(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fimg233.imageshack.us%2Fimg233%2F7069%2Fbodogsc1qr9.th.jpg&hash=0639aa639440db10fe555ddf2c58b09d9e59af62) (nolinks://img233.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bodogsc1qr9.jpg)
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fimg353.imageshack.us%2Fimg353%2F5508%2Fbodogsc2sh5.th.jpg&hash=e0d95764ee7baf9f568eb5e273518d80a790a5c1) (nolinks://img353.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bodogsc2sh5.jpg)
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fimg67.imageshack.us%2Fimg67%2F4623%2Fbodogsc3da2.th.jpg&hash=e4e344521ed7194d763d7395c7278edd5e1d78f8) (nolinks://img67.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bodogsc3da2.jpg)
Take a look at these screen shots. These are paid spins from an RNG casino. Look to the lower left at bj's screen where he tracks hit numbers. Do you find way too many numbers went unhit for way too long?
Sam
I am not a fan of RNG, so i´m suspicious...
HOWEVER ;D ... i do have to state that from these images and from my personal experience using a program that helps me to track some aspects of the game, like sleepers and SD it is clear that RNG spins do not produce the same level of randomness we can expect from a real wheel or TRNG spins.
Take the the 3rd image... There´s no way i can concieve that 6 numbers would fail to show for 100 spins simultaneously. (remember the "111 observation" that Victor posted at the forum ? ).
But that´s just me !
Not at all!
its absolutely within the normal statiscal variances.
As I often said: A RNG doesn´t cheat. With the OC´s I´m not sure.
Did you bet on the sleepers? I´m sorry for you
Did you bet on the favourites? Congratulations
br
winkel
Image 3
Nice four numbers there. Note the numbers 552 and 589.
The four numbers at the intersection (14,17,20,23) look
like a good chance for some easy cash.
And the last 6 unhit --after 100 spins! Lovely.
The four numbers (15,18,21,24) look good (hasn't hit
in 24 spins) and row 3 hasn't hit in six spins. Another
great chance there.
Wildcard
An observation? What does that mean?
That Victor has never seen anything like
this?
Well, he's seen it now. So much for his
observation.
bjb007, there´s absolutely no need to bash other people´s opinions or posts the way you did, even more when you adress a post made by the main forum moderator, which you didn´t even bother to search.
If you consider you are right, feel free to elaborate on your point of view in a civilized manner.
I am no saint, but i respect different opinions.
What i was trying to convey was part of the concept Victor was exploring with the ATILA Money Management in mind.
This was the post >>> nolinks://vlsroulette.com/index.php?topic=71.0 (nolinks://vlsroulette.com/index.php?topic=71.0)
I will copy the 111 Observation here:
Quote- 111 Observation: It says in 3 cycles of 37 spins the regular happening is to have every number shown except for 2 or 3 numbers which as the long-term sleepers for the day ( 37 spin in a cycle x 3 = 111 observation). So after the second cycle, eligible numbers are the unhit ones. Ideally if it goes past second cycle, it should be left alone -although I have used the long-sleeping ones with good results (37 x 2 = Spin #74 as signal).
Considering this, it would be extremely hard to believe that 6 numbers could sleep for 100 spins at the same time, but as i said before, i respect different views.
Wildcard
You quoted an observation as though it was a fact
and expressed surprise at the evidence shown in
the picture.
I don't consider that I am "right" but I am prepared
to accept the evidence provided by TwoCatSam.
As they say "A closed mind is as much use as a closed parachute".
Don't forget we're talking about gambling and random numbers
here so anything is possible. If you can't accept that there
really is no point in making posts.
bj said "Don't forget we're talking about gambling and random numbers here so anything is possible." Are we talking about random numbers?
Let's say RNG is a fellow named Randy NiceGuy, although he's not so nice as we soon learn. After I bet, Randy gives the board the once-over and my bankroll the once-over and decides I'm just making too darn much money. My bets are locked in, so Randy reaches over and places the puck on a number I've not covered.
Here is my thesis and it cannot be proved nor disproved, thus the casinos can do as they wish. The numbers I have collected while betting real money are indigenous to me and my betting. Had I been betting another system, the numbers would have been different. Randy NiceGuy will always place the puck where you aren't.
Igor at DublinBet spins and it's the same for everybody!
This is my third test of RNGs using real money. I can assure you it will be my last.
I have watched and studied over 10,000 real spins in the past few years and I've never seen what I saw on this trot.
Well, I just had to know.......
Sam
Wise choice, imo, Sam!
Some (most, all?) online RNGs have an option
to play roulette at a multi-player table or in
a private group.
Seems it would be easy to answer this question
of whether all players get the same numbers by
forming a private group and getting 5,10 people
to join the group and play.
At the same time (this screams "Skype", doesn't it?)
have other players at private wheels and see if the
same numbers come up.
Then we'd know the answer and could stop
this endless speculation.
OK, that's a thought........
Let's work on it. I'll look for such a casino.
Sam
bjb007, you said
QuoteWildcard
You quoted an observation as though it was a fact
and expressed surprise at the evidence shown in
the picture.
I didn´t refer to the observation as being a fact, i simply implied that it could support my personal belief that 6 numbers couldn´t sleep for such a large amount of spins.
Expressed surprise ? Yep, sure did. Here´s another quote for you, and this one i consider a fact: RANDOM HAS LIMITS.
Now, as to your proposal, having a group playing RNG multi-player mode would possibly prove the OC is honest (wouldn´t prove RNG is fair, though)
Sam
Try OnlineCasino.com
Wildcard
Don't know what you would accept as "fair"
in an online casino but then life isn't fair, is it?
"Fair" is so subjective that we'll never agree on
what is fair and what isn't.
What are your conditions for accepting that
an online casino is fair?
bjb007, it´s true, it is subjective, and as you put it, yes, we would never agree upon the definition of "fair".
That being said there´s no need to go through what are the conditions for asserting the online casino´s fairness.
What i´ve been saying is only that I can accept these kind of results from an RNG, but I wouldn´t play RNG spins due to the reasons I exposed before.
Maybe the reasons I don´t trust RNG are the same reasons that lead you to feel confident about using them. And that is fine, I hope you succeed.
I see you know your stuff when it comes to betting opportunities over RNG spins and I hope I can learn from you as I do from others, my parachute is always open.
Wildcard
OK for the present we'll agree to disagree but
be warned -- I'll never stop trying to convince
you of the error of your ways!
I've used my software with RNGs and have input
a lot of spins from Dublinbet and I see no real
difference in results.
Regarding the "sleepers" in Sam's pics, I found that
one of Diarmaid's posted spins from Dublinbet had
a number which didn't hit for 259 spins - more than
I've seen on an RNG in over a year of testing.
I'm working on a prog which will, I hope, provide
conclusive evidence that there's no difference
between live wheels and RNGs as far as I'm
concerned but remember that I don't believe
in systems - just in waiting for a good bet.
Back to programming. Watch this space.
bjb007, what do you mean by error in my ways ?
I didn´t preach against RNGs, although i have the perception that they can seemingly produce not "pure" random results.
A straight up number can sleep well over 300 spins, and if your experience with RNGs shows otherwise, then maybe that´s a clue to understanding my point of view (above).
But let me stress that i also intuitively believe RNGs (with it´s virtues and defects) may not be of disadvantage to the gambler if they keep acting as "expected" of them.
Nevertheless i am comfortable with the idea of being proven incorrect on my assuptions.
You said:
Quotejust in waiting for a good bet
See ? We do agree upon a lot of things :D
I wish you good programming sessions, and i´ll keep an eye on what´s happening.
Wildcard
Well, here's a problem. You say
" But let me stress that I also intuitively believe RNGs
(with it´s virtues and defects) may not be of disadvantage
to the gambler if they keep acting as "expected" of them."
Why do you expect and RNG to act in a certain way?
And what way is that?
The only function of an RNG is to serve random numbers.
If you find that a disadvantage then why play roulette?
Can you prove that the numbers served by an RNG aren't
random? Fact is that if they are random it can't be proved.
So we have to tackle the problem in a scientific way - which
is to proved that they're not random.
Don't know how many numbers it would take to prove that.
Can you help with this?
Fact is that if they are random it can't be proved.
Therein lies the rub!
Prove to me your left foot itches. You may scratch it, but did it really itch? I doubt it!
Sam
bjb007, man, you´re really messing my words up.
I never said RNGs outcomes would be a disadvantage, i said the opposite, please re-read my post before this one.
For the record >> I believe RNGs do make random results. Can i prove it ? Of course not, that´s why i never use facts (although i prefer using facts) to support my beliefs, or my empirical observations, which can be flawed.
Why do RNGs "behave" a certain way ? Analogy time, i guess, since i´m not very good at explaining...
Imagine we are mechanics... We know our customers well, Mr. RNG is your client and drives around on a bumpy road while Mr. Wheel is mine and he drives on a smooth road.
As a mechanic, if you were betting what auto parts would your client need sooner, you would bet a new suspension, maybe new tires.
I wouldn´t bet my client, Mr. Wheel would be going for that. Maybe some brakes and gears.
LOL, what a crappy analogy, but you get my point.
Here´s an example of how RNG´s can be tricky to understand: TurboGenius ran a Million RNG spins in order to find out some "extremes" like sleepers.
You may already know his page nolinks://nolinks.freewebs.com/turbogenius/whatsthelongest.htm (nolinks://nolinks.freewebs.com/turbogenius/whatsthelongest.htm)
In here, as you can see, he says:
QuoteStraight up bets (betting on a single number)
payout is 35 to 1
odds of winning are 1 in 37
(European Table Single 0)
and 1 in 38
(American Table Double 0)
Most spins without a showing :
466 spins (2 numbers did this)
Second most without a showing :
449 spins (2 numbers did this)
Longest repeating number :
4 spins (14 numbers did this)
This sample totally clashes with your example of a single (real wheel) number never having slept for longer than 259 spins. It sure tells me something about RNGs... at least it tells me to beware of them ! Why are these results
Real Vs. RNG so different, can you account for that ?
Like i said above, i don´t doubt the RNG results are random... so your proposal for a scientific approach doesn´t apply to this issue.
But if you wish that we perform some kind of test on
RNG Vs. Actuals, i am available. Let me know and i try to help with anything within my reach.
Hi wildcard,
i don´t know where you get your results from:
found in Wiesbaden: one Number which failed to appear for 623times
found in Bad Harzburg: 6times #8 in a row
yesterday in Wiesbaden 169 spins 19 times #19
RNG´s can be tested and proofed to be random in a very simple way:
every 10000 numbers all data´s are looked at. No absolutely no result mustn´t be different to all known stochastical results.
Thats very easy.
The other thing is, that nobody can define what is "random". We only can proof what we think random to be.
br
winkel
Friends, Methinks you are arguing apples vs oranges.
Theres TRNG or True Random Number Generators and theres a program written to take your money. Whether TRNG and a real wheel will, over time, produce the exact results is not the issue. The issue is this: Do the casinos program their computers to cause you to lose by placing the puck where you are not? I am 98% certain they do.
One way to test this, and I have, is to play a system against the "fun" mode in a casino and against a trot of numbers generated at Random.org. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind the "fun" game is designed to suck you in. One other thing. I once played red and black with real money for about a hundred spins. I got about ten zeros.
The real money game? Well, how much am I willing to lose to prove or disprove it?
Sam
winkel and Samster, thank you for your posts.
winkel, i mentioned where i got the results from and what kind of spins they were.
The example from Wiesbaden gives further credit to my doubts about RNGs.
I became interested on those statistics from Wiesbaden, so i will try to look at them later, assuming they are from the Casino´s webpage.
TCS, very practical approach, spot on !
:)Hi Guy's -with regard's to sleeper's iv'e ran a test for 2 day's non stop and reached 8 million spins,some of the result's are as this-single number slept for 580 spins -split 290 spins -street 190 spins lane 97 spins 1 dozen 48 spins.Even money 28 spins.Testing the last 12 number's [unhit] i've had them hold outplaying live for 72 spins and the last 9 hold out 90 spins.The only advantage I can find is betting after a hit not before.
nolinks://vlsroulette.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;id=38 (nolinks://vlsroulette.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;id=38)
Theres about 200 RNG real $ numbers.
Sam
re your statement...
"Do the casinos program their computers to
cause you to lose by placing the puck
where you are not?"
The casino operators don't programme anything.
All the Playtech casinos use Playtech software
and all the numbers are generated by Playtech.
The casinos don't have their own RNG.
So the only question about Playtech casinos
is "Is Playtech honest".
Well, they've been around for a while and I'm
sure that if they were responsible for a con
of this magnitutude some authority somewhere
would have stopped them by now.
bj
As an American, I am forbidden access to PlayTech. Microgaming and others, yes.
Listen, my mind is open and I'm weighing everything you say. Frankly, I sincerely hope you are right!
Sam
Sam
I don't much like Microgaming. That's the
one which doesn't let you have a spin
without betting, isn't it? And graphically
they're pretty ghastly.
Don't understand how you can access
MG sites and not Playtech. Explain?
There are Playtech sites outside the USA
as well as MG. And probably both in the USA.
So what's the difference?
bj
There are no on-line casinos within the USA. Playtech decided on their own not to allow their feeds to go to any customer in the USA. Why MG does is a mystery to me. Why Riverbelle can show a live wheel is too. Why can't Ladbroke's? And Dublinbet is on VueTech, or something. They will not accept us.
I understand that Playtech either sells or leases their software to casinos. It has also been stated on this forum or the other one, that the software can be "tweaked" to the user's desire. One fellow even said he inquired about opening his own casino and was told the software could be tweaked to assure a profit, no matter what. Sure, you can hear or read anything. Now, even being in the USA, I have had offers to own my own casino! TwoCatCasino! I love it.
Perhaps this question is much like religion; we may never know.
Sam
There are people who offer to set up your
own casino but I doubt it's Playtech or
Microgaming or any other reputable company.
They have too much to lose and anyway I
expect that they charge a pretty hefty fee
knowing that the profits are practically
guaranteed and the set-up costs minimal.
And of course "someone said" is hearsay
and not admissable in court.
Well, my old friend, Coussin Golflable asks to weigh in on this one. Go Coussie
hooboy I tell you one something. Reminds me of poem by Oden Nash.
If you convinced me
And I convinced you!
Would not there still be
Two points of view?
Sam here....
Well, there you have it!