Scoop
Joined: Sep 5, 2013
• Posts: 34
September 8th, 2013 at 2:16:34 PM permalink
Would you agree that computer simulations and randomly generated numbers are not the same as what happens in real play in the casino?

I suspect this is the case, but I can't prove it. And if there is a difference, it's probably subtle and slight.

Curious what everyone thinks of that.
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
• Posts: 24014
September 8th, 2013 at 2:20:08 PM permalink
Quote: Scoop

Would you agree that computer simulations and randomly generated numbers are not the same as what happens in real play in the casino?

I suspect this is the case, but I can't prove it. And if there is a difference, it's probably subtle and slight.

Curious what everyone thinks of that.

Lol! My friend, you have no idea the can of worms this
subject opens. I agree with you, but others, um, do not.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
• Posts: 6526
September 8th, 2013 at 2:36:23 PM permalink
Quote: Scoop

Would you agree that computer simulations and randomly generated numbers are not the same as what happens in real play in the casino?

I suspect this is the case, but I can't prove it. And if there is a difference, it's probably subtle and slight.

Sure, they're different. In real play in a casino, two numbers equally distributed between 1 and 6 inclusive are generated by acrylic cubes being thrown by a player who has made at least a table-minimum line wager. In computer simulations, two numbers equally distributed between 1 and 6 inclusive are generated by a deterministic software algorithm.

But the distributions of outcomes are the same, so if that's what you were asking, no, there's no difference. More precisely, any non-uniformity in the physical dice is neither measurable nor relevant (with respect to variance) during the 8-hour lifetime those dice are in play, with dice manufactured to modern casino tolerances. Similarly, any non-uniformity in the RNG distribution (assuming use of a quantitatively good RNG) is not relevant to a simulation of equivalent duration.
"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
Ibeatyouraces
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
• Posts: 11933
September 8th, 2013 at 2:44:53 PM permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
DeMango
Joined: Feb 2, 2010
• Posts: 2390
September 8th, 2013 at 3:12:37 PM permalink
Where is Harley when you need him???
When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest is the one who got hit.
Scoop
Joined: Sep 5, 2013
• Posts: 34
September 8th, 2013 at 3:16:47 PM permalink
Just found an article that confirms that some random number generators aren't really random:

http://engineering.mit.edu/live/news/1753-can-a-computer-generate-a-truly-random-number

Excerpt:
<<<You can program a machine to generate what can be called "random" numbers, but the machine is always at the mercy of its programming. "On a completely deterministic machine you can't generate anything you could really call a random sequence of numbers," says Ward, "because the machine is following the same algorithm to generate them. Typically, that means it starts with a common 'seed' number and then follows a pattern." The results may be sufficiently complex to make the pattern difficult to identify, but because it is ruled by a carefully defined and consistently repeated algorithm, the numbers it produces are not truly random. "They are what we call 'pseudo-random' numbers," Ward says. >>>
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
• Posts: 6526
September 8th, 2013 at 3:37:27 PM permalink
It's not just "some" -- the vast majority of random number generators are pseudo-random and deterministic, including the random number generators in every slot machine, VP game, and e-table you've ever played.

The question isn't whether uniform distributions can be generated with an algorithm (because they can), it's whether the distributions are sufficiently unpredictable so as to satisfy the required battery of statistical tests. From that standpoint, the distributions from manually shuffling a physical deck of cards and using an RNG to shuffle a virtual deck of cards (which is what happens in video poker) are statistically equivalent. The same is true for real dice vs. e-table craps, and real roulette (with a well-maintained wheel) vs. video roulette.

In fact, the RNGs used in most simulations are often of higher quality than the RNGs found in many older gaming machines. Some of the highest quality RNGs were developed only over the past 15-20 years, but there are many gaming machines on the floor today using RNG algorithms older than that.
"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
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
• Posts: 24014
September 8th, 2013 at 5:38:44 PM permalink
Quote: Scoop

the numbers it produces are not truly random.

Nope, and they differ from true random. Just difficult
to see and prove. Good enough for casino use, however,
and that's all anybody cares about.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
Buzzard
Joined: Oct 28, 2012