Rng's - Short term trends.

Quote: EvenBob

I keep hearing that and hearing that, with
not a shred of proof that in the very short
term, they are the same.

Teach me, oh wise one, show me that they
are identical in every way. You claim they
are, should be a piece of cake.

If you are comparing apples to oranges, and you don't know what an orange is, you're going to have a hard time.

I'm saying you don't KNOW the details of what a random number generator is or how it works. But even if you know nothing, you can learn!

If you can't learn that, you have no business discussing the topic at all in my opinion as you're just wasting people's time making claims relating to things that you know nothing about.

Just responding "prove that they are the same" is absolutely ridiculous. We all know that a crap die is different from a computer algorithm. That a roulette wheel and ball is different from a random number generator that uses entropy sources and 64-bit keys.

We *all* know that.

But you don't seem to know anything at all about the computer science variety of random number generators. And there are LOTS of different varieties with different characteristics and you just don't know anything about them!

So until you do, you should just stay out of the conversation and save everyone their time in telling you that you don't know how a computer random number generator works and so talking to you about it is like explaining how viruses infect a computer to a 90-year-old who has never touched a computer mouse in their life.

Pointless!

You really shouldn't take joy in wasting people's time, but I think that's precisely what you're doing.

I spent some time today (valuable time of mine) looking at how much better one random number generator was from another to help you illustrate the point your trying to make. But I'm not going to WASTE my time when it makes no sense to you because you don't understand anything about them.

Learn to install perl and that random number generator and how to use notepad and we can talk.

Otherwise, let's stop talking.

Quote: EvenBob

I answered it several times yet he keeps
repeating it. Prove they are the same in
in the short term first. He can't. He just
assumes they are because they're the
same in the long term. He has not even
the vaguest idea how to prove they are
the same in the short term.

It's the 'does god exist' argument. Just
because you believe it doesn't make it
so. Prove it.

Not arguing at this point if they are the same or they are not the same.

My only argument is that YOU can't tell the difference between numbers generated from a live roulette wheel or a Machine generated.

All the rest is nonsense.

I could make up 100 numbers in my head 5 times. 100 from a live wheel 5 times, use a online RNG 5 times. You couldn't tell the diffidence. I'm willing to bet that.

Quote: Ahigh

I'm saying you don't KNOW the details of what a random number generator is or how it works. .

And I don't need to know, why would I. I
can tell the difference between a Porche
and a KIA and I don't know how they work
either. I'm interested in results, not tech
details.

Quote: AxelWolf

My only argument is that YOU can't tell the difference between numbers generated from a live roulette wheel or a Machine generated.
.

You're making an assumption you can't prove.
You believe god exists and can't show that it's
true.

There's no test you can give in the short term
that will show you RNG and pRNG's are identical
in every way. So you just assume they are the
same. Why don't you admit it and we can drop
this. Your response should be, you know, I can't
really prove it so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Quote: EvenBob

There's no test you can give in the short term
that will show you RNG and pRNG's are identical
in every way.

There IS a test. EvenBob is the test!

This implies EvenBob doesn't exist! As proven by EvenBob!

Quote: EvenBob

You're making an assumption you can't prove.
You believe god exists and can't show that it's
true.

There's no test you can give in the short term
that will show you RNG and pRNG's are identical
in every way. So you just assume they are the
same. Why don't you admit it and we can drop
this. Your response should be, you know, I can't
really prove it so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Please quit double talking and going back to that. U know I said I cant prove they are or the same or different. I don't assume they are the same or different, I can't prove anything regarding that, I don't know if they are the same or different, I can't prove anything.



With that being said. Can you or can't you tell the difference between a machine generated roulette numbers and A Live game?

If you cant then say so and Then no need to go on. If you can, lets test that theory. I'm 100% sure you cant.

I can give you a test that would clearly prove cant tell the difference as you have claimed you could.

@EvenBob

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that you're saying that you can, through visual pattern recognition, discern the difference between some (not all) pRNG's and actual game results?

Quote: HughJass

@EvenBob

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that you're saying that you can, through visual pattern recognition, discern the difference between some (not all) pRNG's and actual game results?

I don't think he is saying there is necessarily a pattern to be detected. I believe he claims the machines somehow are program to generate numbers more Equally. So now you don't get things like streaks, repeating numbers, sleeper numbers to take advantage of, like he claims he and others can do on a real roulette table.

Quote: AxelWolf

Can you or can't you tell the difference between a machine generated roulette numbers and A Live game?

Yes, as well as many others. They don't know
how they're different, only that they are different.
You experience random outcomes in a certain
way on a real wheel over a long period of time,
years. They are different on an pRNG, in subtle
yet obvious ways. It's almost funny playing on one
of the virtual machines in a casino, it's so absurd.

Quote: AxelWolf

I believe he claims the machines somehow are program to generate numbers more Equally.

They are more random than a real wheel,
that's what I believe. I don't think the wheel
does as good a job.

There is a section called, "True" random numbers vs. pseudo-random numbers in the Wikipedia page on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_number_generation

Maybe if Bob is right, he could create an account on Wikipedia and see about getting the rest of the world's opinion about what he thinks and get back to the forum about his progress.

There was a time when I was frustrated when people failed to understand motion artifact problems with display technology, and I did this by creating a Wikipedia entry called "HDTV Blur."

It initially had some people coming on there saying I didn't know what I was talking about. But as it turns out, I did know what I was talking about, and that Wikipedia page has grown over the years as the basis for other products and research on the subject. It's part of what I'm doing now at my job, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_motion_blur

If you look at the "discussion" section, you can see some of the arguments where some folks said I was incorrect.

So giving Bob the benefit of the doubt, it behooves him to learn enough to make his assertions in a broader forum than the Wizard of Vegas.

But in order to do that, he's going to have to learn how random numbers work first. And he's also going to have to get very specific about what his claims are.

There are weaknesses in random number generation methods that are very well known by scientists who are well-researched on the subject. Talking about these known limitations of pseudo-random number generation with knowledge would be step number one for Bob.

Subsequent to that, and assuming he has an actual new discovery, contributing to the Wikipedia page on the subject linked above would quickly have his ideas accepted by the community of folks interested in this topic if he is in fact correct and has enough stick-to-it to see it through.

Arguing about it on this forum (continuing to) is simply unproductive for me personally. I don't have that much interest in the topic really. And as much as I need to know to get through GLI regulation I generally already know.

But if he wants to say why videos are not as good as "the real thing" or any other claim, I think he should try.

However, I truly think there is a possibility that just wasting the time of those who know more on the subject than he does is the short term goal.

I know my time has been wasted.

Quote: Ahigh

Subsequent to that, and assuming he has an actual new discovery, .

It's new that a pRNG can produce better random
results than a clunky mechanical device? Somehow
I don't think that's news. You don't seem to know
what the issues are here.

Quote: EvenBob

Yes, as well as many others. They don't know
how they're different, only that they are different.
You experience random outcomes in a certain
way on a real wheel over a long period of time,
years. They are different on an pRNG, in subtle
yet obvious ways. It's almost funny playing on one
of the virtual machines in a casino, it's so absurd.

Wonderful then you should have an easy time with a test. And easily prove yourself as a gaming God and win some cash in the process. I'm willing to offer you a $200 free roll If you can detect the difference. How many numbers do you need for this?

If you want more action I am willing to make a wager.

Quote: AxelWolf

Wonderful then you should have an easy time with a test. .

Sure, it would be easy peasy. Luckily I
don't take orders from you, or care what you
think. I simply lay it out there as an interesting
fact, what you do with it isn't my problem.
Believe it or don't, doesn't change the facts
a whit.

Quote: EvenBob

Sure it would be easy, easy peasy. Luckily I
don't take orders from you, or care what you
think. I simply lay it out there as an interesting
fact, what you do with it isn't my problem.
Believe it or don't, doesn't change the facts
a whit.

I didn't bark orders I made you a nice offer and a opportunity to prove you are a super human and smarter then everyone.

You love proving yourself and being right, its apparent from some of your posts and everyone knows this. Why not now? You only have an upside doing it. We can only come to one logical conclusion why you don't want to.

Right now you seem no different then guys like Varmenti and the other system players we all Laugh at.

Quote: AxelWolf

I didn't bark orders I made you a nice offer and a opportunity to prove you are a super human and smarter then everyone. .

I know a couple guys dumb as rocks that
see the difference, they have also been
playing for decades. I could mention this
on a gambling forum and get a few 'tell
us something we don't know' comments.
The fact that so many argue with it is
always highly amusing.

Quote: EvenBob

I know a couple guys dumb as rocks that
see the difference.

LOL... You proved my point.

deleted

Quote: EvenBob

I know a couple guys dumb as rocks that
see the difference, they have also been
playing for decades. I could mention this
on a gambling forum and get a few 'tell
us something we don't know' comments.
The fact that so many argue with it is
always highly amusing.

I know a couple guys who snap their fingers and say "come on dice" and know it makes a difference in the outcome of the dice.

The fact that many argue with it is always highly amusing.

These statements are correct only if they hinge on a definition of "know" that is hardly scientific.

In the casino people talk about "knowing" when in fact they didn't know.

Is it possible that you cannot divorce yourself from such a definition of "knowing" which is applied by dealers looking to work a toke and players looking to fool themselves for a kick?

Here's something I know. I know you're wasting everyone's time with this discussion.

deleted

Quote: Ahigh

These statements are correct only if they hinge on a definition of "know" that is hardly scientific.
.

Science is not needed, only experience. I know, to
a math guy experience is highly over rated. So far,
nobody has proved, or even tried to prove, that
RNG's and pRNG's are exactly the same in the
short term. All I hear is a bunch of posturing
and chatter. I wonder why that is..

M

Quote: EvenBob

Science is not needed, only experience. I know, to
a math guy experience is highly over rated. So far,
nobody has proved, or even tried to prove, that
RNG's and pRNG's are exactly the same in the
short term. All I hear is a bunch of posturing
and chatter. I wonder why that is..

Bob, I have a challenge for you. I'm willling to dump some money. Find us a pRNG roulette game of your choosing. I'll do the betting and you covver my bets. I'll let you pick my numbers for me. That way, since you have the experience, you can avoid the winning numbers. I won't be alllowed to bet more than 6 numbers at a time. But the catch is you have to pay me 39 for 1 on my winning numbers. With your experience you should make a killing. I'm ready to dump the dough, Bob. Let's do it.

Quote: EvenBob

Science is not needed, only experience. I know, to
a math guy experience is highly over rated. So far,
nobody has proved, or even tried to prove, that
RNG's and pRNG's are exactly the same in the
short term. All I hear is a bunch of posturing
and chatter. I wonder why that is..

Bob correct me if I'm wrong but you have often spoke out against "System players" guys like Singer, Great player, Varmenti?

What gives you that right? You are no different then they are.

I see Bob continues with the false 'fact' that no one has shown RNGs to be the same as pRNGs 'in the short term'.

Oh well, he can keep repeating it. Does not make it true.

His statement 'science is not needed' also reveals him to be woefully ignorant of how a test in science would actually work. This is all pure 'woo', baseless posturing from a man with nothing to show.