The problem with games like WinCraps

Burt,

I did not program wincraps, so I can't say with certainty how it is programmed. However, I can tell you that what you are describing (catching up) is at least 2-3 times harder to program than just letting the dice do their thing (depending on how complicated their "catch up" is). I would be willing to bet money that wincraps uses the standard methods of RNG to get its rolls and those are, for human purposes, correct. In fact, I would guess a physical, human system would be more likely to produce biased results than wincraps.

You are welcome to buy your own table and record your own results, but I can tell you that the amount of time and effort in doing that will not help you more than a proper wincraps experiment from a mathematical standpoint. Best of luck, I hope your relative can get their gambling addiction under control. If your buying a table will help with that maybe it would be worthwhile.

Quote: TerribleTom

It is not capable of reproducing natural events.

Thank you for confirming my doubts.

Quote: Burt

Thank you for confirming my doubts.

... and you would be unable to tell the difference between two lists, one from WinCraps and one from the Craps Table.

Quote: endermike

You are welcome to buy your own table and record your own results

Thanks. Maybe I will.

Quote: Burt

The point of my thread is simply that I am doubtful a human made piece of software like WinCraps is capable of reproducing natural events.

It turns out that software is readily capable of replicating the distribution of natural events, like rolling a pair of dice or dealing a hand of cards. Not "reproducing", since software that generates dice roll numbers does not actually roll physical dice. Instead, it uses an algorithm to generate two numbers between 1 and 6, inclusive. Similarly, the algorithm inside video poker games does not actually shuffle a physical deck of cards but instead randomizes an array of numbers between 0 and 51, inclusive.

Not only is software capable of replicating the distribution of live events, it's actually required to behave that way in most regulated gaming jurisdictions. Nevada Regulation 14.040(2)(b) says:

Quote: NGCB Reg 14

14.040 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.
(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.

http://gaming.nv.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=2921

Bottom line: you may have doubts that software can behave equivalently to live gambling events, but the manufacturers, operators, and regulators of software-based casino games don't have similar beliefs. Presumably you don't believe that video poker games would behave any differently (mathematically) if dealt from a hand-shuffled deck of cards as opposed to using the commonplace software inside video poker machines. Why should software-based dice rolls be any different?

Quote: MathExtremist

Presumably you don't believe that video poker games would behave any differently (mathematically) if dealt from a hand-shuffled deck of cards as opposed to using the commonplace software inside video poker machines. Why should software-based dice rolls be any different?

I would never play video poker for real money.

Quote: Burt

I would never play video poker for real money.

Fair enough -- you don't trust technology. I was about to point out the closer analogy of video roulette: Bally has a roulette game that's been in Nevada for years, and there's no meaningful difference between picking a single number from a range of 38 and picking two numbers from a range of 6. It's the same underlying, approvable software. But if you don't believe that any RNG technology can reproduce the distribution of live events, you could prove it for yourself. Take Excel, type in the formula for generating a random number between 1 and 6, and do a copy-down for 100 rows. Then do 100 single dice rolls. You won't be able to tell the difference in distribution.

Quote: Burt

Thank you for confirming my doubts.

Don't draw the wrong conclusion. Just because a computer random number generator is not the same as actually passing dice around a live craps table does not mean that it is unreliable for testing a betting system. The number of times you'll see 30+ rolls at a craps table without a single seven is not large.

For a simple test of a random number generator, create a spreadsheet with a column full of random numbers.

=INT(RAND()*6)+1

Make two columns, add them up if you'd like.

Now start rolling some dice on a craps table and recording the results. Get back to us when the two lists are identical.

When you're done, enlist the help of your gambling-addicted buddy and track the numbers at two tables at the same time. Again, get back to us when the two lists are identical.

That's the thing with random numbers. They're - wait for it - kind of random.

You could track the actual rolls at every table in the world for years on end and when you put them into a database and compare them you are going to find very few sets of data that match for more than a few rolls at a time.

Nature isn't capable of reproducing natural results either. Each set of natural results is eventually unique, and most of them are unique in just one roll.

No matter what, the betting system is a guaranteed loser.

Quote: Burt

I never intended to spend 5 weeks of my life playing craps. It just morphed into something larger and more intense than I imagined. The time went by pretty quickly.

5 weeks is a long time. You must have had some fun doing it.
Time flies when having fun.
It also looks like as you mentioned you tried other systems out too.

You were disappointed at your results because of the distribution of the 7 in your sample size that was not documented.
over 100,000 dice rolls and never did a 7 go 30 rolls without showing and when it did disappear for maybe 25 rolls, here it comes trying to catch up to that 16.67% number as you say.
The first part I really doubt (never seeing the 7 go 30 rolls without showing one time as you claim with no data to show this)
but the second part is believable to me.
I mean, the 7 is the most common number to roll on each and every roll and over any number of rolls verses any other number.


Maybe, just maybe you changed, and did not see you did, the values on the probability page and used a different distribution than a normal 2d6 one that is the default.
If not, then you really should start to repeat your efforts and post your data so others can verify what you are doing.
Words are words are words, you must agree.

Maybe you did find an error in WinCraps Pro, when doing many manually rolled dice rolls.

I also think that you can not have the program auto roll the dice for you unless you pay the registration fee of about $15
In Classic, the program auto-rolls the dice without paying the reg fee but I do not know if it also does auto-betting without the fee.
The WinCraps webpage does not really say and my version came already in a folder.

Looks like Steen could make that more clear to current and future WinCraps users
Sally

I think I have heard enough. Thanks to everyone who gave constructive comments. I appreciate that fact that computer programmers are very smart people and that computers are amazing machines. My best friend is a software engineer. He is no dummy. However, I remain skeptical and if I were to peruse craps seriously I would invest in a professional craps table and roll real dice. WinCraps seemed to do some funny things that I don't think would happen the same way in real life. Maybe it was just my imperfect memory or my imagination. I respect WinCraps for the handy and fun game it is. I did not mean to pick on WinCraps specifically.

Thanks again for all the help,
Burt
Non-gambler
Software skeptic
350 hour WinCraps player