good that you are gone from this thread, Bob. Because, though I respect you so, I will, opposed to your false doctrine, put up the real doctrine to the American kids. Your doctrine has no basis in fact, it comes from your faulty memory. With all due respect, your false memory is not good enough to back up anything. We deal in facts and truths, here brother. It is not right that you would teach the kids of the United States something that simply does not exist. It exists in your mind and your mind only.
I've been banging on machines for 18 years, l've seen all that crap that exists in your mind. It exists in your mind, Bob. It doesn't exist in mine. And I guarantee you, Bob, you ain't even one one hundredth the machine pro I am.
I mean no disrespect to you, Bob. I'm approaching old curmudgeon status too. But this is one issue that I won't let you fly. Your's is a false doctrine being taught to the American kids. Go for it again, and I will and object to it again. Either teach the kids the truth or keep your mouch shut.
Oh he does this on a regular basis. Claims he can tell real random from other psuedo random, claims that everyone else doesn't know what he's talking about, and then runs of whenever challenged saying he knows what he knows. Why he bothers, I have no idea.
Actually, I have one idea, but I wouldn't want to have to show my proof. You know, connect the dots :)
It is amazing how this vast conspiracy revolving around gaffed RNG's has been going on for 40 years, right under out noses, and not one whistleblower. Not one investigative reporter has been able to expose it. Think of the thousands of people involved in this conspiracy, the designers and manufacturers of these chips, The gaming commissions in all the states, the regulations for RNG's they wrote but are breaking, the testing labs in these jurisdictions. One huge conspiracy that has been going on under our noses for 40 years.
The truth is that the human mind is hard wired to see patterns in everything. It's in our DNA. People will be using selective memory in seeing patterns on video poker machines long after I'm dead. It's not really anything I'm going to be able to change that much. But what irks me, is people of above average intelligence, who otherwise have respected reputations, who are in positions of authority, who's words carry weight, play a big role in propogating these myths about the RNG's.
I don't know exactly what Bob is claiming on this. is he claiming he can himself spot patterns? He may see random patterns after the fact. What good is that?Quote: thecesspitOh he does this on a regular basis. Claims he can tell real random from other psuedo random, claims that everyone else doesn't know what he's talking about, and then runs of whenever challenged saying he knows what he knows. Why he bothers, I have no idea.
Actually, I have one idea, but I wouldn't want to have to show my proof. You know, connect the dots :)
I have a feeling someone Bob knows (like his "winning'' roulette friend) Has convinced him this is true.
There have been some rare cases machines where machines were not random. Patterns were exploitable.
Anyone claiming what I think Bob is, I have to call BS. The normal everyday slot or video poker is as random as you can get.
Some online casinos may be a different story but that's a different topic.
Quote: AxelWolfI have a feeling someone Bob knows (like his "winning'' roulette friend) Has convinced him this is true.
Sigh. Nobody convinced me of anything. There is
nothing wrong with the pseudo random that's used
in slots or ersatz table games. It's good enough
random for what it's used for. But it's not true
random like you find in a roulette wheel or a bac
shoe.
If you have a lot of experience you can tell the
difference between pseudo random and real
random on games like roulette. This certainly
isn't unique with me. I remember the stories
when they first introduced the RNG games to
Vegas, the ones with the virtual dealer spinning
the wheel. The old roulette players were delighted
because of the speed, but soon quit them because
they the outcomes were 'different'. They constantly
saw things on a regular basis that they never saw
on a real wheel.
I read these stories after I discovered it on my own.
Since then I've verified it over and over and over.
I wonder how truly random a hand shuffled card game is. I bet a RNG is more random then a human.Quote: EvenBobSigh. Nobody convinced me of anything. There is
nothing wrong with the pseudo random that's used
in slots or ersatz table games. It's good enough
random for what it's used for. But it's not true
random like you find in a roulette wheel or a bac
shoe.
If you have a lot of experience you can tell the
difference between pseudo random and real
random on games like roulette. This certainly
isn't unique with me. I remember the stories
when they first introduced the RNG games to
Vegas, the ones with the virtual dealer spinning
the wheel. The old roulette players were delighted
because of the speed, but soon quit them because
they the outcomes were 'different'. They constantly
saw things on a regular basis that they never saw
on a real wheel.
I read these stories after I discovered it on my own.
Since then I've verified it over and over and over.
I get fact that it cant be truly random but its being shuffled hundreds of times in a second with numbers probably in the quintilian. You yourself add also randomness since you hit the button and stop the RNG yourself.
How many deals/spins/plays do you think it would take before you could tell the diffidence between a normal Table game and a Video table game?
Since a RNG plays faster and people lose faster they believe its unfair.
Quote: AxelWolfI bet a RNG is more random then a human.
You'd lose. That's why RNG's are called pseudo
random. Pseudo is another word for 'fake'.
Winning numbers observed before playing (repeats in brackets):
3, 7, 9, 12(3), 13(2), 14, 16, 17(2), 19, 21, 26(3), 28(3), 30(2), 32
Double Streets Played:10/12, 13/15 and 25/27, 28/30, bet 5 units per double street
Winning numbers
0(2), 1, 2(2), 4(3), 6, 7(2), 8(2), 9, 10(3), 11(3), 12, 14(4), 15(4), 16(2), 17(2), 18
20(2), 21, 22, 23, 24(3), 25(6), 27(2), 28(2), 29(2), 30(3), 32, 33(2), 34, 35(3)
Played a progression (or would have) of 5,5,5,5,5,6,7,8,9,10
Total wins: 30
Total losses: 34
Nett win 100 units
My target was 100 units, I quit when I hit that, worked for me.
Technically, from relying on people who've spent more time on this sort of thing than I ever have, I think this is true, just as it is stated, right up to that point. Full stop.Quote: EvenBobBut it's not true random like you find in a roulette wheel or a bac shoe.
But. Then:
Going from there to this is quite a big leap to take. If one isn't rigorous about that kind of leap it can become an open door invitation to the common gambler's self-delusions, amounting to "feeling" about it giving rise to nurturing a belief system. And I think this gap is where folks part company in this difference of opinion here; at least I do, right there, between the first quoted excerpt and the second one which I sure don't think is a necessary consequence of the first one at all.Quote: EvenBobIf you have a lot of experience you can tell the difference between pseudo random and real random on games like roulette.
Or what I think is a better statement of it with a more detailed description of what has been my understanding of the matter:
I feel pretty sure I am not a more efficient code cracking device than what is required for modern cryptography standards, and if I ever began to think otherwise I'd want to first produce some real serious hard empirical verifiable and reproducible evidence before following that belief with my money.Quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_number_generation"True" random numbers vs. pseudo-random numbers
Main article: Pseudorandom number generator
There are two principal methods used to generate random numbers. The first method measures some physical phenomenon that is expected to be random and then compensates for possible biases in the measurement process. Example sources include measuring atmospheric noise, thermal noise, and other external electromagnetic and quantum phenomena. For example, cosmic background radiation or radioactive decay as measured over short timescales represent sources of natural entropy.
...<SNIP>...
The second method uses computational algorithms that can produce long sequences of apparently random results, which are in fact completely determined by a shorter initial value, known as a seed or key. The latter type are often called pseudorandom number generators. These types of generators do not typically rely on sources of naturally occurring entropy, though they may be periodically seeded by natural sources, they are non-blocking i.e. not rate-limited by an external event.
A "random number generator" based solely on deterministic computation cannot be regarded as a "true" random number generator in the purest sense of the word, since their output is inherently predictable if all seed values are known. In practice however they are sufficient for most tasks. Carefully designed and implemented pseudo-random number generators can even be certified for security-critical cryptographic purposes,...<SNIP>
Quote: DrawingDeadBut. Then:
Going from there to this is quite a big leap to take.
People assume because they can't do it,
nobody can. I am hardly the first, and
certainly not the last. It's like seeing the
face in the tree, at first you swear a face
isn't there at all. Then when it's pointed
out, it's all you can see.
Oh. Well that's exactly the sort of thing I'd use to illustrate exactly the opposite view, and very nearly reproduces what I find in my reading of the psychology of seeing patterns and the innate human emotional need to impose an ordered understanding of stuff, so if we're inclined to use the same thing as something showing us opposite conclusions, we're clearly destined to disagree on it. But I'm good with that; makes the horses go 'round. Good luck.Quote: EvenBobPeople assume because they can't do it,
nobody can. I am hardly the first, and
certainly not the last. It's like seeing the
face in the tree, at first you swear a face
isn't there at all. Then when it's pointed
out, it's all you can see.
Quote: DrawingDeadwhat I find in my reading of the psychology of seeing patterns and the innate human emotional need to impose an ordered understanding of stuff,
Gobblygook and nonsense. It has nothing to
do with it. That's just a crutch they use to
explain why they don't see it. They aren't
explaining why they can't, because the
reason they think they can't is there is
no difference. So you must be off your
rocker that you can see it. It's the same
reasoning the Church used to burn heretics
at the stake.
Quote: DrawingDeadAnd it is what makes Rorschach "ink-blot" and some other similar tests useful,
Yeah, for people who think they see the Virgin
Mary in a rust stain. This is scientific research
with verifiable results, it doesn't apply here.
This isn't my opinion, it's a fact.
Your understanding of how that is commonly used, and on whom, is um, not accurate.Quote: EvenBobYeah, for people who think they see the Virgin
Mary in a rust stain. This is scientific research
with verifiable results, it doesn't apply here.
This isn't my opinion, it's a fact.
YOU are asserting faith in your virgin, and this conversation is passing into a realm where it probably won't be useful to continue it. Good luck.
Quote: DrawingDeadYour understanding of how that is commonly used, and on whom, is um, not accurate.
.
Good god, I was inserting levity into
the conversation, um. The fact you
don't see my example as funny shows
you take yourself way too seriously.
What does luck have to do with anything,
it doesn't even exist. There's only positive
variance..
Never mind..
You never answered my question how many spins/hands before you can tell the diffidence between a "RGN" and a normal table game?Quote: EvenBob
Quote: AxelWolfYou never answered my question how many spins/hands before you can tell the diffidence between a "RGN" and a normal table game?
I never give details, then they just want
more details. What's the point. Believe it
or don't, it won't change your life either
way, though some of you act like it will.
You know answering that question is a slippery slope for your theory.So many holes would be poked in your theories it would look like a strainer.Quote: EvenBobI never give details, then they just want
more details. What's the point. Believe it
or don't, it won't change your life either
way, though some of you act like it will.
Someone could get hand results from both live and video roulette and you couldn't tell what was what. I would be willing to make you a wager on that.
Quote: EvenBobSigh. Nobody convinced me of anything. There is
nothing wrong with the pseudo random that's used
in slots or ersatz table games. It's good enough
random for what it's used for. But it's not true
random like you find in a roulette wheel or a bac
shoe.
If you have a lot of experience you can tell the
difference between pseudo random and real
random on games like roulette. This certainly
isn't unique with me. I remember the stories
when they first introduced the RNG games to
Vegas, the ones with the virtual dealer spinning
the wheel. The old roulette players were delighted
because of the speed, but soon quit them because
they the outcomes were 'different'. They constantly
saw things on a regular basis that they never saw
on a real wheel.
I read these stories after I discovered it on my own.
Since then I've verified it over and over and over.
Then put your evidence up. Bob, your cornhole shit will never fly with the American kids. Because all you do is deliver illusions. You are not going to get by, on my watch, Bob, with your delusional bullshit. You either put up a scientific synopsis for your stupid bullshit or get the hell out. Your stupid, non mathematical shit ain't gonna fly here, Bob.
Then put your evidence up
Quote: EvenBobI never give details, then they just want
more details. What's the point. Believe it
or don't, it won't change your life either
way, though some of you act like it will.
I used to have respect for you. Now I think you are the dumbest of the dumb. Take you old ass of wisdom and shove it right up your ass. You don't know jackshit, bitch. You are a clown.
Give him a chance to prove it.Quote: mickeycrimmI used to have respect for you. Now I think you are the dumbest of the dumb. Take you old ass of wisdom and shove it right up your ass. You don't know jackshit, bitch. You are a clown.
Quote: mickeycrimmI used to have respect for you. Now I think you are the dumbest of the dumb. Take you old ass of wisdom and shove it right up your ass. You don't know jackshit, bitch. You are a clown.
Darnit, mickey. You were hangin in there until you posted this. 2nd time this year: 7 days.
