98steps
Joined: Sep 14, 2010
• Posts: 119
October 4th, 2010 at 8:28:03 AM permalink
Regarding RNG's...everything I know about them I have learned since beginning this thread. What I know about RNG's is that I do not know enough about them.

My contention is that my system can beat dice on felt. Not that it can beat a computer. Therefore, my desire for the RNG would be for one that most closely resembles real life outcomes.

If I understand RNG correctly, depending on the size and complexity of the program, it creates a "sequence" of numbers with a finite quantity of outcomes. Example.....is the total sequence is only 36, then the quatity of 7's would be 6, quantity of 6's would be 5, etc......is my understanding corrrect?

If this is the case, it is NOT representative of actual dice on felt. From my understanding, that sequence and quantities are reset with re-seeding......my cause some numbers to defy expectation a little, but over 1 billion decisions, i expect that they would all come in line.

Again, my question is what is the most random way to use the RNG so that it more closely resembles the results of Dice on Felt.
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
• Posts: 6526
October 4th, 2010 at 8:57:13 AM permalink
Quote: 98steps

If I understand RNG correctly, depending on the size and complexity of the program, it creates a "sequence" of numbers with a finite quantity of outcomes. Example.....is the total sequence is only 36, then the quatity of 7's would be 6, quantity of 6's would be 5, etc......is my understanding corrrect?

No, that's not how it will work. A good RNG simulating dice rolls might throw twelve 7s in a row and then six 5s. The goal is to have the probability of each outcome match the real-life probability (e.g. 6/36 for 7, 5/36 for 6, etc), NOT that in any given 36 rolls there will be exactly six 7s and five 6s.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
• Posts: 3412
October 4th, 2010 at 9:21:47 AM permalink
Quote: 98steps

Limits to its effectiveness are probably around \$2000 PER DAY. Enough that it will dramatically affect my standard of living, not enough to really hurt the casino industry.
Also, it was never billed as a "guaranteed" winner, but rather a consistant winner. Giving a high winning percentage of sessions, with an occasional loss to be expected.

Gee, is that all? Hardly seems worth doing, then.

"Guaranteed" is actually the same thing as "consistent", in terms of results. It doesn't mean "always", just that the system will show an overall positive result over time. No one will be saying your system doesn't work because it doesn't produce a "guaranteed" winner every time; they will say it doesn't work because it LOSES. And it will lose, steadily, consistently, with periodic upticks, but always trending down, down, down, down, down.

I really hope, for your sake, that you accept the results of the simulation, and don't dismiss it and march down to the casino anyway, expecting to score your daily \$2000. You will be disappointed, and more importantly, broke.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
goatcabin
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
• Posts: 664
October 4th, 2010 at 9:54:59 AM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

Uh, no, it actually doesn't. If the question is the effectiveness of the system, all that matters is the number of trials and the aggregate results, not the number of people making the bets. One billion outcomes is one billion outcomes.

Which, if you read my post, is exactly what I said: "From the point of view of the observer, relative to the overall results, they are the same thing."
So, I don't understand the purpose of your post.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA
Cheers, Alan Shank "How's that for a squabble, Pugh?" Peter Boyle as Mister Moon in "Yellowbeard"
guido111
Joined: Sep 16, 2010
• Posts: 707
October 4th, 2010 at 10:21:04 AM permalink
Quote: 98steps

Limits to its effectiveness are probably around \$2000 PER DAY.

Quote: mkl654321

Gee, is that all? Hardly seems worth doing, then.

I really hope, for your sake, that you accept the results of the simulation, and don't dismiss it and march down to the casino anyway, expecting to score your daily \$2000. You will be disappointed, and more importantly, broke.

\$2000 does not seem to bad a a daily win but at the risk of losing \$5000?
Ouch is right.

So, please continue on agreeing to the rules of the challenge.
Instead of "this is stupid" and "no it is not stupid" comments flying back and forth.

I bet Bluejay is kicking himself for even getting involved.
Wizard

Joined: Oct 14, 2009
• Posts: 20294
October 4th, 2010 at 10:27:33 AM permalink
I'd like to suggest we move theoretical discussion about betting systems and what if and why 98steps will lose to the "Will 98steps prevail?" thread. Let's try to keep this one focused on the contract and the RNG.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
guido111
Joined: Sep 16, 2010
• Posts: 707
October 4th, 2010 at 10:31:37 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I put the probability of the failed simulation convincing him not to use it in a casino at about 25%.
His fellow believers will tell him to not be discouraged.
They will say if it takes a billion rolls to kill his system then why worry, because he won't that long anyway.
Hopefully common sense will prevail, but, alas, it usually doesn't.

Moved to HERE
guido111
Joined: Sep 16, 2010
• Posts: 707
October 4th, 2010 at 10:32:52 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I'd like to suggest we move theoretical discussion about betting systems and what if and why 98steps will lose to the "Will 98steps prevail?" thread. Let's try to keep this one focused on the contract and the RNG.

great Idea, but that thread has also been hijacked by video poker.
MichaelBluejay
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
• Posts: 769
October 4th, 2010 at 12:27:34 PM permalink
Okay, 98, I made the changes to the contract you asked for. (Here's a link to the contract.)

(1) You now have the option to have the system sit out for 100 seven-outs.

(2) I'll provide the source code before the test. I think that last point is fairly irrelevant, since you the contract provided recourse if the turned out to be flawed, but I don't mind providing the code and sample output first, so I updated the wording.

(3) It's not a deal-breaker if you want to keep the details of the system or the simulation secret (other than the final results, which I can publish). I'd already conceded that earlier in this thread, but I know the thread is long and stuff is easy to miss. Anyway, I specified that I may reveal only the final results of the sim and nothing else unless I have your permission to do otherwise.

(4) Yes, I agree that the loser of any arbitration should pay for the arbitration. In fact, I already agreed to this when someone else made the suggestion, and I'd already updated the contract.

So if the contract is agreeable to you, I'm ready to sign it today and send my copy to you and to the Wizard.

If there are RNG issues, we can deal with them separately. Speaking of that, Wizard and MathExtremist, does either of you want to weigh in on the results of the RNG test I ran? (BTW, Wiz, you might want to ask James to either set forum links to be underlined or a brighter shade of blue. It's not easy to see that links here are actually links.)
Ayecarumba
Joined: Nov 17, 2009
• Posts: 6488
October 4th, 2010 at 12:55:50 PM permalink
Quote: MichaelBluejay

Okay, 98, I made the changes to the contract you asked for. (Here's a link to the contract.)

(1) You now have the option to have the system sit out for 100 seven-outs.

(2) I'll provide the source code before the test. I think that last point is fairly irrelevant, since you the contract provided recourse if the turned out to be flawed, but I don't mind providing the code and sample output first, so I updated the wording.

(3) It's not a deal-breaker if you want to keep the details of the system or the simulation secret (other than the final results, which I can publish). I'd already conceded that earlier in this thread, but I know the thread is long and stuff is easy to miss. Anyway, I specified that I may reveal only the final results of the sim and nothing else unless I have your permission to do otherwise.

(4) Yes, I agree that the loser of any arbitration should pay for the arbitration. In fact, I already agreed to this when someone else made the suggestion, and I'd already updated the contract.

So if the contract is agreeable to you, I'm ready to sign it today and send my copy to you and to the Wizard.

If there are RNG issues, we can deal with them separately. Speaking of that, Wizard and MathExtremist, does either of you want to weigh in on the results of the RNG test I ran? (BTW, Wiz, you might want to ask James to either set forum links to be underlined or a brighter shade of blue. It's not easy to see that links here are actually links.)

I would be a little concerned with the Wizard getting too involved with evaluating test criteria prior to the contract execution since he has already been assigned the roles of impartial "holder of the cash/judge". His weighing in on other points could be perceived as a conflict of interest.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci