"Proof RNG Can Be Beaten" Any Thoughts?

[rjeaton1]

I'm just curious as to what proof of an online casinos RNG being beaten using a mechanical based system would be.

I was just in "The Dark Side" reading a couple of interesting threads.  One of them was an argument about somebody being able/not being able to beat an RNG.  So I got to thinking, "What qualifys beating an RNG?"

I only ask because I've read a lot of different opinions on this topic.  Some say "if you get past 1 millions spins and you're ahead" you've beaten it.  But what if you only placed a bet 10 times in those 1 million spins?  Does that count as beating it?  If not, would 100 bets count? 1,000? 10,000?

What if you placed bets 100,000 times in those 1 million spins, but lost the first 99,999 bets, and then on the last bet you won back all of your losses...does that count?

What if you could beat 1 million RNG spins but only if the table limit was above $2,000 and you're using .01 as betting units?

I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this by now, and I would just like to get everybody's opinion on what they think would be the "Gold Standard" so to speak.

If we can all come to some sort of an agreement, the next time somebody says "I can beat RNG" and they were willing to prove it, they would have to at least come close to this "Gold Standard".

Or, even if somebody has absolutely no idea on how to beat an RNG but would like to work towards beating it (however futile it may be) they would at least know what to shoot for.

I'm very interested (as I'm sure others are) in a debate/conversation on this topic.  Please, post any and all input you have on the subject.  Let's just keep it friendly.

[Plankton]

Spins on which no bet is placed are 100% irrelevant.

If a system is found to win flat betting over 200,000+ spins, counting only those on which bets are placed, without encountering a drawdown greater than the end profit, then it may be of interest.

It should immediately be tested again over another 200,000 spins.   If it repeats the performance then that would spark my interest, if accompanied by some plausible explanation of WHY the system is able to beat the particular RNG in question.

Of course if it actually works (i. e.  gains an edge) then the system's originator should not fear any number of trials.

All the best

Plankton

[rjeaton1]

Spins on which no bet is placed are 100% irrelevant.

If a system is found to win flat betting over 200,000+ spins, counting only those on which bets are placed, without encountering a drawdown greater than the end profit, then it may be of interest.

It should immediately be tested again over another 200,000 spins.   If it repeats the performance then that would spark my interest, if accompanied by some plausible explanation of WHY the system is able to beat the particular RNG in question.

Of course if it actually works (I. e.  gains an edge) then the system's originator should not fear any number of trials.

All the best

Plankton

Excellent response Plankton!!  This is a great start to this conversation!!

The only thing that would need clarification in your response (in my opinion) is this:

You said "Spins on which no bet is placed are 100% irrelevant" (good point)

Then you said "if a system is found to win flat betting over 200,000+ spins counting only those on which bets are placed..."

I think you need to rephrase this to "if a system is found to win flat better over X amount of BETS" because again, what if I only flat bet twice in those 200,000+ spins.  You would only count the spins on which bets were placed (2 times).  So are you saying if a system is found to win flat betting over 200,000 bets it would spark interest or over the course of 200,000+ spins with a minimum of X number of bets?

And for others coming to this thread, would progression betting count?  Or only flat betting methods?

[casinopitbull]

hi  i  believe  that in  some  possibilities  are  there  everyone  know  that  rng  is  pure cheat  BUT?? there  is couple thing  how can  be done with  nice  range bet  for  example  10 p   to 50  per   number  can  be  done  sure  but  u  need   nice  bankroll  there on this forum  was  been  one   member  everyone  remember  how to  crack rng   thread ?? i  think  so   he  was  stated  that   every  37   spins  he   will   have  sure  one  win ..........well  its  is  possible  that method  i  was  post  here and   no  one  react  on  that  becouse  im   funny  boy )))))))))))))))  so maybe  someone  can  put  on  bot  and   try it  u  will  be  a hell  surprise   progression  is  depenc  how  many  numbers  will  be  repeated  im  guaranted  steady  profit  everytime  when  u  try  it  i  was  myself  surprised  how  that  stupid   thinks  can   work   well  may  becouse   it  is  RNG thats  why  work  like  charm

[rss]

Excellent response Plankton!!  This is a great start to this conversation!!

The only thing that would need clarification in your response (in my opinion) is this:

You said "Spins on which no bet is placed are 100% irrelevant" (good point)

Then you said "if a system is found to win flat betting over 200,000+ spins counting only those on which bets are placed..."

I think you need to rephrase this to "if a system is found to win flat better over X amount of BETS" because again, what if I only flat bet twice in those 200,000+ spins.  You would only count the spins on which bets were placed (2 times).  So are you saying if a system is found to win flat betting over 200,000 bets it would spark interest or over the course of 200,000+ spins with a minimum of X number of bets?

And for others coming to this thread, would progression betting count?  Or only flat betting methods?

It can just be rephrased simpler:

If a system is in positive after 200,000 bets.

[rjeaton1]

It can just be rephrased simpler:

If a system is in positive after 200,000 bets.

So, what you guys are saying is, if a system is in the positive after 200,000 bets it would be considered to have beaten RNG?  Flat betting or with progression?  What if that progression took you to a drawdown point of -1,000 before coming back...but did in fact come back?  Does that still count?

Anybody agree/disagree?

I'm not arguing here, just so you guys know.  I'm literally just trying to REALLY stir up some thought on this topic, as there is not really a set "guideline" anywhere. 

Without that set guideline, it is unlikely anybody will ever beat RNG because it is difficult to arrive at a specific goal when you haven't set the goals parameters.

[rss]

To be honest, my thought is that if a system manages to reduce the house edge after 200,000 bets, than that is a winning system. Cos in my opinion, it would have beaten the mathematical side of the game.

Regarding progressions, I really do not think it makes much difference in the long run. I have yet to test a system and noticed any difference with any type of progression.

[rss]

to broaden the topic a little,

what do you think if, for example, you had 3 or more systems, (which use progressions) and have a loss rate of ..example 1 to 40. If you alternate the systems, does it make a difference in the end? (maybe some losses can be skipped somehow and after a set amount of spins one ends up positive)

[rjeaton1]

to broaden the topic a little,

what do you think if, for example, you had 3 or more systems, (which use progressions) and have a loss rate of ..example 1 to 40. If you alternate the systems, does it make a difference in the end? (maybe some losses can be skipped somehow and after a set amount of spins one ends up positive)

In my opinion, if you have 3 or more systems and alternate between them at a given rate (so it is still mechanical, requiring no human intervention) that in itself is actually ONE system.  If you choose x amount of systems, and then say these systems will alternate in x pattern every x amount of spins, that is in essence just one LARGE system.

As to whether or not it makes a difference in the end, thats kind of the point of this discussion.

At what point and by what standards have we "beaten RNG"?  After 200,000 bets?  1,000,000 bets? 1,000,000 spins with a minimum of 500,000 bets?  10,000,000 spins but doesn't matter how many bets were placed?  Etc, etc, etc.

At the end of this discussion, I would love for everybody in the forum to throw in their two cents, and by the end of this discussion use all of that input to come to ONE SOLID agreement and set of standards by which everybody can measure their system against, and say (if they've reached all the requirements) "I've beaten RNG"

[Number Six]

I would say the number of spins is irrelevant and that a good benchmark for starters would be a profit after a few thousand bets, maybe five or ten thousand to gauge the system's effectivness and to save time if it's a loser. If there's profit after a primer test, then it's worthy of further testing to the 100,000 bet level. It has to be flat betting all the way and absolutely no progression. If there is profit, however small, after 100k bets, then maybe it should be tested again flat betting (perhaps 50k-75k bets). If there is still a profit you've definitely got a consistent system and it would then be safe to introduce a progressive staking plan.

There is a divide between manually implementing a system and automating it. This has to be cleared up straightaway. A system may work long term that can't be executed by a human because of massive waiting between bets. Maybe an average can be used...ie 1 bet is placed on average every x spins...in order to categorise it into a manual system and an automated system. I think the distinction needs to be made. 

If you're going to try to beat any RNG, make it Betvoyager's hardware-based one, then you can't complain that the "algorithm changed after spin 25, and then again after spin 33" and made you lose.

[bombus]

I would say test your systems over as many rng results as possible, (but my magic figure has always been 50,000) from as many sources as possible. I think you should be using lots and lots of small spin samples in preference to one huge spin sample.

Also, any system tweak should mean a complete test re-start.

Definitely flat betting through any initial test phase.

[bombus]

-