Cool site with truly random dice results
Quote: darrellgstop feeding the troll.
Your a member for nearly 4 years. Two posts. Is this all you have?
Quote: EvenBobSo here's the real challenge. All of you say I'm
wrong. Prove it.
Electronic roulette is required by regulation to behave the same way as physical roulette, and that behavior is tested by regulators in every jurisdiction where electronic roulette is approved. The statistical tests that anyone here would run on roulette samples are not meaningfully different than the tests that the Nevada Gaming Control Board has already done prior to approving electronic roulette games for play in Nevada.
Do you comprehend those tests and their results? If not, you are in no position to dispute them. If so, please demonstrate how those testing procedures are flawed.
By claiming that electronic and physical roulette generate noticeably different results in the short run, you imply that every electronic roulette game in Nevada is in violation of state regulations. It's your choice to maintain that untenable position, but it's clear that nobody will change your mind by doing the same kinds of analyses that have already been done.
Quote: Nevada Gaming Control Board Regulation 14.04014.040 Minimum standards for gaming devices. All gaming devices submitted for approval:
2. Must use a random selection process to determine the game outcome of each play of a
game. The random selection process must meet 95 percent confidence limits using a standard
chi-squared test for goodness of fit.
(a) Each possible permutation or combination of game elements which produce winning or
losing game outcomes must be available for random selection at the initiation of each play.
(b) For gaming devices that are representative of live gambling games, the mathematical
probability of a symbol or other element appearing in a game outcome must be equal to the
mathematical probability of that symbol or element occurring in the live gambling game. For other
gaming devices, the mathematical probability of a symbol appearing in a position in any game
outcome must be constant.
3 days. Show me why you're right. I'm willing
to bet your entire opinion hinges on the fact that
YOU can't tell the difference so nobody can.
Right?
Quote: MathExtremistElectronic roulette is required by regulation to behave the same way as physical roulette, and that behavior is tested by regulators...
outcome must be constant.
Constant in the long term, after so many millions or
Billions of outcomes. Not in the short term. Tell me,
what's the test for short term, that it 'looks' correct?
To who???
Same as every other guy. Yawn. Boring!
Quote: EvenBobC'mon, you've been telling me I'm full of it for
3 days. Show me why you're right. I'm willing
to bet your entire opinion hinges on the fact that
YOU can't tell the difference so nobody can.
Right?
You'd lose that bet. My opinion is that nobody can tell the difference period, certainly not by eyeballing a few hours of e-table and regular table play, and that opinion is backed up by statistics that have already been confirmed by gaming regulators. But you think they've gotten it all wrong, and nothing anyone says will convince you otherwise. You base your conclusions on 10,000 hours of roulette play? That puts you in the same crackpot-theorist category as Rob Singer who claimed that there's some statistical 5th card anomaly in VP because of what he observed with his 10,000 hours of play.
Your observations are flawed. I know it's impossible to explain that to you since you're willfully ignoring all the evidence. And since you're also willfully evading the opportunity to quantify your claimed observational abilities, there's really no point continuing the conversation. There are many members here who could run chi-square tests, runs tests, and serial correlation tests on roulette numbers until they're all blue in the face. They'd demonstrate what I've been saying -- and what regulators have already confirmed -- but you'd find some way to dispute them. Frankly there's no point in debating statistics tests with someone who doesn't understand them, so I'm not going to do that. You're either going to show off your vaunted abilities to tell the difference between physical and electronic roulette numbers, or you'll just have to live with nobody else believing in your abilities. I suspect you'll pick the latter.
Quote: thecesspitAh, it's the old RobSinger/MrJJJ/Every-system-guy ever 'but I don't live in the long term' claim.
Same as every other guy. Yawn. Boring!
It actually takes some amount of study to understand that probabilities don't only apply in the short or long term, but to each and every independent trial. This isn't an intuitive topic. There's a reason those LED readerboards are on roulette wheels -- to capitalize on precisely the sort of flawed intuition and non sequitur reasoning that EvenBob is falling prey to. People's default intuition and reasoning about randomness are terrible, and it takes a lot of work to overcome those flawed intuitions.
For a simple demonstration of how poor reasoning about randomness is our default condition, just consider the constant stream of new-to-casinos gamblers that exhibit the Gambler's Fallacy and think the Martingale is a winning system. We humans are not wired to automatically understand randomness. We just aren't.
Quote: MathExtremistYou'd lose that bet. My opinion is that nobody can tell the difference...
Ah, its your opinion, just as I suspected. You speak of
evidence yet don't present any. Research it, you'll
find no test to verify short term outcomes. What would
that test be? 'Looks ok to me, George, how's it look to
you?" As somebody here pointed out, there is no test
for what random is. And again, you can't
tell the difference between rng and true so you assume
nobody can. Long term it turns out the same, so you
assume its the same short term. Assumptions aren't
very convincing.
Quote: MathExtremistThis isn't an intuitive topic. .
Who said it was? Have I ever mentioned it? People
who study this, random outcomes, know the truth.
People who rely on others to do the work for them
get what you'd expect. A lot of guesses and opinions
and assumptions.
Quote: EvenBobAh, its your opinion, just as I suspected. You speak of
evidence yet don't present any. Research it, you'll
find no test to verify short term outcomes.
Of course it's my opinion, it's what I've been saying all along. My opinion extends to your inability to tell the difference, and you, ahem, "speak of evidence yet don't present any." How's that kettle looking, Mr. Pot?
Here are the tests that GLI runs on RNGs (as appropriate) when verifying gaming devices, including electronic roulette games:
Quote: GLI-11 V1.34.3.3 Applied Tests. The test laboratory may employ the use of various recognized tests to
determine whether or not the random values produced by the random number generator pass the
desired confidence level of 95%. These tests may include, but are not limited to:
a) Chi-square test;
b) Equi-distribution (frequency) test;
c) Gap test;
d) Overlaps test;
e) Poker test;
f) Coupon collector's test;
g) Permutation test;
h) Kolmogorov-Smirnov test;
i) Adjacency criterion tests;
j) Order statistic test;
k) Runs test (patterns of occurrences should not be recurrent);
l) Interplay correlation test;
m) Serial correlation test potency and degree of serial correlation (outcomes should be independent of the previous game); and
n) Tests on subsequences.
Can you explain those tests? If not, how can you opine credibly on their effectiveness or even what they do?
And now I see you're hung up on the alleged distinction between "short term" and "long term." Unquantified, those are utterly meaningless phrases. You have neither defined "short" vs. "long" term, nor provided a well-accepted basis for making the distinction. But keep waving those hands. The breeze is nice.
Quote: EvenBobPeople who study this, random outcomes, know the truth.
Indeed we do. But people who mistake "playing roulette for 10,000 hours" for "studying" fall prey to the same common fallacies that plague other gamblers.
I've not replicated the results myself. I've got better things to do right now.
Quote: MathExtremistOf course it's my opinion, .
There you go then. You have your opinion
and you're welcome to it. Just don't try and
say know for a fact, because you don't.
I'm pretty much done here, this is far from
my first discussion on this subject. I have
no interest explaining the color red to someone
who's color blind yet has an 'opinion' on the
subject.
Quote: EvenBobThere you go then. You have your opinion
and you're welcome to it. Just don't try and
say know for a fact, because you don't.
I'm pretty much done here, this is far from
my first discussion on this subject. I have
no interest explaining the color red to someone
who's color blind yet has an 'opinion' on the
subject.
This is a discussion? If we throw you another easy one, can you tell us another joke?
Quote: EvenBobThere you go then. You have your opinion
and you're welcome to it. Just don't try and
say know for a fact, because you don't.
That's awfully gracious of you, allowing me my own opinions. Thank you for your benevolence.
And I do know for a fact that you can't tell the difference, but if you want to prove me wrong then take me up on my bet. My $1000 is ripe for your taking. It'd serve me right for taking all those CS classes and not learning anything, no?
I'll make you a deal: when you lose, I'll donate your $1000 to Gambler's Anonymous in your name.
Quote: MathExtremistbut if you want to prove me wrong .
I have no desire to prove you wrong, who
are you to me. I only wanted to make clear
you were expressing an opinion and not a
hard and clear fact. Proving you wrong would
mean a great deal to you and nothing to me.
Quote: rxwineEvenbob doesn't want to reveal his "secret" so just design the bet so he can complete a challenge without revealing it.
I did: answering "yes" or "no" to the question "did this string of numbers come from electronic roulette instead of a real roulette wheel" will reveal nothing other than that EB's powers of observation aren't as keen as he thinks.
Quote: MathExtremistwill reveal nothing other than that EB's powers of observation aren't as keen as he thinks.
There you go then. Good enough for me as
an ending.
Quote: 7craps
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
The first, third, fourth and sixth all came from a physical wheel.
Quote: IbeatyouracesAlls I know is I'm having fun reading this thread.
Me too ...
a taker.Quote: Mission146The first, third, fourth and sixth all came from a physical wheel.
you got 3 selections wrong
I was going to make this it's own thread after I count all my pennies.
maybe tomorrows
Quote: 7crapsa taker.
you got 3 selections wrong
I was going to make this it's own thread after I count all my pennies.
maybe tomorrows
I wonder how many wrong guesses it'll take before it's possible for someone to deduce the correct answer:-)
Quote: 7crapsa taker.
you got 3 selections wrong
I was going to make this it's own thread after I count all my pennies.
maybe tomorrows
Is that 3 out of 8 wrong, or 3 out of the 4 he said are from a physical wheel? If the latter, I infer (perhaps incorrectly) that only one of the 8 is from a physical wheel. Therefore, my guesses are:
a) First is real, the rest are RNG;
b) Third is real, the rest are RNG;
c) Fourth is real, the rest are RNG;
d) Sixth is real, the rest are RNG.
Do I win? :)
Quote: MathExtremistIs that 3 out of 8 wrong, or 3 out of the 4 he said are from a physical wheel? If the latter, I infer (perhaps incorrectly) that only one of the 8 is from a physical wheel. Therefore, my guesses are:
a) First is real, the rest are RNG;
b) Third is real, the rest are RNG;
c) Fourth is real, the rest are RNG;
d) Sixth is real, the rest are RNG.
Do I win? :)
I don't think he'd have only one of eight come from a physical wheel, but obviously, I could be wrong. I'd like to think I got five of eight right, overall, but who knows?
"The first, third, fourth and sixth all came from a physical wheel"Quote: Mission146I don't think he'd have only one of eight come from a physical wheel, but obviously, I could be wrong.
I'd like to think I got five of eight right, overall, but who knows?
answer: no
for groups 1,3,4,6
3 of these 4 are wrong.
yes I did that right.
At first I did not think you meant also that groups 2,5,7,8 all came from rng.
you did not say that exactly (I had been swimming all day too)
If that is what your total guesses are, sounds reasonable,
yes, 3 of those 4 are correct.
still counting my pennies
Quote: 7craps"The first, third, fourth and sixth all came from a physical wheel"
answer: no
for groups 1,3,4,6
3 of these 4 are wrong.
yes I did that right.
At first I did not think you meant also that groups 2,5,7,8 all came from rng.
you did not say that exactly (I had been swimming all day too)
If that is what your total guesses are, sounds reasonable,
yes, 3 of those 4 are correct.
still counting my pennies
If I'm understanding this right, in summary, two of the result sets are from a physical wheel, while six result sets are from an RNG. One physical wheel set comes from the four sets I chose, while three of the others are RNG. One physical wheel set also comes from the four I believed (well, purely guessed) to be RNG, so someone needs to switch three of my, "Physical," guesses to RNG and one of my, "RNG," guesses to physical to have a chance.
This will be guessed correctly, worst-case scenario, within sixteen guesses, then. People would simply have to guess in the following order, or any combination thereof, for the physical wheel:
1+2, 1+5, 1+7, 1+8, 3+2, 3+5, 3+7, 3+8, 4+2, 4+5, 4+7, 4+8, 6+2, 6+5, 6+7, 6+8, until they happen to get it.
Quote: MathExtremistOf course it's my opinion, it's what I've been saying all along. My opinion extends to your inability to tell the difference, and you, ahem, "speak of evidence yet don't present any." How's that kettle looking, Mr. Pot?
Here are the tests that GLI runs on RNGs (as appropriate) when verifying gaming devices, including electronic roulette games:
Do you use Marsaglia's Diehard tests?
I'm now trying to find the short paper he co-authoered (I think) on a trio of short tests that indicate a stream may pass the diehard tests.
Quote: thecesspitDo you use Marsaglia's Diehard tests?
I'm now trying to find the short paper he co-authoered (I think) on a trio of short tests that indicate a stream may pass the diehard tests.
I did, a while ago, yes. I haven't evaluated anyone else's RNG in a while, and I'm not doing production code right now anyway so the default implementation of the MT is fine. I think I'm using the revised version but I can't recall. My problem isn't my generator, it's my 5-year-old CPU. I need to upgrade so I can get through a few billion MC trials more quickly, but I've been too busy to deal with IT stuff.
Quote: rdw4potusI wonder how many wrong guesses it'll take before it's possible for someone to deduce the correct answer:-)
I think 7craps has to start over with a new batch and give everyone a chance without knowing previous guesses ... especially if those guesses get scored!
