The problem with games like WinCraps
Quote: BurtLike Sally, you are very insensitive and insulting Steen. You can both rant until you are blue in the face. I am no longer listening.
I think the guy who wrote the code knows better than you how it works. You statement is therefore nonsense, in the meaning 'it makes no sense'. Like 2+2=5 is nonsense.
In my humble opinion Steen is a great guy. A pleasure to know and I appreciate his dedicated work on win craps. I've seen him and his software take terrible bashings from guys on various forums, but I've never seem him lash out to attack anyone.
My hats off to you Steen,
Proud owner of WinCraps Pro.
Quote: BurtLike Sally, you are very insensitive and insulting Steen. You can both rant until you are blue in the face. I am no longer listening.
Rants?
wow, I can't believe you took offense from those two. I had been maintaining that some of the wiseguys were still trying to help you in spite of rudeness, but Sally and Steen? You would just seem to be taking offense at someone not agreeing with you in those cases.
This slap at Steen is particularly disappointing.
An analogy would be: Someone is disappointed with the new car he bought, although it is not a "lemon". Nonetheless he bad-mouths it all over town. The CEO of the company writes him a big, long open letter in the paper explaining the features of the car; but also defends some of the things he was almost indisputably unfairly complaining about. Even though this consumer clearly is not worthy of any such attention, instead of appreciating that such a person took the time to reply, the guy's reaction is to assert that this shows the CEO is a real crumb-bum. *sigh*
Quote: DeMangoLet's hijack this thread shall we? Burt won't mind, he is not listening. When is the "dummies" book coming out on programming win craps or pro?
The "dummies" books on how RNGs work were written well over 20 years ago. Burt never read them and holds a fundamentally incorrect belief about their actual operation, but instead of asking questions he started expounding on why RNGs are so bad for simulations. Someone who argues from objectively incorrect premises -- and then refuses to accept that his premises are, in fact, incorrect -- is not worth debating.
Quote: BurtLike Sally, you are very insensitive and insulting Steen. You can both rant until you are blue in the face. I am no longer listening.
Burt,
Just in case you need to hear it from a green hat, there was not only no insult from either party, you were given the rare opportunity to get a definitive answer from the guy who WROTE the program, and in amazing depth. It's a great opportunity if you can see it and take advantage of it. If not, this forum is probably not the place for you, because people don't tend to agree just to be agreeable; they tend to cut down to the bone on facts and suppositions, and are encouraged to do so.
Quote: BurtLike Sally, you are very insensitive and insulting Steen. You can both rant until you are blue in the face. I am no longer listening.
Hahahaha! Shit just got real.
Babs has the truth of it.
Quote: BurtLike Sally, you are very insensitive and insulting Steen. You can both rant until you are blue in the face. I am no longer listening.
Burt, I'm quite surprised. You've taken me all wrong. I'm trying to do us both a favor. If there's something you didn't know about the software (or craps simulators in general) then I'm happy to help whereas if there's something wrong with the software then I'll be happy to find out about it so I can do something about it.
I began my post telling you that I thought your question was good and that it was good to be sceptical. I even ended my post with those same thoughts. Did you take offense because halfway through I wrote the word "nonsense"? Should I have take offense because you wrote, "A flawed human programmer designs a flawed algorithm that's goal is to roll 7 16.67% of the time"?
Let's put all this petty stuff aside, shall we? Pretend that you're a programmer. You write a complicated piece of software and release if to the public. You soon receive feedback praising some good features but also criticizing some bad ones. You want your software to work correctly, to be useful, so you'd like to find out what's wrong so you can try to fix it. Someone says, "It won't do X." Yet when you check it out, it does X perfectly. What do you do? Should you tell the guy he's a liar or an idiot? Well, you probably won't be very successful if you do because chances are there's something more to the story that you haven't found out about yet. Maybe it didn't do X because of Y and Z. Maybe that's to be expected or maybe that's a flaw. So what you really need is more INFORMATION.
I didn't say that your observation was incorrect - I merely stated that it sounded improbable as phrased. I then laid out the case to show why I thought it seemed improbable and asked you to provide me with more INFORMATION. So help me out here Burt - give me some more information.
Steen
Jesus Christ. I think you must be the most patient, kind programmer I have ever seen write. Thank you for your contributions (both in software and responses here). I appreciate your program and its value to the wider gambling community. I hope you are willing to hang around and contribute to the discussions going on. Thank you.Quote: SteenBurt, I'm quite surprised. You've taken me all wrong. I'm trying to do us both a favor. If there's something you didn't know about the software (or craps simulators in general) then I'm happy to help whereas if there's something wrong with the software then I'll be happy to find out about it so I can do something about it.
I began my post telling you that I thought your question was good and that it was good to be sceptical. I even ended my post with those same thoughts. Did you take offense because halfway through I wrote the word "nonsense"? Should I have take offense because you wrote, "A flawed human programmer designs a flawed algorithm that's goal is to roll 7 16.67% of the time"?
Let's put all this petty stuff aside, shall we? Pretend that you're a programmer. You write a complicated piece of software and release if to the public. You soon receive feedback praising some good features but also criticizing some bad ones. You want your software to work correctly, to be useful, so you'd like to find out what's wrong so you can try to fix it. Someone says, "It won't do X." Yet when you check it out, it does X perfectly. What do you do? Should you tell the guy he's a liar or an idiot? Well, you probably won't be very successful if you do because chances are there's something more to the story that you haven't found out about yet. Maybe it didn't do X because of Y and Z. Maybe that's to be expected or maybe that's a flaw. So what you really need is more INFORMATION.
I didn't say that your observation was incorrect - I merely stated that it sounded improbable as phrased. I then laid out the case to show why I thought it seemed improbable and asked you to provide me with more INFORMATION. So help me out here Burt - give me some more information.
Steen
I hope he will continue to post--and not necessarily limit his comments to simply his very excellent WinCraps program.
***
I am more than a little surprised in reading this thread that no one has yet mentioned CONFIRMATION BIAS. It seems Burt's adherence to his position is text book for Confirmation Bias.
And Burt--even though you are regrettably "no longer listening"--this observation is not intended to be mean-spirited or rude about you (nor do I believe there was anything said by either Sally or Steen that was insulting or insensitive personally about you).
1. Long string of random numbers begins to deviate from expected results.
2. More numbers generated, deviation begins to vanish or even reverse itself.
3. Shenanigans! The RNG is actively seeking to meet the expectation!!!!1!!
This is exactly what Burt's complaining about.
I suspect that given any string of craps rolls - whether computer generated or live rolls, that one would see the exact same thing.
Every time the occurrence of any particular result starts to vary from the expectation, there's a near 100% chance that over time that variation will diminish or even reverse itself. If, after 10K rolls the occurrence of the 7 is at 16.5% (vs. the expected 16.6bar), there's a good chance that after 20K (or 100K) rolls that the variance will be smaller and possibly on the other side of the expectation. (say, 16.7%).
Quote: TerribleTomJimbo nailed it. Confirmation bias!
1. Long string of random numbers begins to deviate from expected results.
2. More numbers generated, deviation begins to vanish or even reverse itself.
3. Shenanigans! The RNG is actively seeking to meet the expectation!!!!1!!
This is exactly what Burt's complaining about.
I suspect that given any string of craps rolls - whether computer generated or live rolls, that one would see the exact same thing.
Every time the occurrence of any particular result starts to vary from the expectation, there's a near 100% chance that over time that variation will diminish or even reverse itself. If, after 10K rolls the occurrence of the 7 is at 16.5% (vs. the expected 16.6bar), there's a good chance that after 20K (or 100K) rolls that the variance will be smaller and possibly on the other side of the expectation. (say, 16.7%).
The law of large numbers suggests it will be the case, when you look at relative values. If the next set of 10,000 is more 'normal' than the first set, then the total percentage of 7's will move back towards the normal.
Similar effect with a sophomore slump.
Quote: JimboI am very pleased to see that Steen has joined this Forum. Steen's thorough and detailed discussion in responding to Burt demonstrates he is a "class act." Additionally, the fact that Steen checked with the Wizard before posting to be sure that his comments would not be erroneously perceived as "improper advertising" of his own software program is also proof of his good intention in participating in the discussion.
I hope he will continue to post--and not necessarily limit his comments to simply his very excellent WinCraps program.
Thanks Jimbo and everyone else for the kind words of support. Yes, of course I'd be happy to continue to participate here although I can't say how often it will be given my never-ending list of things that need to get done! As many of you know, I participated a fair amount in the old rec.gamling.craps usenet forum before it was overrun with spam. Nevertheless, I learned a lot and hopefully helped to pass some of it along. I think Michael has a great site here and I appreciate that he welcomed my participation.
Steen
Quote: SteenBurt, you pose a question about the reliablity of WinCraps' rolls so I feel compelled to respond. I asked Michael Shackleford and he said he wouldn't mind if I comment on WinCraps here. I'm not here to post adds but to participate in the discussion.
Steen
Holy Crap Steen! How fun you posted.
I love your program(s). I wish WinCraps Pro had the ability to watch auto-roll like you can in classic - but other than that....awesome program!
I hope it is making you rich. You deserve it.
Quote: BurtIt is pretty amazing how insulting people have been to me on this thread. A few of you should be ashamed of yourselves.
To those of you who have been rude to me on this thread I can only say that I feel sorry for you. You seem like very unhappy people.
Totally agree....mean mean people on this thread. Even when they answer questions, it is often condescending.
Not only that, they rarely even listen to the question...
Like half the people trying to tell you not to trust in any system, or whatever. They totally missed your whole purpose.
I think it comes from a lack of empathy but who knows.
I can only assume that because people were so rude to you that is why you were rude back to Steen and Sally (who...in my book...are golden). But I get that.
You should still apologize though. That wasn't cool.
Quote: slackyhackyHoly Crap Steen! How fun you posted.
I love your program(s). I wish WinCraps Pro had the ability to watch auto-roll like you can in classic - but other than that....awesome program!
I merged the auto-roll with the hyper-drive in an attempt to streamline these two similar and partially related functions. Unfortunately, the hyper-drive suspends the graphics and I realize that many people miss them. Not to worry - I have plans to enhance the hyperdrive/autoroll to make it even better than before and I expect to have it done fairly soon. But first, in response to a number of requests I'm finishing up the addition of six new prop bets:
All Small
All Tall
Make All
4 Rolls No 7
7 Point 7
Point 7
Steen
I don't think it's rigged, but I've never sat down at one.
ETA - this is probably worthy of its own thread instead of going off topic in this one.
I think it is considered a slot machine but has it's own dice generator (organic) or a dice popper (shoot to win) to determine the results instead of a RNGQuote: moelippDoes anyone think the mechanical craps game is legit or is it programmed like slot machines?
more in another thread
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/craps/11344-bubble-craps-shoot-to-win-mystery-of-fifty-etc-is-it-random-or-controlled-outcome/
Sally
