CAN A PROGRAM TRULY BE RANDOM

Hello, I'm super new with everything, and have almost no experience with anything gaming.
I have recently discovered online Blackjack, specifically, Blackjack Master 3. In 3 days, I've played almost 3000 hands and I've become aware of patterns, not only with the cards dealt (Values, house vs. mine) but more disturbing , the frequency of winning and losing streaks. I can tell if the house has the winning hand and I'll know when it's time only to bet the minimum. The time I've spent losing hands shows the slot for a maximum bet. Granted, these are all gut decisions and never 100% accurate. Statistically, I've improved to 47.6% hands won vs. the house at 47.9%. 5.5% tied. I thought the house would have a bigger edge than this.
I guess my question is , can an online gaming program be played enough to expose that it's not random at all? Also, If I were playing against a human opponent, would I have the same outcome?
I hope this makes sense. Thank you

If you've actually nailed down a pattern you could make a lot of money.

Which is why I think the game is actually decently pseudorandom and you are experiencing negative variance.

To "nail down" a pattern, I would need to introduce the math. If I started using the math, I think I would lose the intestinal fortitude.
I appreciate your response. Thank you.

they might be using preshuffled shoes. sometimes those have the same patterns.

Quote: wannabet

I have recently discovered online Blackjack, specifically, Blackjack Master 3. In 3 days, I've played almost 3000 hands and I've become aware of patterns, not only with the cards dealt (Values, house vs. mine) but more disturbing , the frequency of winning and losing streaks.

Hi,
I've played many thousands of RNG hands and I'm satisfied that the one I encountered was an effective, random implementation of a real game.
However, I suspect, and I'm not alone' that some games are gaffed so that they start winning absurd streaks for the house, when the software detects that you are Martingaling, or even when your betting level reaches a certain threshold. For example, pays fair with stakes up to about £5 but starts pulling 20's and 21's against good hands when betting >£25.
That might be observational bias, but is one reason to be wary.

Your sample size is far to low to deduce anything. Ignore your gut unless your gut tells you that you are being fleeced.

Only play RNG games at the most reputable online casinoes that you can find. There ARE some real cheating scumbags out there. If it's registered on some island or principality that you haven't heard of with RNGs certified by a one man business in another country, you have your answer. Run away.

Quote: OnceDear

Hi,
I've played many thousands of RNG hands and I'm satisfied that the one I encountered was an effective, random implementation of a real game.
However, I suspect, and I'm not alone' that some games are gaffed so that they start winning absurd streaks for the house, when the software detects that you are Martingaling, or even when your betting level reaches a certain threshold. For example, pays fair with stakes up to about £5 but starts pulling 20's and 21's against good hands when betting >£25.
That might be observational bias, but is one reason to be wary.

Your sample size is far to low to deduce anything. Ignore your gut unless your gut tells you that you are being fleeced.

Only play RNG games at the most reputable online casinoes that you can find. There ARE some real cheating scumbags out there. If it's registered on some island or principality that you haven't heard of with RNGs certified by a one man business in another country, you have your answer. Run away.

I think it's worth noting that the Wizard started a one-man company certifying gaming software/RNGs, sold it to teliot, who provided that service for a few years, then sold it to crmousseau, who to my best knowledge is continuing to provide that service. All 3 are, in my opinion and personal experience, honest brokers and beyond reproach.

So I don't think you can give one-size-fits-all advice about this. There are several good resources which differentiate reputable online casinos from questionable or outright rogue entities. It would be best for interested players to consult those before depositing.

The advice from oncedear "Ignore your gut unless your gut tells you you are being fleeced" is wrong on so many levels

As far as I am aware, no on-line casino uses true-randomness. That would involve things like atmospheric noise or radioactive decay- a natural random phenomonon to acomplish true-randomness.

Having said that, be aware that Pseudo-Random Generators can be made using Gaussian Distribution. That is, the sequence can be made to look random, but fit into a particular scheme biased for or against the Player.

For these two reasons, I do not gamble on-line, and prefer tangible gaming using cards, dice, tiles, etc.

Regards
98

"Truly random" as far as I'm concerned, is essentially impossible. I mean, damn, roulette with a dealer isn't even TRULY random. Rolling the dice at a craps table isn't TRULY random, either. Those things are about as random as you can get (sort of), but a roulette dealer is going to have a tendency to spin the ball X amount of times, dice are not going to be perfectly evenly weighted, etc. Note: I'm not saying the games are beatable because of the lack of randomness, because they're pretty damn close to being random, but are not truly random.


A better question would be how close to random you can get.

Something might be slightly more predictable given an event. For instance, if a roulette dealer hits 00, it might take him on average 32 seconds before he spins the ball again, therefore being more likely to hit number 27 by 0.001% or some such amount, because of the average spins the ball does when he releases it, the number of spins the wheel did between spinning the ball, etc etc. Another type of randomness is bias, such as in craps, where one side of a die might be more weighted than the other. Or hell, if you do the wheel-clocking thing on roulette (visual ballistics I think they call it), then that's also removing randomness by having some form of predictability.

If I were to create ten lists of numbers and some of the lists I just created manually and were not random but just numbers that I came up with out of my head and some lists were random, who here thinks that they could spot the random lists versus the lists that I created out of my head?

This is very good thought exercise for math folks and non-math folks alike. The reason is that if you keep generating enough random numbers you will perceive certain strings of random numbers to be non-random.

But a good random number generator generates unlikely sequences.

That's where most people get confused.

Extract unlikely sequences from a good random number generator and pontificate on them, but you're failing, not the random number generator.

I hope this helps.

The way I've heard it described: No human can come up with anything that is truly random, but we can come up with things that will pass all tests for randomness

Even just picking numbers off the top of your head isn't random.

Quote: TomG

The way I've heard it described: No human can come up with anything that is truly random, but we can come up with things that will pass all tests for randomness

It might pass all the tests for randomness, but I still don't think anything can be truly, 100%, random. There'd be some level of predictability and/or bias.

Yes, true randomness can be digitally generated (within our understanding of quantum theory, which is enough by orders of magnitude).
Yes, adequate randomness is possible for most gaming related subjects.
Yes/No, there have been innumerable software efforts that have used terrible PRNGs.
Yes/No, The UK government's equivalent of the U.S. Bureau of Standards (NBS) ran a study on Roulette wheels and determined that a tiny tilt could create an identifiable bias. (But, this is not a valuable opportunity for practical reasons.)

Yes, there have been many studies on casino shuffles. One such study was on a simplistic AC shuffle that Uston managed to beat and published in his newsletter about 35-40 years ago. (Old newsletters had some interesting content, and I subscribed to all of them that I could find) But, that was a rare event and the opportunity didn't last long. (Uston had a habit of destroying opportunities,)

Point is, generally speaking, you can assume randomness in casinos that do not have sawdust on the floor, and even the majority of online casinos. Not because casino management is a refuge for overly honest folk. But, because non-randomness is their enemy.

Some professor famously used an experiment where some of his students recorded real coin tosses and some students just made up a list that they thought looked like a real set of random tosses. They turned these in and he was able to sort out the fakes in a matter of seconds because those students would not include sequences with unusual-looking-to-them strings of heads or tails in a row; they would typically have maybe 3-4 in a row at most.

The lists from real coin tosses would have at least some long sequences.

Looked for this with google a bit and didn't find it.

Likely apocryphal. But, there's an interesting calculator at: http://www.math.illinois.edu/~ajh/fakerandomness/

Quote: RS

It might pass all the tests for randomness, but I still don't think anything can be truly, 100%, random. There'd be some level of predictability and/or bias.

Technically, nothing is "truly random," although it does get to the point where it is just about impossible to predict the event with 100% certainty.

Example: run a Bingo blower for 24 hours, then pull out a ball. If you work out (a) the initial location and orientation of the balls (not to mention their precise shapes, including thicknesses) and (b) the airflow within the blower throughout the 24 hours, you can determine which ball will be drawn. However, (b) is a very large "if."

In some cases, you don't necessarily need to be random. Example: an E-roulette machine that selects a number by constantly going through the 38 numbers, in order, at a rate of 1,000,000 numbers per second. Even if you can control the selection point to within 1/10,000 of a second, every number is chosen at least three times per 1/10,000 of a second. On the other hand, if a slot machine with 3 reels and 100 virtual stops per reel (so it has 1,000,000 different results) does the same thing, then if you know exactly when the jackpot symbols "hit", being able to be in a range of 1/10,000 of a second reduces the probability of winning the jackpot from 1 / 1,000,000 to 1 / 100.

Intel PC chips have hardware RNGs on them that cannot be predicted by anything. All the supercomputers in the world would not be able to predict the next number. Timing-based PRNGs are certainly not random; which is why no one with knowledge of RNGs would use one.

Quote: QFIT

Intel PC chips have hardware RNGs on them that cannot be predicted by anything. All the supercomputers in the world would not be able to predict the next number. Timing-based PRNGs are certainly not random; which is why no one with knowledge of RNGs would use one.

Indeed.

http://www.electronicdesign.com/learning-resources/understanding-intels-ivy-bridge-random-number-generator

Quote: QFIT

Intel PC chips have hardware RNGs on them that cannot be predicted by anything. All the supercomputers in the world would not be able to predict the next number. Timing-based PRNGs are certainly not random; which is why no one with knowledge of RNGs would use one.

It's still pseudorandom. Very high entropy, but pseudorandom.

Quote: gamerfreak

It's still pseudorandom. Very high entropy, but pseudorandom.

Exactly. There has to be a reason why something was picked making it non-random.

Unpredictable doesn't mean random.

Unpredictable does not mean random. But, there are TRNGs which are completely unpredictable and, via feedback, can be unbiased to a level adequate for any current application. Video games require vastly less randomness than Monte Carlo studies involving chemistry, reliability, semiconductors, metallurgy, and other simulations.

Ok guys,
First, thank you all, for your time and thought you put in, replying to my question. Some of your conclusions were interesting to say the least. After reading this thread, I felt the need to throw my two cents in. I hope it makes sense.................
We perceive concepts such as randomness, though it has no real substance itself. It doesn't exist in any true sense. Rather what we think is random is only a result of our own lack or inability to calculate the cause and its effects.

Instead of random events or circumstances, reality is ordered in a fixed cause and effect relationship. In actuality everything we know is essentially effect, from an initial cause that set everything we know into motion.

Thus randomness is only a mental orientation or perception in which the observer is unable to understand or see the fullness of the cause or its effects upon reality.

I cannot prove something that doesn't exist in the universe doesn't exist. It is up to those claiming that something truly random exists to prove that assertion. Demonstrate, or point to any phenomenon in the universe that is truly random.

If you can find something that is truly random you would win a Nobel prize, because deep encryption would be truly impossible to break. Right now some of the best technology used in encryption uses either a complex series of algorithms which we are unable to break due to complexity, or things such as atmospheric noise which involves so many complex variables we are unable to break.

If one was able to calculate every source of the atmospheric noise, they could instantly break such encryption.

My assertion is that there only exist in the observable universe is order, in which randomness cannot co-exist. In my research I have found no evidence that randomness exists. Everywhere that is claimed to be random is in fact order.

The fact is, I can not prove a negative. If something doesn't exist in our universe, then there is nothing I can provide as evidence for its non-existence. If it does exist, then show proof of its existence.

So, bet how you will. Contributions to casinos are welcomed by APs.

I would point out that the super-complexities you speak of makes the system random until such system gets cracked. Much like 128-bit TLS 1.2, it looks encrypted until some entity networks enough problem-solving skill to crack, or even cause a collision. IIRC Google entities have recently caused a 128-bit TLS collision, so that is going to be obsolete in a year or two. And that might nick the IvyBridge RNG.

Cryptography very much depends upon randomness, just as a fair game does. If I may... Way back in 1976, when in college, my computer science class had a peek at the IBM360 mainframe. In the back of that was a small box with a coax wire leading up to a board in the computer. The small box contained a Geiger-Counter and every radiation "tick" was sent to the mainframe as a random pulse. Thus the RNG for the IBM360.

Regards
98

Quote: wannabet

Thus randomness is only a mental orientation or perception in which the observer is unable to understand or see the fullness of the cause or its effects upon reality. ... Demonstrate, or point to any phenomenon in the universe that is truly random. ... My assertion is that there only exist in the observable universe is order, in which randomness cannot co-exist. In my research I have found no evidence that randomness exists. Everywhere that is claimed to be random is in fact order.

Not sure where all your research has taken you, but here's my 2 cents about randomness.

You seem to perceive randomness as an on-off switch of some type. Better is to think of randomness as a property, such as sphericity. As such, one can study and understand deeper properties associated with the randomness of something.

IMHO, one of the most interesting areas for research of this type involves fractal randomness. To get you started on your (possible) exploration into this fascinating corner of mathematics, I offer some light reading by University of Bath professor, Peter Morters, Random Fractals.

Nature loves diversity, and random fractals reflect that diversity. First identified by Benoit Mandelbrot, fractals manifest themselves in nature by being truly random a priori (on the front side) and non-random a posteriori (once they reveal themselves).

Here is a common example: cauliflower. You can break off small pieces of the cauliflower, and these small pieces strongly resemble the shape and roughness of the whole cauliflower. When the cauliflower starts to grow, one cannot say, a smaller nodule will be here or there. Where smaller nodules ultimately appear before the cauliflower grows is random. Only after the cauliflower grows can one calculate the degree to which parts of the cauliflower reflect differences from the whole cauliflower. And, while one cauliflower closely resembles other cauliflowers, the random fractal dimensions between different cauliflowers vary, based on things like heredity and growing conditions. (Reference "self-similarity" for more info.)

Anyhow, that's one example of randomness as I see it. You may choose to disagree with me (and the many scientists and mathematicians who study random fractals). Good luck in any explorations you undertake. I'll close with a quote:

Quote: Benoit Mandelbrot

Sometimes declaring a problem impossible is also a great advance.

Quote: 98Clubs

I would point out that the super-complexities you speak of makes the system random until such system gets cracked. Much like 128-bit TLS 1.2, it looks encrypted until some entity networks enough problem-solving skill to crack, or even cause a collision. IIRC Google entities have recently caused a 128-bit TLS collision, so that is going to be obsolete in a year or two. And that might nick the IvyBridge RNG.

Cryptography very much depends upon randomness, just as a fair game does. If I may... Way back in 1976, when in college, my computer science class had a peek at the IBM360 mainframe. In the back of that was a small box with a coax wire leading up to a board in the computer. The small box contained a Geiger-Counter and every radiation "tick" was sent to the mainframe as a random pulse. Thus the RNG for the IBM360.

Regards
98

I've used, hands on, nearly all models of the IBM 360 and 370, and read the sales manuals. That was not a standard feature. If it had been, I probably would have ordered it.

QFIT:

I wouldn't know if it was an orderable board. My best guess is that it was a "home-made" or DIY item "designed to be board acceptable". It ceretainly seemed a rational and possible thing to do. Though elegantly simple in form, I never saw the "board-side" of the installation. I will say in those days things could be rather easy to solder together using hobby-sized parts. (Today one needs a good stereoscope to even see these flyspecks) It could have been as simple as a J/K flip-flop board with timer circuit. The random pulse being input. Just thinking out loud 40 years later.

Ooops forgot: this was at Western CT State College (now university).

Regards
98

Quote: QFIT

I've used, hands on, nearly all models of the IBM 360 and 370, and read the sales manuals. That was not a standard feature. If it had been, I probably would have ordered it.

I also started on an IBM 360/30 as my first exposure to computers. I used a COBOL built in function to get a random number and at the time I assumed it was random. Now that I have 40 more years of experience I don't believe randomness exists. Our perception of randomness is just our lack of understanding all of the outside influences.