Cool site with truly random dice results
July 31st, 2013 at 2:00:18 PM
permalink
I find it funny that this talk using a roulette wheel as an example of true randomness comes from someone who sits on a bedrock of exploiting roulette wheels' non-randomness.
In my book, selection strategies are a kind of betting system. Picking between two negative numbers won't give you a positive one any more than scaling one negative number. But in any case, "long term" vs. "short term" is all I needed to hear. If it works against your selection strategy in the short term, it does so in the long term, since after all, what if someone using your own strategy sits down two hours from now?
Certainly pseudo-RNGs are theoretically exploitable (Press Your Luck, anyone?), but realistically, if they're well-designed, no, especially when they use a timer.
In my book, selection strategies are a kind of betting system. Picking between two negative numbers won't give you a positive one any more than scaling one negative number. But in any case, "long term" vs. "short term" is all I needed to hear. If it works against your selection strategy in the short term, it does so in the long term, since after all, what if someone using your own strategy sits down two hours from now?
Certainly pseudo-RNGs are theoretically exploitable (Press Your Luck, anyone?), but realistically, if they're well-designed, no, especially when they use a timer.
The trick to poker is learning not to beat yourself up for your mistakes too much, and certainly not too little, but just the right amount.
July 31st, 2013 at 2:03:35 PM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitStill, 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?
I'd have to make a guess that he was carrying some sort of pocket pc that contained the whole series of numbers for that particular source code, then when he had his short run of latest numbers he was able to enter them as a search. If his run of numbers was long enough it's probable that the sequence only occurs once in the whole data base, thus revealing the next numbers due.
Just a guess but I would imagine it was something along those lines.
A photon without any luggage checks into a hotel, he's travelling light.
July 31st, 2013 at 2:06:46 PM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
July 31st, 2013 at 2:11:41 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobHow would you know, all your years of research? Thats rich..
"Never wise up the peanut gallery," I think is what you've said. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, no?
But the proof is in the pudding. I say you can't, you say you can. Either we agree to disagree or you put your theory to the test. What'll it be? I've got $1000 that says you can't differentiate a random.org sequence of roulette numbers from a PRNG sequence of roulette numbers with better than 55% accuracy over 100 trials.
How confident are you in your axiom?
"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
July 31st, 2013 at 2:15:32 PM
permalink
Quote: Ibeatyouraces
I did not type that. Please remove my name.
Sorry, my bad. Now corrected
A photon without any luggage checks into a hotel, he's travelling light.
July 31st, 2013 at 2:19:04 PM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitHere 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.
PRNGs, like virtually all other software programs, are deterministic. If the algorithm receives the same input, it generates the same output. This turns out to be extraordinarily useful for testing because you can pick the same starting conditions (seed, etc.) and the algorithm will generate the same sequence of pseudo-random bits each time.
With knowledge of the algorithm (and how bad it was), all Harris had to do was reverse-engineer what the state of the PRNG was. That's not hard if you have the right equipment and knowledge. Here's another example of a really bad RNG algorithm and how engineers were able to crack it:
http://www.cigital.com/papers/download/developer_gambling.php
"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
July 31st, 2013 at 2:20:57 PM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
July 31st, 2013 at 2:26:14 PM
permalink
FWIW, the issue is between computer generated random numbers and actual dice rolls. One poster details how science depends on computer PRNGs. That's true. Consider that experiments in particle physics, delving into the fundamentals of matter (and us) at CERN, depend on computer-generated random numbers. This is all we have, and questioning RNGs, P or otherwise, vs. true randomness (which none of us can ever know) is, as someone said, pointless.
Another poster talked about at the tables, how can you define randomness? He distinguished between dice hitting the felt, then the wall, and the dice hitting a hand or a stack of chips. If you really get into it, is it really random by how the dice leave the shooter's hand? (No DI/DC) Take even the felt & back wall. Do they produce randomness? Randomness is an ideal, imperfectly pursued, like so many ideals. It's a mental concept, has nothing to do with anything. Mathematicians pursue it, most dice players accept that on a roll, the dice are "random." That's all we have to go on.
The ideal is in the mathematics; the practical applications are at CERN or the craps table. It's the best we can do.
Another poster talked about at the tables, how can you define randomness? He distinguished between dice hitting the felt, then the wall, and the dice hitting a hand or a stack of chips. If you really get into it, is it really random by how the dice leave the shooter's hand? (No DI/DC) Take even the felt & back wall. Do they produce randomness? Randomness is an ideal, imperfectly pursued, like so many ideals. It's a mental concept, has nothing to do with anything. Mathematicians pursue it, most dice players accept that on a roll, the dice are "random." That's all we have to go on.
The ideal is in the mathematics; the practical applications are at CERN or the craps table. It's the best we can do.
July 31st, 2013 at 2:47:06 PM
permalink
As one who has a computer science degree and has actually programmed "RNG's" for approved gaming devices, I don't think there is a test possible to prove anything to be random.
At my age, a "Life In Prison" sentence is not much of a deterrent.
July 31st, 2013 at 2:52:44 PM
permalink
Human intuition about what's random is terrible. As an example, if you ask people to pick random numbers on a grid of numbers, say between 1 and 80 (keno, anyone?) then the distribution of their picks is decidedly different than what an RNG would select. The numbers will be divided evenly into the top and bottom halves, or left and right halves, far more than would be statistically expected.
In fact, if anyone still in school wants to do a study, here's a hypothesis for you: "When humans are instructed to select numbers randomly in a 2-dimensional grid, the distribution of their selections depends to a large degree on the shape of the grid."
Even worse, most people conflate "random" with "uniformly distributed." A weighted die is just as random as a fair one, but it's not uniform.
In fact, if anyone still in school wants to do a study, here's a hypothesis for you: "When humans are instructed to select numbers randomly in a 2-dimensional grid, the distribution of their selections depends to a large degree on the shape of the grid."
Even worse, most people conflate "random" with "uniformly distributed." A weighted die is just as random as a fair one, but it's not uniform.
"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
July 31st, 2013 at 3:10:08 PM
permalink
Quote: DRichAs one who has a computer science degree and has actually programmed "RNG's" for approved gaming devices, I don't think there is a test possible to prove anything to be random.
I just looked up the Mersenne twister on wikipedia and apparently there are Diehard tests and TestU01 Crush randomness tests.
July 31st, 2013 at 3:39:13 PM
permalink
Quote: drjohnnyI just looked up the Mersenne twister on wikipedia and apparently there are Diehard tests and TestU01 Crush randomness tests.
I understand the tests and they may tell you that there is a high likelihood that it is random, but it can not be proved. Many consider atmospheric noise to be random, but I also don't think it can be proved.
At my age, a "Life In Prison" sentence is not much of a deterrent.
July 31st, 2013 at 3:49:30 PM
permalink
Quote: DRichQuote: drjohnnyI just looked up the Mersenne twister on wikipedia and apparently there are Diehard tests and TestU01 Crush randomness tests.
I understand the tests and they may tell you that there is a high likelihood that it is random, but it can not be proved. Many consider atmospheric noise to be random, but I also don't think it can be proved.
Right, which is why all gaming laws require at least a 95% confidence of randomness. Better state laws, not named Nevada, require 99% confidence as does GLI standards.
July 31st, 2013 at 4:03:08 PM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistI've got $1000 that says you can't differentiate
So now you want to pay me to wise you up. I don't
think so. There's no up side for me, just for you.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 31st, 2013 at 4:09:03 PM
permalink
Quote: DRichAs one who has a computer science degree and has actually programmed "RNG's" for approved gaming devices, I don't think there is a test possible to prove anything to be random.
Nope, and there never will be. This argument about
RNG's being the same as true random has always
puzzled me. Why does anybody care? If the RNG
is doing the job, whats the difference. Can somebody
explain to me why its sooooooo important that the
random produced by an RNG has the be identical to
true random. This is almost like a religious argument,
is god infallible or isn't he. Who cares..
I totally accept RNG's are different from true, all it means
to me is stay away from RNG's. Why others can't even
accept the possibility they're different is a mystery to me.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 31st, 2013 at 4:13:21 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobNope, and there never will be. This argument about
RNG's being the same as true random has always
puzzled me. Why does anybody care? If the RNG
is doing the job, whats the difference. Can somebody
explain to me why its sooooooo important that the
random produced by an RNG has the be identical to
true random. This is almost like a religious argument,
is god infallible or isn't he. Who cares..
I totally accept RNG's are different from true, all it means
to me is stay away from RNG's. Why others can't even
accept the possibility they're different is a mystery to me.
It's impossible to prove ANYTHING is true random. Not even your precious roulette wheels.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
July 31st, 2013 at 4:35:36 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitIt's impossible to prove ANYTHING is true random. Not even your precious roulette wheels.
All I can do is show myself they're different than
an RNG and the same as random.org, which is
good enough for what I do.
Fact is, neither is true random. The closest we get
to that is from decaying radioactive material. And a
string of that looks like this:
0000000111000000010101000000000001111111111000
000011111110101010101010000000000011111111
Yuk.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 31st, 2013 at 4:46:26 PM
permalink
What's wrong with that?
Piece of cake to turn that into a string of random numbers.
Piece of cake to turn that into a string of random numbers.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
July 31st, 2013 at 4:52:48 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspit
Piece of cake to turn that into a string of random numbers.
Producing random is not anything I'm interested
in, I'm just interested in the results. If you start
reading about the subject, you'll see that we have
no accurate way to produce true random numbers,
all we can do is come close. Or kinda close as in
computer RNG's.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 31st, 2013 at 5:36:46 PM
permalink
The upside for me is your money, not your alleged wisdom. I know better, but again, since you're unwilling to address your alleged abilities to discern the source of a sequence of apparently-random numbers, we'll just have to agree to disagree.Quote: EvenBobSo now you want to pay me to wise you up. I don't
think so. There's no up side for me, just for you.
"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
July 31st, 2013 at 5:37:24 PM
permalink
I just finished one billion tries on that site and only rolled 176,543,221 sevens.
July 31st, 2013 at 5:49:16 PM
permalink
you mean 1 billion rolls??Quote: pewI just finished one billion tries on that site and only rolled 176,543,221 sevens.
something is then really wrong with that site or your web browser or boths
ev: 166,666,666.67
sd: 11,785.11302
176,543,221 typo??
maybe
166,543,221
still something very wrong there IMO
winsome johnny (not Win some johnny)
July 31st, 2013 at 5:59:14 PM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistThe upside for me is your money, .
Its an insult that you think me wising you
up is only worth a thousand dollars.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 31st, 2013 at 6:38:50 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobProducing random is not anything I'm interested
in, I'm just interested in the results.
Facepalm.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
July 31st, 2013 at 6:46:49 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitFacepalm.
This may come as a shock, but USING random
results is what I do, I don't in any way produce
them. So if RNG's have funky results, I avoid
them. Its much like cooking. I would never use
cottage cheese in place of ricotta cheese because
it sucks. I don't care how the cheeses are produced,
I only care about the results.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 31st, 2013 at 7:56:59 PM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitCalm down, boys!
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.
IIRC, it was because the keno machine stopped for the night and when it was restarted the RNG reset itself, making the pattern of numbers close to the beginning of the set predicatble.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
July 31st, 2013 at 9:40:35 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobIts an insult that you think me wising you
up is only worth a thousand dollars.
Someone who avows not to care what others think can't be insulted. You know that. You also know that repeatedly answering "yes" or "no" to the question "was this number generated by a physical roulette wheel" doesn't constitute "wising up." You also know that if you actually did answer such questions, you would fail to demonstrate your proclaimed observational powers -- and that under the terms of the proposed wager, I would very likely take your money as opposed to vice-versa. Yet despite knowing all that, you *also* know that in order to keep up your carefully-crafted appearance on this forum, you must not make even the slightest admission that you are mistaken.
Fortunately, I know all those things too.
"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
July 31st, 2013 at 11:00:04 PM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistSomeone who avows not to care what others think can't be insulted. .
Correct, I was not insulted. What I fail to understand is
why this is so important. What can it matter if RNG's
are different from true random. Both are random, both
get the job done. You say they are are the same but
you can't know that, you have no proof, only conjecture.
So tell me, why do you care. For me its a fact of life and
I move on. But you can't do that, you have to be right
about this. What does it matter.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 1st, 2013 at 3:33:03 AM
permalink
There is a good article in Wikipedia on Pseudo Random Number Generator
A PRNG can be started from an arbitrary starting state using a seed state. It will always produce the same sequence thereafter when initialized with that state. The state could be a simple number.
When we would do simulations for the military, we would always remember the seed state. That way we could repeat the sequence and possibly study some intermediate value to try and get a better feeling about what was happening.
Clearly if the seed state is generated again by the PRNG, then every random number after that will follow the same sequence. That is defined as the "period" of the PRNG. It is one of the biggest differences between our concept of "truly random" which we don't think of as having a period.
Now the period could be very long, but even the length of the period is a statistical quantity.
In the case of an employee having inside knowledge, he would know the seed state. He might have memorized patterns for the first few hours of play, so knowing that the machine was restarted would allow him to make correct bets. He may not know every outcome, but he may have memorized that their was a big payout 3:20 and 5:46 and 7:58 after restart.
A PRNG can be started from an arbitrary starting state using a seed state. It will always produce the same sequence thereafter when initialized with that state. The state could be a simple number.
When we would do simulations for the military, we would always remember the seed state. That way we could repeat the sequence and possibly study some intermediate value to try and get a better feeling about what was happening.
Clearly if the seed state is generated again by the PRNG, then every random number after that will follow the same sequence. That is defined as the "period" of the PRNG. It is one of the biggest differences between our concept of "truly random" which we don't think of as having a period.
Now the period could be very long, but even the length of the period is a statistical quantity.
In the case of an employee having inside knowledge, he would know the seed state. He might have memorized patterns for the first few hours of play, so knowing that the machine was restarted would allow him to make correct bets. He may not know every outcome, but he may have memorized that their was a big payout 3:20 and 5:46 and 7:58 after restart.
August 1st, 2013 at 4:04:47 AM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinIn the case of an employee having inside knowledge, he would know the seed state. He might have memorized patterns for the first few hours of play, so knowing that the machine was restarted would allow him to make correct bets.
Quote: MathExtremistHere's another example of a really bad RNG algorithm and how engineers were able to crack it:
http://www.cigital.com/papers/download/developer_gambling.php
OK, I am starting to buy that what Ron Harris was able to do was zero in on the Seed. The quote below is from the article cited by MathExtremist. That article details also how they synchronized their clock with the clock they knew was seeding the game they cracked. So perhaps Harris was able to do that as well.
Messing with Wincraps is good practice for understanding Seeding, btw.
Quote:As we have seen, choice of initial seed for the PRNG is a make or break proposition. Everything boils down to the seed. It's absolutely essential that players using a deck of cards generated using a PRNG can't determine the seed used to produce that particular shuffle.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
August 1st, 2013 at 10:34:59 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobCorrect, I was not insulted. What I fail to understand is
why this is so important. What can it matter if RNG's
are different from true random. Both are random, both
get the job done. You say they are are the same but
you can't know that, you have no proof, only conjecture.
So tell me, why do you care. For me its a fact of life and
I move on. But you can't do that, you have to be right
about this. What does it matter.
Of course they're different -- the process for generating random numbers from radioactive decay, thermal noise, a roulette wheel, or other nondeterministic random generators is very different than the process for generating random numbers using a deterministic computer algorithm.
What I actually said was that you couldn't discern any difference in the *outcome* of those processes by eyeballing them. You don't seem to appreciate the distinction between the random number generator itself, which is a physical device implementing a process, and the output of that device and process. It takes significant analysis, and far more trials than a few hours' worth of roulette play, to come to a statistically significant conclusion as to the source of a string of seemingly-random numbers. Computer scientists and applied mathematicians have been developing and studying RNGs for decades; one of the most famous researchers is the late George Marsaglia who, in his seminal 1968 paper, discussed the properties of the common linear congruential generator and how n-tuple outputs from all such generators fell on a small number of hyperplanes in n-space:
http://www.pnas.org/content/61/1/25.full.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_congruential_generator
Regardless of whether you understand the distinction between the process and the output, you have claimed that you (and other "experienced roulette players") can tell the difference between roulette numbers generated by a physical rotating wheel and roulette numbers generated by a software algorithm. That's just not true, and easily demonstrated, but I certainly understand your unwillingness to put your claims to the test. Given that unwillingness, I think we're done here.
"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
August 1st, 2013 at 11:41:22 AM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistcan tell the difference between roulette numbers generated by a physical rotating wheel and roulette numbers generated by a software algorithm. That's just not true, and easily demonstrated,
It is? Tell me, how is it easily demonstrated. I really
want to know. In all the discussions I've had on this
subject over the years nobody has ever made this
claim.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 1st, 2013 at 11:48:37 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobIt is? Tell me, how is it easily demonstrated. I really
want to know. In all the discussions I've had on this
subject over the years nobody has ever made this
claim.
Facepalm x2.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
August 1st, 2013 at 11:58:03 AM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitFacepalm x2.
So thats your answer? How is it easily demonstrated
that RNG's are exactly the same as true random in
the extreme short term? Go ahead, wise me up.
And don't give me any crap about law of series. Its
not a law, and it doesn't apply to the short term. Show
the easily demonstrated test that makes RNG's and
true random exactly equal in the short term. I dare
you.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 1st, 2013 at 11:58:07 AM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitFacepalm x2.
Oh c'mon now. Did you really expect the other guys at the roulette table to know better? I mean, jeez...they're playing roulette! :-)
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
August 1st, 2013 at 11:59:28 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobIt is? Tell me, how is it easily demonstrated. I really
want to know. In all the discussions I've had on this
subject over the years nobody has ever made this
claim.
I already set out how:
1) I will generate a sequence of, say, 40 numbers using either random.org (which you admit is the same as a roulette wheel) or a PRNG programmed to generate roulette numbers. That's about an hour's worth of roulette play.
2) I show it to you and you tell me where it came from. You have claimed the ability to do this, to distinguish "true random" from PRNG numbers by looking at them.
3) Repeat steps 1 and 2 one hundred times.
You will not be accurate beyond what would be expected with random guessing.
"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
August 1st, 2013 at 11:59:29 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBob
Computer RNG's suck and I won't play them. I can't play them, they are too erratic.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you have already identified the difference between computer RNGs and physical RNGs (ie dice, roulette wheel).
I heart Crystal Math.
August 1st, 2013 at 12:00:00 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potusOh c'mon now. Did you really expect the other guys at the roulette table to know better? I mean, jeez...they're playing roulette! :-)
Lots of smart alack opinions but no demonstrations.
C'mon, put me in my place know it all's.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 1st, 2013 at 12:03:38 PM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremist
2) I show it to you and you tell me where it came from.
Thats testing ME, thats not a demonstration to show RNG can
be shown to be exactly the same as true random
in the short term. Are you saying I'm all you've got,
you have no other way to prove it???
Thats pathetic.. LOL!
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 1st, 2013 at 12:11:00 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobThats testing ME, thats not a demonstration to show RNG can
be shown to be exactly the same as true random
in the short term. Are you saying I'm all you've got,
you have no other way to prove it???
Thats pathetic.. LOL!
YOU are the one saying that there's a discernible difference and YOU are the one saying that it matters. On what planet are YOU not also the one required to show proof?
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
August 1st, 2013 at 12:13:08 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobThats testing ME, thats not a demonstration to show RNG can
be shown to be exactly the same as true random
in the short term. Are you saying I'm all you've got,
you have no other way to prove it???
Thats pathetic.. LOL!
You said *you* could tell the difference between the two, I said no you can't, and you're unwilling to demonstrate otherwise. End of story.
It's even simpler to generate a short sequence of numbers from a roulette wheel and another short sequence of numbers from a PRNG and compare them using the appropriate statistical tests, but all that would prove is that a roulette wheel and a good PRNG programmed to properly emulate roulette do actually behave the same way. You seem to think they behave differently (PRNGs are "more erratic", I think you said), but you can't quantify that nor can you demonstrate your alleged ability to detect the difference. It's all in your head.
"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
August 1st, 2013 at 12:22:55 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potusYOU are the one saying that there's a discernible difference and YOU are the one saying that it matters. ?
I have to ask, if you have no proof to show that
RNG and true random are identical in the short
term, on what are you basing your opinion. Heresay?
Assumption? If you have proof, please point to it.
So far I've seen nothing from any of you except
posturing.
Tell you what. Prove to me there is no difference
in the short term and I'll do whatever demo you like.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 1st, 2013 at 12:26:24 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBob
So far I've seen nothing from any of you except
posturing.
Posturing, eh? And that is different from what has come from you...how, exactly?
You're welcome to take ME's proposed wager. I'm certain that he'd follow through on it, which would make that substantially more than posturing:-)
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
August 1st, 2013 at 12:31:35 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobLots of smart alack opinions but no demonstrations.
C'mon, put me in my place know it all's.
There's exactly one 'know it all' here at the moment, and he's playing slippery for his own sport.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
August 1st, 2013 at 12:52:11 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potus
You're welcome to take ME's proposed wager.
Quote: thecesspitThere's exactly one 'know it all' here at the moment, .
So I'm all you've got? Thats it? You somehow magically
'know' I'm wrong but can't prove it? You're no better
than the Catholic Church was in the 1500's when they
claimed the sun went around the earth. They couldn't
prove it but everybody knew it was true.
This is priceless.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 1st, 2013 at 1:20:13 PM
permalink
So here's the real challenge. All of you say I'm
wrong. Prove it. Prove to me I'm wrong and I'll
do any demo you like. So far you've given nothing
but conjecture and opinions. Even the Wiz won't
talk about it because I don't have a degree in the
field. So what have you got besides opinion and
urban legend and some rumor you heard from
somebody else. I say you don't have bupkis.
You just ASSUME they're the same, but you really
don't know because you don't know jackshit about
short term random outcomes. Try putting in the
required 10,000 hours like I did. Go ahead, I dare
you.
wrong. Prove it. Prove to me I'm wrong and I'll
do any demo you like. So far you've given nothing
but conjecture and opinions. Even the Wiz won't
talk about it because I don't have a degree in the
field. So what have you got besides opinion and
urban legend and some rumor you heard from
somebody else. I say you don't have bupkis.
You just ASSUME they're the same, but you really
don't know because you don't know jackshit about
short term random outcomes. Try putting in the
required 10,000 hours like I did. Go ahead, I dare
you.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 1st, 2013 at 1:28:42 PM
permalink
Hey we can make this fun.Quote: MathExtremistYou said *you* could tell the difference between the two,
I said no you can't, and you're unwilling to demonstrate otherwise. End of story.
I have 2,108 in US currency I can give to the Wizard as a prize
(if he wants say a 10% cut for his fee) when I visit Vegas at the end of August.
here is a list of Roulette spins (38 slot wheel)
8 groups of 40 spins each.
I even placed them in columns to look like a Roulette history board.
I think I did the colors correctly
red: =IF(OR(A2={1,3,5,7,9,12,14,16,18,19,21,23,25,27,30,32,34,36}),A2,".")
black: =IF(OR(A2={2,4,6,8,10,11,13,15,17,20,22,24,26,28,29,31,33,35}),A2,".")
The person that guesses all 8 correctly can win the prize minus the Wizard's holding fee service.
So, which are actual documented Las Vegas real Roulette wheel recorded spins and which are prng from my Excel 2007
only 8 choices.
If no one correctly guesses all 8 sets, the Wizard can keep the cash!
can I play too?!!
what
craps to roulette
1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4
Spin R G B R G B R G B R G B
1 . . 10 16 . . . . 10 . . 22
2 . . 22 30 . . 30 . . 23 . .
3 . . 24 . 00 . 21 . . 19 . .
4 . . 20 . . 4 32 . . . . 33
5 7 . . . . 29 . . 11 . . 20
6 14 . . . . 8 . 0 . . . 28
7 36 . . . . 10 . . 22 . . 35
8 3 . . . 0 . . . 15 . . 11
9 5 . . 32 . . 5 . . 12 . .
10 . . 20 . . 33 7 . . 30 . .
11 21 . . . . 11 . . 15 . . 22
12 32 . . . . 15 . . 20 32 . .
13 3 . . . . 17 16 . . 5 . .
14 . . 24 1 . . . . 8 30 . .
15 25 . . 3 . . 18 . . . . 11
16 18 . . 5 . . . . 6 . . 28
17 3 . . 32 . . 7 . . . . 20
18 19 . . . . 11 . . 13 . . 28
19 14 . . . . 24 32 . . 16 . .
20 . . 6 30 . . 32 . . 34 . .
21 . . 20 12 . . . . 8 5 . .
22 9 . . 18 . . 30 . . . . 33
23 . . 24 1 . . 18 . . 5 . .
24 16 . . . . 11 . . 20 12 . .
25 . . 6 . . 2 . . 13 5 . .
26 32 . . 34 . . . . 10 . . 31
27 36 . . . 00 . . 0 . . . 29
28 . . 6 . . 13 5 . . 18 . .
29 30 . . 9 . . 14 . . . . 20
30 3 . . . . 10 . . 10 . . 4
31 . . 2 . . 22 . . 8 32 . .
32 25 . . 34 . . 27 . . . . 28
33 7 . . . . 10 . . 35 32 . .
34 . . 8 21 . . 5 . . . . 35
35 5 . . . . 10 . 0 . . . 22
36 . . 22 . . 4 3 . . . . 20
37 . . 6 . . 13 27 . . . . 13
38 9 . . . . 29 . . 22 . . 2
39 5 . . 25 . . 9 . . 25 . .
40 . . 15 . . 24 9 . . . . 17
5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8
Spin R G B R G B R G B R G B
1 3 . . 36 . . 14 . . . . 10
2 . . 17 16 . . 3 . . . . 22
3 18 . . . . 13 27 . . . . 22
4 21 . . 16 . . . . 13 . . 11
5 7 . . 16 . . 12 . . . . 29
6 25 . . 7 . . . . 2 9 . .
7 . . 11 . . 24 . 00 . 30 . .
8 3 . . . . 8 23 . . 14 . .
9 32 . . . . 24 . . 29 . . 8
10 27 . . . . 31 19 . . . . 20
11 . . 8 . . 28 . . 15 36 . .
12 19 . . . . 6 27 . . . . 4
13 . . 20 . . 20 19 . . 27 . .
14 . 0 . 32 . . 9 . . . . 15
15 9 . . 7 . . . . 4 14 . .
16 . . 6 9 . . 9 . . 21 . .
17 . . 22 3 . . . 00 . . . 2
18 . . 2 . . 4 . 0 . . . 20
19 . . 28 . . 35 . . 2 . . 26
20 18 . . 9 . . 21 . . 14 . .
21 . 00 . . . 6 . . 29 3 . .
22 . . 11 1 . . 7 . . . . 31
23 . . 6 30 . . . . 8 . . 6
24 5 . . . . 17 1 . . . . 8
25 . . 17 12 . . . . 24 3 . .
26 9 . . 1 . . 30 . . 21 . .
27 . . 31 . . 2 . . 11 30 . .
28 . . 10 9 . . 7 . . . . 33
29 . . 11 . . 33 36 . . 14 . .
30 3 . . 12 . . 34 . . . . 11
31 . . 6 7 . . 30 . . . . 35
32 30 . . . . 35 . 0 . . . 4
33 . . 22 18 . . 14 . . . . 24
34 9 . . . . 4 25 . . 14 . .
35 . . 11 . . 22 5 . . 3 . .
36 . . 29 . . 26 . . 22 . 0 .
37 . . 17 3 . . . . 17 30 . .
38 7 . . 3 . . 1 . . . . 26
39 . . 11 3 . . . . 13 . . 15
40 19 . . 19 . . 21 . . . . 27
winsome johnny (not Win some johnny)
August 1st, 2013 at 1:56:34 PM
permalink
a lull......everybody is busy constructing their next posts to thread
Each day is better than the next
August 1st, 2013 at 2:01:21 PM
permalink
Quote: 7crapsHey we can make this fun.
I have 2,108 in US currency I can give to the Wizard as a prize
(if he wants say a 10% cut for his fee) when I visit Vegas at the end of August.
...
the prize cash may not be legal to offer, I do not know, as I am in CA. so have fun if it is just for fun
There's no consideration so it's not gambling. If you want to give away your money, no law is going to stop you.
"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
