Cool site with truly random dice results
RANDOM.ORG DICE ROLLER
"What's this fuss about true randomness?
Perhaps you have wondered how predictable machines like computers can generate randomness. In reality, most random numbers used in computer programs are pseudo-random, which means they are generated in a predictable fashion using a mathematical formula. This is fine for many purposes, but it may not be random in the way you expect if you're used to dice rolls and lottery drawings.
RANDOM.ORG offers true random numbers to anyone on the Internet. The randomness comes from atmospheric noise, which for many purposes is better than the pseudo-random number algorithms typically used in computer programs. People use RANDOM.ORG for holding drawings, lotteries and sweepstakes, to drive games and gambling sites, for scientific applications and for art and music. The service has existed since 1998 and was built by Dr Mads Haahr of the School of Computer Science and Statistics at Trinity College, Dublin in Ireland. Today, RANDOM.ORG is operated by Randomness and Integrity Services Ltd.
As of today, RANDOM.ORG has generated 1.38 trillion random bits for the Internet community."
Quote: drjohnny
Perhaps you have wondered how predictable machines like computers can generate randomness. In reality, most random numbers used in computer programs are pseudo-random, which means they are generated in a predictable fashion using a mathematical formula. This is fine for many purposes, but it may not be random in the way you expect...
This is god's truth and I have argued this for YEARS.
Some people think there is zero difference between
true random and computer generated random in the
short term. There IS a difference, just not in the long
run. Who in hell makes a bet in the long run, we play
in the extreme short term, we bet on the next outcome.
Computer RNG's suck and I won't play them. I can't play
them, they are too erratic.
Why would one NOT trust the RNG in WinCraps??Quote: drjohnnyIf you want to test out a strategy and don't trust the RNG in WinCraps
"Version 5.0: Added Mersenne Twister as RNGs #1 and #2"
looks like 5.0p and 5.1b and Pro 1.0 all use the MT.
any better prng for a simple roll of 2 dice then the MT?
All dice rolls on a real Craps table are not always 100% random.
When one die hits a stack of chips in the Field or someone's arm and dies right there,
that die result can not be as random as the other die hitting the table and the back wall before coming to rest.
or is it?
So using a program that produces true random dice results like R.O
can not IMO accurately model a craps game on a computer as well as a prng can, especially the MT
If one does not have dice, or do not trust WinCraps or R.org,
just make your own RNG from some poker chips numbered from 1 to 6. So one could use two sets.
No cheating (do not look) when you select each chip
Quote: 7crapsWhy would one NOT trust the RNG in WinCraps??
If you have a bet selection attuned to true
random outcomes, it won't work worth a
shit on RNG's. But most peoples bet selection
is garbage so they'll never see the difference
anyway.
Quote: MathExtremistNeither you nor anyone else can tell the difference between a sequence generated by physical dice and a sequence generated by a properly used RNG.
Here we go. Never fails. I don't have this discussion
anymore with those who have no idea what bet
selection is in reference to true random. Be happy in
your ignorance, I don't wise up the peanut gallery
anymore.
Proof enough that no one can spot a RNG sequence.
Quote: JeepsterIn a truly random series of numbers any and all sequences are possible, including any and all sequences produced by a RNG.
Proof enough that no one can spot a RNG sequence.
Not in the short term. In the long term everything
equals out. Too bad casinos don't let you make long
term bets, they only let you bet the next outcome.
Like I said, its a argument that goes nowhere because
almost nobody has a good bet selection based on true
random results. So how would the know the difference
between true and pseudo random. Ignorance is bliss.
Indeed as you say, ignorance is bliss, if you substitute facts with voodoo.
Quote: EvenBobComputer RNG's suck and I won't play them. I can't play them, they are too erratic.
An RNG that is erratic? -- That's unthinkable!
Quote: JeepsterDoesn't matter how long or short the sequence, if a RNG produces it so can true random results.
Indeed as you say, ignorance is bliss, if you substitute facts with voodoo.
Let me know when you get some facts. In the meantime carry on as you are. You won't know the difference.
Quote: EvenBobHere we go. Never fails. I don't have this discussion
anymore with those who have no idea what bet
selection is in reference to true random. Be happy in
your ignorance, I don't wise up the peanut gallery
anymore.
Do you think you *can* tell the difference between a sequence of physically generated dice rolls and a sequence of PRNG-generated dice rolls? If so, let's quantify:
I will generate a sequence of 36 physical dice rolls. Then I will generate a sequence of 36 PRNG dice rolls. Then I will do those two steps another 49 times each, so I will have 100 total sequences of 36 rolls, half physical and half PRNG. I will pick one sequence at random and show it to you, and you will tell me by looking at it whether it's based on real dice or software. We will repeat for the remaining 99. How many will you correctly categorize?
Quote: MathExtremistDo you think you *can* tell the difference between a sequence of physically generated dice rolls and a sequence of PRNG-generated dice rolls? If so, let's quantify:
Do you guys email each other about this? It
always follows the same pattern. No, I don't
do that anymore, its pointless because you
(and they) never believe it. I said I'm done
wising up anybody, just consider yourself a genius
and me an eccentric crank. Please..
Quote: EvenBobDo you guys email each other about this? It
always follows the same pattern. No, I don't
do that anymore, its pointless because you
(and they) never believe it. I said I'm done
wising up anybody, just consider yourself a genius
and me an eccentric crank. Please..
I'm not asking you to wise me up at all. I just want to see you distinguish between a physically-generated dice roll and a RNG-generated one. Here are two:
a) 7
b) 4
I generated one of those by rolling a physical pair of dice, and the other I generated by using the built-in Excel PRNG and the formula "=SUM(FLOOR(6*RAND()+1,1), FLOOR(6*RAND()+1,1))"
Which is which?
Quote: MathExtremistI'm not asking you to wise me up at all.
Sure you are. Forget it, case closed. I stopped
caring what people thought about what I did
around 2009, if I ever really did. Care, that is.
Thats arguable.
Quote: 24Bingo
I don't get it, I don't have a betting system, they're
for chumps.
Quote: EvenBobForget it, case closed. I stopped
caring what people thought about what I did
around 2009, if I ever really did. Care, that is.
Thats arguable.
I see. So when you said that
Quote: EvenBobThis is god's truth and I have argued this for YEARS.
Some people think there is zero difference between
true random and computer generated random in the
short term. There IS a difference,
you're just no longer willing to argue that "god's truth" any longer. Is that about right?
Quote: MathExtremistI see. So when you said that
you're just no longer willing to argue that "god's truth" any longer. Is that about right?
Yes, I'd rather just spew axioms and let
them lay there. I learned my lesson. I
can show a disbeliever something in person,
right to his face, and he won't believe it.
Its just not worth the hassle anymore.
Thanks for the link drjQuote: drjohnnycheck out this site's dice roller...
RANDOM.ORG DICE ROLLER
"What's this fuss about true randomness?"
I had not visited that site in years. Looks like they expanded a lot.
Here was my first dice rolls. one each second or so
4,4
2,4
2,6
2,6
2,6
6,5
2,5
5,2
I should have had the video recorder on.
Random dice rolls??
hahahaha
Must be the NSA and Google messing with true randomness
They know who I am
compare to Excel
=SUM(RANDBETWEEN(1,6),RANDBETWEEN(1,6))
3
8
4
7
9
7
3
6
12
6
7
Me rolling 2 new casino dice
11
6
8
3
4
7
10
7
6
5
7
Quote: MathExtremistI see. So when you said that
you're just no longer willing to argue that "god's truth" any longer. Is that about right?
He's willing to start something he can't finish, it seems.
Quote: thecesspitHe's willing to start something he can't finish, it seems.
He has no outs. His position has no merit, and the opposition is stacked with actual industry and math experts. All he can do is claim that he's too good to discuss this with us mere mortals...
Quote: thecesspitHe's willing to start something he can't finish, it seems.
Won't finish. No reason to.
Whats funny is, when the virtual roulette setup's first
appeared in Vegas, the old time local roulette players
soon abandoned them because the results weren't
what they usually saw on a regular roulette wheel.
They thought the things were rigged, when in fact
they were using computer RNG's that only fool people
who don't know what they're doing, which is pretty
much everybody.
Quote: EvenBobWon't finish. No reason to.
Whats funny is, when the virtual roulette setup's first
appeared in Vegas, the old time local roulette players
soon abandoned them because the results weren't
what they usually saw on a regular roulette wheel.
They thought the things were rigged, when in fact
they were using computer RNG's that only fool people
who don't know what they're doing, which is pretty
much everybody.
Do you have any proof, any at all, that isn't based on anecdotal evidence involving the migratory patterns of a flock of old drunkards?
Quote: rdw4potusDo you have any proof, any at all,
Why do I need proof? Why do the old timers
in Vegas need proof? It is what it is. I proved
it to myself, so can you if you really wanted.
But you don't want proof, you want your own
position fortified. So you'll do nothing, which is
perfectly fine with me.
Quote: EvenBobWhy do I need proof? Why do the old timers
in Vegas need proof? It is what it is. I proved
it to myself.
It seems that your tag line says it all.
Facts are indisputable truths, but your version of the truth is more important.
This kind of logic is applauded and encouraged at John Patrick's site.
Over there facts are seen as a nuisance and best ignored.
Quote: WizardI don't even listen to opinions about RNG's by those with no background in computer science.
Exactly. Thats why I say its useless to give examples,
if I could prove it beyond question & I would still be derided
as a crackpot. Its like proving the earth rotates around
the sun to the Church in 1500. You could prove it beyond
a shadow of a doubt and they still wouldn't believe it. They
know what they know and thats it. Just like the RNG
worshippers.
Quote: WizardI don't even listen to opinions about RNG's by those with no background in computer science.
RNGs don't necessarily have to be computers , after all what is a roulette wheel but a RNG.
Quote: Jeepsterafter all what is a roulette wheel but a RNG.
An RNG that produces true random.
Quote: 7craps
All dice rolls on a real Craps table are not always 100% random.
When one die hits a stack of chips in the Field or someone's arm and dies right there,
that die result can not be as random as the other die hitting the table and the back wall before coming to rest.
or is it?
Agreed!
You also left out God's direct input. When I play craps, I KNOW GOD influences the dice because there is no way I could loose that much if it were truly random.
I win all the time on my iPhone. God doesn't seem to care about that.
Quote: EvenBobLet me know when you get some facts. In the meantime carry on as you are. You won't know the difference.
I don't post often, but I can't help it this time. Are you implying that you do not trust pseudo-random number generators (and for what reason? Because they don't produce the results you like)? Yes, it is true that PRNG generate numbers in a pre-determined fashion. However, common RNG's have been extensively vetted by the computer science community and are accepted as completely valid.
In fact, thousands of simulations are run on a daily basis using these RNG's in a variety of industries. Fighter jets and satellites are flying today as a result that these generators. Is it possible that you are suffering from a human need for patterns? A famous case study is the original iPod Shuffle: consumers complained that the 'shuffle' was not random enough--even though it was truly random--because it would repeat songs shortly after they have just played. As a response, Apple developers had to 'un-randomize' the shuffle algorithm to appease their users. Humans want to see uniformity occur right away, but this is simply not a fact in statistics.
You are getting into a huge world of trouble by questioning pseudorandom number generators; they are an industry standard and have been used for decades.
That being said, random number generators continue to be a topic of study in the computer science world. The problem is, the work that is being done is completely beyond me and you--although I do not want to make generalizations, you may be a brilliant CS researcher for all I know.
Quote: zoomzoom8
You are getting into a huge world of trouble by questioning pseudorandom number generators
I don't question them, they produce pseudo
random numbers, just like they're supposed
to. They do the job they were designed to
do. Just don't pass them off as identical to
real random outcomes, because they aren't.
Like the old saying says, don't piss in my ear
and tell me its raining. I know better.
Quote: EvenBobI don't question them, they produce pseudo
random numbers, just like they're supposed
to. They do the job they were designed to
do. Just don't pass them off as identical to
real random outcomes, because they aren't.
Like the old saying says, don't piss in my ear
and tell me its raining. I know better.
I hope you understand the scope of what you are questioning. I appreciate your skepticism, but I hope you have a better argument than: 'I play craps better than you, therefore I'm right'. I do not want other readers of this forum thinking that your opinions are anything other than a conspiracy-theorist's at this point. If you can prove that PRNG's are inadequate, then write a paper; I will happily read it. It will have major consequences in my professional life and the work of many others.
Quote: zoomzoom8I hope you understand the scope of what you are questioning. .
I don't get it. Why do you care if pseudo random
outcomes are different from true random. What
difference does it make to the jobs they do. It
matters to me because I trained myself on true
random and I can't make pseudo random work
for me. So they're different, so what.
Quote: EvenBobSo they're different, so what.
Pseudo-random number generators are taken as truly random for a number of simulation applications: from economic predictions (and how the Fed reacts) to how well a missile will fly and hit Pyongyang/Beijing/Moscow/You Name It. The fact is, PRNG's are the best we can do in the computer world; but they have been repeatedly vetted and improved upon. The effectiveness of these generators have real ramifications to more than a silly craps betting strategy (and they all say you will lose).
'Making it work for you' is a misnomer and you need to accept that before questioning the work of hundreds of researchers.
Quote: zoomzoom8Pseudo-random number generators are taken as truly random for a number of simulation applications
But they work for what they were designed for, who
cares what you call them. All I can tell you is the random
produced from atmospheric noise at Random.org is the
same as the random produced by a roulette wheel. The
random made by computer RNG's in not the same, its
not dependable or exploitable like true random is.
This is not earth shattering news, ask the old guys in Vegas
who laugh at the virtual roulette setup's.
Quote: EvenBobWon't finish. No reason to.
Can't. I actually don't care if you think it's 'won't'. You can say what you like, but it doesn't make it true.
I'm happy with my position on this.
Quote: EvenBobIt matters to me because I trained myself on true
random
Quote: thecesspitCan't. I actually don't care if you think it's 'won't'. You can say what you like, but it doesn't make it true.
I'm happy with my position on this.
Now you're getting it. And you aren't even a real Canadian.
Quote: cowboy4 pages and counting and I still haven't seen an illustration of just HOW the two are different?
Thus random is.... Random...
The better question is are they looking for something better, or are they just being cheap?
They can practice those systems until your blue in the face. When they jump on a table full of a bunch of guys who watch YouTube videos, they'll find out how random those dice really are...
So many sevens ... Your freaking head will be spinning..
Quote: EvenBobAll I can tell you is the random
produced from atmospheric noise at Random.org is the
same as the random produced by a roulette wheel. The
random made by computer RNG's in not the same,
Except you can't actually tell that. If I replaced the atmospheric noise generator at Random.org with a PRNG, you'd never know the difference. That's the real point here. You cannot distinguish roulette numbers generated by mapping atmospheric noise vs. roulette numbers generated by the Mersenne Twister vs. roulette numbers generated by a Huxley wheel, and it's specious for you to claim otherwise.
Quote: MathExtremistExcept you can't actually tell that. If I replaced the atmospheric noise generator at Random.org with a PRNG, you'd never know the difference.
You mean you'd never know the difference, don't speak
for me. Get into a dialog with the random experts at random.org,
you might learn something. Or don't, its all the same to me.
Quote: EvenBobYou mean you'd never know the difference, don't speak
for me. Get into a dialog with the random experts at random.org,
you might learn something. Or don't, its all the same to me.
No, I do speak for you. You couldn't tell the difference, not using "bet selection" or anything involving roulette gameplay.
Edit: there are actually ways to test RNGs and to determine whether there is any correlation or other discernable pattern in the output, but eyeballing a short string of numbers such as used in roulette isn't one of them.
xkcd: Random Number
Quote: MathExtremistNo, I do speak for you. You couldn't tell the difference
.
How would you know, all your years of research? Thats rich..
Here is a question that I'd like to see an answer to:
The "Slot Buster" Ron Harris was able to crack a PRNG because he knew the Keno game he was attempting to steal from used the same algorithm that he was privy to in Nevada. Still, all he could go on was a short segment of previously generated numbers. How was he able to take that little bit of information to get future numbers? If his team had been better prepared for hitting big, he could have skimmed millions of dollars.
Quote: odiousgambitall he could go on was a short segment of previously generated numbers. How was he able to take that little bit of information to get future numbers?.
Amazing, isn't it.
