VLS Roulette Forum

I'm posting spin samples - each could be taken from a 'population' of RNG or actual spins from a real wheel. The challenge is to determine which is which. I'll post 3 samples per day until there are at least 100 samples. Each sample will consist of a sequence of 300 spins and the choice of which population to draw from is selected randomly. Feel free to submit your best guesses before I reveal which sample came from which population. The actuals were taken from DublinBet, and the RNG spins were generated by the 'rand()' function in the C programming language. Kindly keep this thread free from irrelevant topics, if you want to discuss, a related thread is here (nolinks://vlsroulette.com/index.php?topic=19611.0).

sample #1

5
22
5
6
14
33
30
24
28
23
34
5
13
17
11
28
3
4
0
1
6
12
30
21
31
1
15
3
16
3
24
5
26
36
8
14
27
20
13
26
12
7
0
3
4
18
10
30
19
2
33
22
33
36
21
15
23
12
23
11
27
7
17
31
4
13
35
33
31
6
14
16
16
7
34
23
27
13
29
23
30
30
28
7
0
24
34
6
9
12
11
21
25
36
24
11
16
17
7
27
2
25
17
14
27
23
4
25
25
11
24
23
16
25
7
2
36
13
30
27
6
31
4
16
32
28
22
21
11
35
7
31
7
36
23
22
4
27
17
14
32
15
21
5
21
1
14
1
22
20
6
24
12
0
17
35
26
2
6
35
0
10
7
12
36
21
34
7
8
28
33
14
26
24
17
28
29
4
21
16
30
11
13
19
9
30
10
21
0
6
13
3
27
36
9
16
12
31
5
33
34
29
31
4
26
14
30
13
32
15
9
8
34
15
30
20
10
18
4
32
0
30
28
35
0
21
28
11
32
13
11
4
23
20
17
35
16
33
9
24
23
12
2
8
36
34
16
30
17
0
14
9
3
14
4
30
8
26
33
9
34
16
29
34
15
4
24
31
34
4
25
14
6
16
7
30
27
9
32
11
17
2
22
30
7
23
29
8
35
15
2
1
13
7
19
21
6
7
7
26

sample #2

21
35
28
7
7
7
17
6
28
20
27
30
13
21
28
33
14
1
4
13
13
20
23
0
26
29
34
10
35
0
9
31
33
14
21
32
7
15
17
15
36
23
3
34
28
36
12
3
9
29
2
9
20
21
1
8
3
5
21
16
13
5
24
34
0
35
26
23
8
9
16
36
15
30
19
7
20
20
34
9
13
3
32
27
16
3
25
2
35
10
35
10
32
7
8
8
19
20
6
14
13
27
15
27
11
1
29
28
28
32
3
15
27
11
29
16
34
4
15
10
16
13
5
35
1
6
24
22
34
15
29
28
6
21
26
1
26
14
25
30
10
10
3
32
31
12
12
10
3
10
7
0
24
12
5
23
18
3
13
21
13
25
16
10
17
21
3
22
14
16
12
34
13
16
19
27
32
27
33
7
22
1
29
7
27
33
7
3
34
6
32
7
24
21
6
32
24
6
21
33
30
13
30
10
18
8
8
4
7
4
14
25
5
25
19
13
6
17
17
35
5
30
27
19
34
32
14
20
34
35
32
32
7
15
29
27
26
34
8
24
20
5
32
6
28
28
28
19
6
34
25
13
22
34
16
15
19
35
24
8
12
17
10
2
28
7
5
10
29
19
30
23
26
12
12
29
28
26
5
30
30
2
6
14
11
8
7
36
35
23
25
0
29
26
11
17
32
33
9
7

sample #3

13
29
9
19
29
20
19
6
30
2
16
27
29
29
27
1
9
16
6
25
23
34
31
20
29
31
30
32
17
35
12
4
21
8
30
12
30
10
21
7
27
3
16
3
29
13
3
21
32
18
35
35
23
20
32
36
15
8
11
25
5
36
4
7
17
29
11
30
24
20
1
24
7
4
35
8
24
32
36
31
19
6
29
25
33
8
28
28
12
27
8
8
19
33
17
27
22
13
3
35
4
20
0
32
34
10
1
29
4
35
27
0
35
24
3
18
14
13
15
36
19
0
9
8
33
12
23
9
10
31
15
23
23
21
34
8
6
7
13
8
23
23
29
20
23
30
3
16
17
23
12
35
36
31
10
19
24
27
7
15
31
25
22
18
31
14
29
14
12
5
11
34
1
31
1
30
10
24
1
26
19
18
33
2
26
35
7
15
16
10
24
10
32
14
11
10
4
19
24
30
25
3
33
19
11
32
25
1
25
35
9
11
12
34
20
10
26
18
0
8
1
1
32
10
27
12
18
31
18
13
16
28
8
10
19
31
24
31
15
29
29
33
26
30
20
26
15
23
25
33
20
29
33
35
5
17
31
10
24
31
17
22
28
32
28
35
6
5
19
0
33
32
26
24
27
0
0
9
2
18
0
35
12
30
20
35
13
0
26
17
19
0
20
2
17
6
29
8
11
13

first: actuals
second: rng
third: rng.

1. RNG
2. RNG
3. RNG

I like this challenge but I have a suggestion.

I can almost hear the slam from someone "You cheated and change the answer".

If you go here:
nolinks://nolinks.xorbin.com/tools/sha256-hash-calculator (nolinks://nolinks.xorbin.com/tools/sha256-hash-calculator)  and enter the answers and then post the hash number - that way the answers are frozen and can be verified.  For instance:

Sample 1: RNG
Sample 2: Wheel
Sample 3: RNG

If you copy the above and past in the Hash Box you get: 4bf062b68659ae33efbbb38ee8223da46157746f60ac16199a90fbc75113a66c

You have to be careful with invisible characters like spaces and carriage returns - they will change the Hash value.  You also must change the wording once in a while since it would be possible for someone to "reverse engineer" the answers from the Hash!!

But if no one cares then no need to do the above......

Good idea!

What I'll do is get the computer to generate a random sequence of 100 1's and 0's with 1 representing the samples which are actuals and 0 representing the samples which are RNG, then I'll get the hash value of this sequence of 10010111010010101...  In fact it will be easier and less error prone if I automate the whole thing and write a little program to get all the samples, selected according to the random sequence, and store them, then I can just post 3 per day.

Bayes's last three permanences are actuals.

Cheers,
Carlos.

sample #4

12
1
26
31
30
24
1
22
16
9
3
8
21
1
10
6
15
30
12
5
14
21
10
31
32
17
29
2
8
31
30
30
30
27
11
35
24
17
15
34
2
20
27
28
18
26
33
11
34
20
16
30
4
32
31
26
19
30
31
18
2
31
3
4
16
7
31
18
19
21
8
8
3
33
13
22
28
22
4
33
10
34
31
35
30
22
16
29
28
24
27
27
27
26
1
24
23
8
0
17
9
8
23
36
33
5
24
28
11
0
4
19
34
28
6
20
13
0
7
23
0
27
2
30
3
26
30
34
29
21
15
35
30
26
28
28
33
1
8
10
35
7
36
23
8
30
2
24
23
14
9
27
23
32
20
29
2
4
22
19
13
1
26
34
2
11
30
4
19
13
27
8
26
15
34
30
22
32
8
10
22
0
30
25
3
31
29
25
19
9
19
34
25
14
22
17
35
11
33
19
5
33
32
21
15
0
4
21
18
26
9
17
4
7
0
35
27
15
17
19
16
13
27
25
8
15
26
20
13
36
8
20
6
16
9
14
36
7
24
17
10
5
31
9
4
7
36
3
0
13
8
11
25
26
15
12
12
32
26
9
7
23
33
26
1
28
21
25
13
11
27
36
12
32
24
23
19
11
33
24
12
18
28
4
5
23
25
14
17
22
9
22
13
18
4
20
5
23
17
19


sample #5

15
22
18
26
4
28
11
25
7
28
34
6
2
20
25
36
27
14
27
14
0
12
35
23
28
33
0
21
32
31
22
32
1
13
4
5
0
20
18
15
2
34
8
4
24
13
24
32
15
8
26
32
13
32
19
12
12
4
27
13
24
6
22
31
7
32
27
29
16
1
32
32
1
0
34
3
17
24
13
33
0
17
28
13
34
0
22
29
34
14
17
15
33
15
6
15
27
16
19
9
29
36
3
2
0
12
7
22
35
9
16
1
18
14
1
14
5
18
31
0
19
2
12
9
36
11
34
23
22
10
22
36
16
7
28
2
34
5
8
6
18
34
20
12
26
9
27
18
14
4
33
0
35
13
19
15
11
25
20
19
25
27
6
21
32
16
22
31
23
27
4
12
18
17
12
30
23
13
35
7
2
24
16
30
6
22
5
16
12
11
24
4
33
2
13
20
15
18
9
17
2
16
1
22
13
23
17
20
4
36
33
1
22
34
4
19
2
1
15
32
15
35
35
17
5
19
12
14
19
5
13
36
5
17
6
20
19
7
22
19
3
14
26
20
14
24
21
3
20
36
17
8
36
15
3
21
11
16
9
25
22
7
21
14
28
4
24
25
13
36
14
29
16
32
19
9
31
25
17
21
19
25
15
1
16
17
26
18
12
3
9
34
1
14
20
26
30
25
24
20


sample #6

23
11
0
33
6
29
15
36
22
19
31
28
10
35
3
12
3
22
5
18
24
32
15
0
24
13
4
20
35
17
10
13
5
22
27
34
20
3
29
25
12
20
12
3
30
30
35
7
21
11
29
24
32
29
35
8
27
5
15
32
17
19
2
10
19
34
10
29
18
0
16
9
33
3
10
33
16
9
15
0
29
20
25
32
0
7
21
34
33
24
6
19
4
33
26
3
35
36
27
28
24
28
1
36
4
17
17
15
22
16
30
11
2
0
33
15
20
17
2
33
10
11
35
30
26
32
18
20
27
33
23
3
9
25
20
8
15
21
15
25
31
30
3
16
10
31
28
21
14
11
35
35
19
22
4
6
30
5
21
13
25
10
22
27
7
19
22
22
30
26
14
4
24
22
15
29
22
0
11
24
33
31
9
13
33
15
0
6
34
2
1
14
2
35
22
36
16
17
27
36
24
31
18
8
21
6
32
5
22
16
23
20
14
9
20
18
2
28
30
28
24
15
1
17
11
22
10
16
8
30
34
25
6
21
31
16
34
31
5
32
0
2
23
11
19
24
6
9
2
6
21
29
29
31
26
27
20
32
19
30
30
17
21
20
15
29
20
14
33
15
32
35
26
25
22
15
34
9
0
34
12
5
1
11
20
20
31
16
3
10
4
26
7
13
5
18
23
12
35
6

 :)

1: rng

2: rng

3: rng ?

4: actuals

5: rng

6: actuals?

Ok, the hash value for the sequence of all 100 samples is:

8736ae0434d6c6158bb98608046a2b6aa91d91bcf6a6f520f3b21155f7748cf8

As I said in a previous post, the sequence is 1's and 0's. So supposing the first 6 samples I posted were Actuals, RNG, Actuals, RNG, RNG, RNG, the sequence would then start - 1,0,1,0,0,0... (1 = actuals, 0 = RNG). So when I finally reveal what each sample is, you can go to the site nolinks://nolinks.xorbin.com/tools/sha256-hash-calculator (nolinks://nolinks.xorbin.com/tools/sha256-hash-calculator) and enter the entire sequence and you should get the same hash value. Be sure to enter the sequence in the box in this exact format:

1
0
1
0
0
0

If you get the same hash value, it guarantees I haven't changed the sequence AFTER you've posted your best guesses. Of course, it doesn't guarantee that the actual sequences really do corresponding to actuals or RNG, but what would be the point of me deliberately cheating in that way? Even though I'm sceptical that anyone will get a good score, it would be great if someone did. That wouldn't mean that some online casinos aren't rigged, but it would be some evidence that there is a difference between RNG and actuals.

Note that if you CAN detect a real difference, this means that you're no worse off playing against an RNG as opposed to a real wheel (or vice-versa). Suppose you have found that RNGs are more 'streaky' (as some people have claimed). In that case you would play for more streaks, or if you've found that numbers tend to bunch together more in a real wheel, then you can design a system to take advantage of that. If there's a difference and you know what that difference is, then you have MORE relevant information, not less. It won't mean that you won't play RNGs, just that you'll play them differently from wheels. But then, it may be that not all RNGs are created equal in terms of the patterns they generate, so it might be a question of doing research on each one, in the way that a VB player doesn't assume every wheel is beatable, but has to study each one on a case by case basis.

Bayes, thanks for the hash feature, but you will just have to trust that I won't change my guesses because I've already smoked all my hash...  ;D

Quote from: bombus on December 31, 2011, 03:26:57 AM
:)

1: rng

2: rng

3: rng ?

4: actuals

5: rng

6: actuals?

bombus, you've made a good point there. If anyone isn't sure what a sample is, then just leave it and go onto another. It won't affect the overall results. If there are SOME samples you're fairly sure are one or the other, and you're right, that's still a good result. If you skip a lot, then of course it means that there won't be so much 'weight' of evidence, but I can always post more samples.  :)

Quote from: bombus on December 31, 2011, 03:31:53 AM
Bayes, thanks for the hash feature, but you will just have to trust that I won't change my guesses because I've already smoked all my hash...  ;D

;D

May as well post the next lot even though it's only been a few hours. I may not post tomorrow, depending on the strength of my hangover.  :)

sample #7

10
27
18
13
4
27
18
25
12
27
17
1
33
16
18
30
7
33
16
9
4
26
19
24
8
19
36
0
9
17
11
24
26
9
20
10
35
8
30
13
12
23
7
16
21
20
29
4
23
17
0
32
20
23
7
16
22
13
17
12
34
26
29
19
1
12
9
22
34
23
23
31
7
5
13
33
17
9
18
17
7
35
36
13
19
3
15
28
20
26
26
24
27
26
9
27
25
26
7
11
34
8
3
23
13
2
22
13
17
32
27
14
9
6
3
30
36
15
14
6
18
13
13
1
24
28
31
29
1
7
4
17
31
12
12
10
7
5
21
34
19
24
27
16
9
33
35
7
30
32
8
7
31
2
2
19
20
4
27
7
18
21
22
4
21
7
20
12
4
6
33
22
17
33
21
4
20
32
9
21
34
26
3
13
36
23
16
5
11
3
3
19
18
23
13
9
1
3
31
10
21
34
10
14
10
33
16
36
22
34
22
36
9
9
5
8
12
30
8
33
32
34
1
11
15
4
36
34
5
12
16
25
34
8
13
13
30
34
18
20
28
30
26
16
23
27
20
11
11
15
0
31
4
34
26
1
26
31
7
6
30
6
16
2
22
30
28
20
0
8
32
12
18
11
7
36
1
18
16
4
10
7
17
36
35
14
12
10
26
21
23
0
34
33
1
34
36
18
7
35


sample #8

35
26
19
18
24
15
30
28
28
2
12
23
2
6
28
9
6
2
17
35
18
24
35
32
15
26
2
17
31
21
18
18
28
29
18
12
8
1
21
25
5
27
18
8
31
20
11
26
21
33
5
9
26
21
17
2
31
20
21
14
0
28
6
25
19
17
4
35
25
15
27
19
6
25
16
22
9
22
11
19
22
6
10
16
11
11
15
28
33
32
28
32
8
26
35
19
20
8
30
2
15
8
11
0
31
33
10
3
7
35
34
14
28
23
3
17
20
1
36
30
27
34
28
26
9
16
10
18
6
29
16
0
17
11
7
29
14
23
9
15
12
25
4
16
36
33
7
0
3
3
5
27
34
5
20
35
2
4
16
17
25
28
15
17
32
19
8
0
35
8
8
13
31
13
14
9
26
27
3
13
34
18
27
27
12
28
10
24
0
9
14
30
11
13
24
1
33
28
6
31
19
35
12
0
27
28
10
28
16
6
8
36
21
10
27
34
7
7
5
6
17
36
36
35
34
18
36
33
19
8
36
15
20
20
24
26
13
16
36
1
3
4
36
35
12
7
19
22
32
18
19
21
34
33
34
31
10
33
11
25
24
11
9
6
29
18
17
35
29
8
31
31
23
0
11
35
27
3
26
14
3
32
4
2
13
22
1
33
0
27
35
31
15
17
10
26
14
22
21
5


sample #9

21
14
31
34
3
23
31
6
8
13
28
33
15
1
29
9
26
10
16
32
6
24
5
8
36
9
14
1
24
25
13
13
7
30
2
6
22
16
32
12
2
23
29
5
9
17
1
9
4
20
36
18
24
29
14
34
15
15
26
20
35
17
23
27
6
14
3
6
33
29
3
17
32
4
30
4
33
8
6
3
31
11
17
16
17
22
19
25
7
12
6
5
16
33
27
28
6
22
28
4
9
29
4
22
12
8
35
7
36
3
9
26
30
4
36
5
2
12
29
5
11
27
0
11
4
33
4
20
27
22
6
27
22
18
36
29
8
10
6
0
16
13
1
24
6
1
19
20
6
19
10
5
28
9
3
18
27
4
9
2
4
12
20
20
29
24
20
4
14
25
22
35
1
15
36
26
31
3
33
6
36
28
19
16
2
22
7
18
5
21
1
19
16
22
33
35
2
31
18
1
18
18
36
23
0
7
30
14
14
35
27
2
18
25
10
19
24
14
23
15
0
6
30
17
11
5
6
8
1
33
22
13
35
13
0
21
2
10
16
31
33
9
20
35
11
8
10
34
22
11
3
12
27
20
18
11
2
1
4
9
26
34
31
30
5
15
7
24
14
27
23
11
32
13
23
19
12
13
14
17
29
25
22
33
10
32
0
27
8
8
21
28
36
30
18
16
16
20
8
1

:)

1: rng

2: rng

3: rng ?

4: actuals

5: rng

6: actuals?

7: rng? This was a tough one but I intend to take a shot at every sample.

8: actuals

9: rng

9a: hangover, definitely a hangover.  ;D :lol: ;D

Hi Bayes .  .  .  love the topic .  .  .  I put all your spins through one of my systems and these are the results:

1.   Loss

2.   WIN

3.   Loss

4.   WIN

5.   Loss

6.   Loss

7.  WIN

8.   Tie

9.  WIN

Would be nice if all the WINS matched either the actuals or RNG. 

In any event, have a great 2012.    Nick

Quote from: bombus on December 31, 2011, 08:52:54 PM
9a: hangover, definitely a hangover.  ;D :lol: ;D

On a scale of 1-10, it's about a 7.

Booze is the answer, now I can't remember the question.  ;D

Ok, next bunch of samples. BTW, if you want some feedback at any time, just let me know, no need to wait until they're all posted.

sample #10

0
25
11
5
18
33
17
30
16
34
11
8
30
16
16
35
6
11
16
7
29
23
20
7
18
8
30
15
8
27
13
36
19
24
19
20
2
13
34
13
32
7
20
25
29
21
32
4
21
21
9
9
23
28
5
16
7
15
17
2
34
4
15
7
2
3
12
28
25
3
8
36
18
27
10
5
30
26
35
32
8
6
8
19
14
17
36
24
36
27
18
7
34
10
27
1
32
3
8
24
0
33
25
28
34
28
11
26
1
34
15
29
13
1
9
30
14
19
29
15
30
2
20
11
29
25
14
29
12
1
13
6
18
34
10
12
29
7
22
32
23
1
35
2
4
25
0
10
27
3
0
4
12
15
15
24
1
30
20
20
2
35
6
1
21
31
23
7
6
13
6
26
34
29
17
1
36
1
33
4
32
36
4
1
9
7
7
3
36
7
4
36
13
22
13
8
25
30
23
0
29
31
3
1
18
32
33
13
35
16
33
0
33
21
17
23
12
1
33
8
7
19
35
21
24
29
8
30
26
22
17
24
8
11
30
30
24
24
14
8
28
30
32
3
13
30
31
17
4
1
24
33
24
7
32
26
32
5
31
7
9
29
24
21
36
10
8
11
13
35
22
12
25
4
6
17
9
32
11
31
14
23
0
30
11
36
1
6
25
2
1
24
15
31
9
28
35
23
15
25


sample #11

20
6
32
32
8
14
27
25
25
15
29
23
7
4
0
16
10
15
11
6
3
27
36
33
29
9
29
4
5
22
15
12
30
18
6
2
23
35
34
17
8
22
30
9
36
14
6
0
19
24
31
36
23
25
27
23
7
14
23
0
27
32
3
20
36
8
2
33
15
26
15
18
24
22
9
32
7
36
4
20
2
10
32
31
32
2
26
13
26
13
12
13
2
7
9
1
6
13
28
13
2
22
13
27
17
28
9
5
11
33
35
30
18
16
11
9
20
14
2
29
16
21
2
0
35
33
16
21
19
25
14
29
32
36
2
7
31
12
26
20
36
14
11
27
11
34
22
16
29
11
6
11
29
15
14
9
3
0
22
36
36
33
34
31
34
8
17
33
12
20
13
27
9
4
34
5
9
20
12
3
35
3
28
9
26
18
14
23
2
7
24
24
24
13
31
17
36
10
31
35
14
29
33
2
17
3
24
13
20
22
17
5
33
24
31
28
24
3
11
11
17
8
15
14
13
33
36
34
29
14
13
21
11
24
13
13
12
20
6
3
23
6
22
25
32
0
30
4
25
27
32
20
31
6
11
17
16
1
16
24
2
33
26
26
15
7
5
15
3
32
33
2
34
1
20
6
5
25
4
34
32
29
31
23
22
17
21
12
15
2
30
20
36
12
35
10
18
29
36
33


sample #12

27
5
28
33
6
8
26
23
13
29
0
7
25
34
10
15
12
20
1
20
33
4
34
18
15
29
13
32
19
0
10
22
35
33
10
28
7
11
35
16
17
32
14
3
34
16
2
3
3
27
35
14
23
7
28
23
5
5
21
13
21
7
25
21
19
30
23
17
36
13
20
15
11
2
27
12
15
18
18
3
7
8
9
11
11
24
28
16
2
9
31
35
21
29
2
32
13
6
34
19
34
6
5
22
28
23
7
16
19
31
9
15
19
9
3
32
14
9
23
0
1
13
11
7
34
22
3
18
14
8
13
17
17
18
15
1
28
31
35
34
26
11
34
4
36
5
23
21
8
28
36
11
0
27
5
21
1
15
14
19
18
10
2
30
36
4
0
26
7
36
6
13
12
23
9
8
17
6
1
36
9
35
18
14
32
27
18
25
10
36
23
36
22
22
7
5
32
31
22
26
35
13
35
9
30
23
31
29
33
22
16
22
32
24
30
11
20
20
19
0
4
3
17
32
22
18
33
35
20
16
30
2
36
8
18
5
22
2
13
29
7
27
0
36
18
22
22
2
33
20
14
3
34
19
21
10
15
7
13
28
16
25
12
27
6
32
35
20
1
26
17
11
9
31
33
23
18
21
18
26
32
34
8
17
3
3
21
6
34
0
27
5
35
13
29
31
15
22
17
0

:)

1: rng

2: rng

3: rng ?

4: actuals

5: rng

6: actuals?

7: rng? This was a tough one but I intend to take a shot at every sample.

8: actuals

9: rng

10: actuals

11: rng

12: actuals?

Where are you other guys? Don't tell me you gave up after onlly  3 samples?  :nono:

@ Bayes, if my way of testing this is working then I should either be getting a lot right or a lot wrong. If I'm getting about half right & wrong then my method is failing, but no need for feedback as yet. Let's just keep going for now.

Cheers.

Happy New Year everyone!

I can't tell the difference and unless a battery of statistical tests are run no person is going to know the difference; certainly not by looking at the raw numbers.

I'd bet the statistical tests show no difference either - but that's just a guess.

I thought there were folks who could "read" raw numbers from the wheel and "understand" random numbers - where are you guys here?  I remember about a year ago folks belittling me and telling me I just didn't "read" the spun numbers correctly to pick the next bet on the board - where are you guys????

I do believe in a "streaking"/"Pattern" and a "choppy"  wheel - does anyone have a definition that quickly decides whether the Marquee is showing a streaking wheel or a choppy wheel?  Thanks....

1.    Loss

2.    WIN

3.    Loss

4.    WIN

5.    Loss

6.    Loss

7.   WIN

8.    Tie

9.   WIN

10.   Loss

11.   Loss

12.   Loss

The only thing I can tell so far is my system is losing more than winning.

Would appreciate an update to see if any of my wins or losses matches either the actuals or RNG.   Thanks  Nick

Hi Nickmsi, look out for a pm.

Quote from: MauiSunset on January 01, 2012, 11:15:35 AM
I thought there were folks who could "read" raw numbers from the wheel and "understand" random numbers - where are you guys here?  I remember about a year ago folks belittling me and telling me I just didn't "read" the spun numbers correctly to pick the next bet on the board - where are you guys????

Actually, I'm getting a better response than I thought I would on this. Those who made the most noise are nowhere to be seen, words are cheap but when it comes to actually demonstrating what they claim...  ::)

QuoteI do believe in a "streaking"/"Pattern" and a "choppy"  wheel - does anyone have a definition that quickly decides whether the Marquee is showing a streaking wheel or a choppy wheel?  Thanks....

Off the top of my head, I can think of a couple. A simple one is just look at the length of streaks, if no streak is longer than 3 it could be defined as choppy, or if you play 'FTL' (play the same as the last outcome) and this results in a flat bet loss over the sequence of spins, then it's also choppy.

sample #13

29
15
6
10
36
6
25
28
0
11
24
19
1
6
26
0
28
18
24
4
34
17
20
29
26
27
22
34
29
22
25
28
3
6
9
20
27
1
18
27
18
6
31
6
25
34
22
19
14
31
2
23
35
18
28
13
28
20
35
34
14
20
26
31
9
3
34
19
22
10
16
8
2
15
28
6
0
27
24
25
5
6
6
35
20
9
14
32
16
8
4
21
4
32
29
5
11
32
33
15
13
16
20
9
27
29
17
36
17
6
19
14
2
31
23
30
33
17
6
13
18
1
21
5
26
33
31
1
5
5
17
30
12
25
22
0
14
14
14
18
18
1
32
25
29
27
10
19
11
14
23
8
6
10
32
13
32
34
8
36
26
14
20
19
18
1
6
20
4
26
27
23
2
20
32
11
24
14
0
13
24
19
6
6
13
20
0
17
13
7
19
29
15
36
5
14
32
23
30
24
1
22
35
33
31
25
33
22
1
25
26
27
19
0
2
24
24
22
28
10
29
6
13
23
29
12
29
4
5
31
32
4
4
33
36
35
11
24
29
33
25
17
31
0
5
27
16
18
0
8
19
7
25
22
32
29
27
19
6
8
16
0
27
17
21
12
29
23
34
14
2
31
14
31
3
34
3
7
27
34
0
27
26
0
0
15
15
28
6
7
12
17
20
6
13
18
17
4
8
19


sample #14

20
14
29
12
35
8
10
4
12
14
7
9
14
1
8
24
2
20
6
22
2
9
5
22
17
9
32
13
23
24
8
2
21
30
1
35
9
4
10
34
13
30
12
27
10
4
18
7
8
25
36
23
27
5
29
24
14
5
8
12
26
12
12
9
17
30
30
5
0
31
3
22
1
22
20
8
19
17
8
23
36
9
24
9
30
0
29
32
5
30
17
29
21
34
36
2
25
6
30
35
6
25
30
26
27
21
18
25
0
13
21
17
27
3
32
18
9
4
12
27
4
1
11
29
5
25
12
2
22
24
25
15
22
32
25
27
31
18
32
7
23
3
26
10
34
34
11
15
34
27
19
30
27
22
14
12
11
34
19
29
23
2
2
20
8
28
29
9
30
5
11
28
10
33
27
20
33
20
21
2
27
6
21
23
14
10
12
16
35
34
26
27
6
5
23
15
35
21
11
28
1
11
16
16
33
4
32
30
4
29
12
15
22
26
23
26
18
32
31
6
0
35
1
17
24
26
1
1
25
22
15
30
33
28
36
9
14
0
8
23
35
13
10
20
16
21
30
22
17
4
20
20
14
10
26
19
17
18
34
16
13
5
8
33
30
10
19
8
23
32
36
19
30
3
1
17
5
4
11
30
26
31
4
23
36
7
31
14
0
13
35
23
30
18
35
22
7
25
28
14


sample #15

36
30
31
27
0
8
12
17
12
17
0
27
11
30
25
6
2
23
21
14
14
21
23
16
5
4
22
25
1
34
11
17
29
10
35
14
33
21
26
23
14
13
27
22
27
20
19
36
9
20
26
30
24
25
5
19
35
19
16
17
24
33
32
6
1
2
10
22
8
27
25
22
35
35
29
20
9
15
26
2
14
12
13
31
9
18
24
23
8
28
7
26
21
0
36
1
20
9
2
34
0
8
26
5
5
11
36
30
16
35
33
17
36
16
25
31
8
26
18
35
31
30
28
10
16
31
9
5
13
9
11
19
21
26
26
35
5
11
23
23
29
31
31
35
5
8
21
8
25
2
19
15
35
36
34
22
36
30
23
29
13
30
18
4
15
8
13
16
23
19
11
20
2
35
35
0
14
31
4
29
7
24
13
24
19
26
26
1
17
3
20
5
5
3
1
23
10
17
16
2
31
5
35
18
14
19
12
27
20
3
14
11
7
34
9
19
23
27
10
15
20
21
2
13
4
16
2
33
0
30
23
32
23
35
23
21
17
24
25
36
30
23
7
21
1
19
14
21
35
1
12
35
17
27
25
34
29
33
33
13
17
17
13
29
21
3
31
34
22
13
33
13
30
17
17
2
0
10
31
34
21
4
14
23
30
21
10
20
0
1
18
13
21
6
25
32
29
25
29
5

sample-4/rng/
sample-5/actuals/
sample-6/rng/
sample-7/rng/
sample-8/rng/
sample-9/actuals/
sample-10/rng/
sample-11/rng/
sample-12/actual/
sample-13/actual/
sample-14/rng/
sample-15/actual/
thanks Bayes for the topic

Quote from: Bayes on January 02, 2012, 05:36:32 AM
Actually, I'm getting a better response than I thought I would on this. Those who made the most noise are nowhere to be seen, words are cheap but when it comes to actually demonstrating what they claim...  ::)

Off the top of my head, I can think of a couple. A simple one is just look at the length of streaks, if no streak is longer than 3 it could be defined as choppy, or if you play 'FTL' (play the same as the last outcome) and this results in a flat bet loss over the sequence of spins, then it's also choppy.

Thanks,

Personally I just use my method of picking Red/Black and when it is wrong 3 times in a row I assume the wheel is choppy and do the opposite until it loses 3 times in a row and then assume a streak is happening.  Would love to to shorten that to just 2 wrong predictions before changing.

But thanks.....

This is the simple truth, take or leave it:

1. How winning numbers are generated with RNG and real wheels is very different, so of course there is a difference. The cause and effect is different. If you dont know what to look for, of course they'd both look random.

2. If you look at spins only, you may look at reds/blacks and in this case, you will be very unlikely to know the difference. But that is not to say there is no difference - only that you dont know the difference. You have a chance to find a difference with bias analysis, but very unlikely over such a low volume of spins unless you have more detailed data. There are other types of patterns but unless you segregate and have detailed data, you are either likely to find very weak or statistically inconclusive patterns (or differences from rng).

3. If you have good quality data, and I mean much more than mere spin results, then certainly you can establish very clear differences between rng and real wheel spins. Does rng have dominant diamonds? Can you measure ball speed and ball fall points of rng? If you only have mere spin results, you will not have enough data for proper analysis.

Whoever suggests there is no difference between rng and real spins doesnt know what they're talking about. It is not a matter of opinion - it is simple fact.

Quote from: Steve on January 02, 2012, 05:35:34 PM
This is the simple truth, take or leave it:

1. How winning numbers are generated with RNG and real wheels is very different, so of course there is a difference. The cause and effect is different. If you dont know what to look for, of course they'd both look random.

2. If you look at spins only, you may look at reds/blacks and in this case, you will be very unlikely to know the difference. But that is not to say there is no difference - only that you dont know the difference. You have a chance to find a difference with bias analysis, but very unlikely over such a low volume of spins unless you have more detailed data. There are other types of patterns but unless you segregate and have detailed data, you are either likely to find very weak or statistically inconclusive patterns (or differences from rng).

3. If you have good quality data, and I mean much more than mere spin results, then certainly you can establish very clear differences between rng and real wheel spins. Does rng have dominant diamonds? Can you measure ball speed and ball fall points of rng? If you only have mere spin results, you will not have enough data for proper analysis.

Whoever suggests there is no difference between rng and real spins doesn't know what they're talking about. It is not a matter of opinion - it is simple fact.

Easy to say - just demonstrate it in the challenge.

Should be easy as pie.....

You didnt read what I wrote.

Quote from: Steve on January 02, 2012, 06:05:35 PM
You didnt read what I wrote.

I guess you've lost me.

If you can't tell the difference in the ongoing competition then you are living in a land that does not exist for the rest of us gamblers.

There are hundreds/thousands of spins in the challenge - if you can't tell the difference do you then need millions of spins?

How many lifetimes would you need to spend waiting for the number of spins to analyze - hell the wheel would wear out by then....

Quote from: MauiSunset on January 02, 2012, 06:09:04 PM
I guess you've lost me.

If you can't tell the difference in the ongoing competition then you are living in a land that does not exist for the rest of us gamblers.

There are hundreds/thousands of spins in the challenge - if you can't tell the difference do you then need millions of spins?

How many lifetimes would you need to spend waiting for the number of spins to analyze - hell the wheel would wear out by then....

:suicide: :suicide:

@bombus, I sent you a PM.

cheers

:)

1: rng

2: rng

3: rng ?

4: actuals

5: rng

6: actuals?

7: rng? This was a tough one but I intend to take a shot at every sample.

8: actuals

9: rng

10: actuals

11: rng

12: actuals?

13: rng?

14:actuals

15: rng

Maui, I needed only look over the data and see only spin and after spin and nothing else. The data is wrong from the start.

With the correct data, and depending on the method you use, the time between analysis and actual profitable play is typically 30 mins - 12 hours. For professional players, that is nothing. It is more obscene to spend 8 hours each day for peanuts.

Quote from: Steve on January 02, 2012, 06:17:55 PM
Maui, I needed only look over the data and see only spin and after spin and nothing else. The data is wrong from the start.

With the correct data, and depending on the method you use, the time between analysis and actual profitable play is typically 30 mins - 12 hours. For professional players, that is nothing. It is more obscene to spend 8 hours each day for peanuts.

Oh come one - this is just psychobabble - a spin is a spin.....

Quotethis is just psychobabble - a spin is a spin

Yeah you got me. Just psychobabble  :-[

Quote from: Steve on January 02, 2012, 06:41:07 PM
Yeah you got me. Just psychobabble  :-[

I have not doubt no person here will be able to tell the difference between a RNG and actual spins.

In fact I'll put money where my mouth is - If there is a "winner" of the challenge now running - I will donate $25 USD to the winner's favorite charity.

I don't think a "winner" has been defined so I'll do it here - someone that can guess 75% correct answers - 3 times as many winners as losers - that would be eye opening.  If there are dozens of winners then the person with the the highest number of wins.

This is your big chance to make $25 USD for your favorite charity - and that could be you if you decide.....

Quote from: Steve on January 02, 2012, 05:35:34 PM
This is the simple truth, take or leave it:

1. How winning numbers are generated with RNG and real wheels is very different, so of course there is a difference. The cause and effect is different. If you dont know what to look for, of course they'd both look random.

2. If you look at spins only, you may look at reds/blacks and in this case, you will be very unlikely to know the difference. But that is not to say there is no difference - only that you dont know the difference. You have a chance to find a difference with bias analysis, but very unlikely over such a low volume of spins unless you have more detailed data. There are other types of patterns but unless you segregate and have detailed data, you are either likely to find very weak or statistically inconclusive patterns (or differences from rng).

3. If you have good quality data, and I mean much more than mere spin results, then certainly you can establish very clear differences between rng and real wheel spins. Does rng have dominant diamonds? Can you measure ball speed and ball fall points of rng? If you only have mere spin results, you will not have enough data for proper analysis.

Whoever suggests there is no difference between rng and real spins doesn't know what they're talking about. It is not a matter of opinion - it is simple fact.

Steve, I would have thought you'd have welcomed this challenge, it will give you an opportunity to actually SHOW (not just make bald assertions without any back-up) that what you're selling really is a 'genuinewinner'.

This is what you say in the FAQ on your site:

QuoteQ28. Does your system require you to "see" the wheel?

While there are benefits to visually observing the wheel, you do not NEED to actually see the wheel. You can win solely from monitoring the marquee alone (winning number displays). The system has been tested against literally millions of real-life Spielbank Hamburg spins which are simply lists of spins that tell you nothing about what the wheel physically looks like - the test results were still clearly positive.

You also emphatically assert that spins coming from an RNG are NOT beatable, because there is no physics involved. But if you can win solely from monitoring the marquee, then obviously there is no physics involved there either, yet you claim 'clearly' positive results.

I have to admit I'm confused.  :-\

What you wrote above means nothing. Any comparison between RNG and actual wheels, in the context of bias analysis, ie; taking into account the state of the physical device, ball, dealer, humidity etc is absolutely meaningless. I think most of us get that, so no need to keep repeating it.

And what do you mean by 'the cause and effect is different'? There are two things here - the cause, and the effect. It IS possible for different causes to create the same effect, no rocket science involved there.

And why do you assume that anyone would look at red and black to find the difference? there are a very large number of sophisticated statistical tests which could be put to the task. And you say there are 'other types of patterns' but that 'unless you segregate and have detailed data...'.

What do you mean by 'detailed' data? in this case, the data is only the data on the marquee, that's all you need, right?
Then you go on to talk about dominant diamonds and ball fall points, but like I said, we get that part, and it's completely irrelevant to what you claim.

It all seems like smoke and mirrors to me. How about a straight answer - is your system up to this challenge or not? and if not, why not?

Quote from: MauiSunset on January 02, 2012, 06:50:13 PM
I don't think a "winner" has been defined so I'll do it here - someone that can guess 75% correct answers - 3 times as many winners as losers - that would be eye opening.  If there are dozens of winners then the person with the the highest number of wins.

Maui, if anyone gets 65 or more out of 100 correct then that's good enough for me. That would be 3 standard deviations above the mean.

Bayes, you too didnt read what I wrote. Lets just leave it at that I dont know what I'm talking about. Its all smoke and mirrors. The ball lands wherever it wants to, and the winning number is not due to any variables such as physical properties of the wheel and ball, and its all random without any predictability... all the same as rng. Ok??

I have to be honest here your actions (as in replying to posts) often confuse me Steve...... :girl_wacko: :girl_wacko:

When anybody says something like "I don't agree with you Steve your talking rubbish...." you reply "yes I'm talking rubbish" in a condescending manner........

When anybody says something like "this looks like a great way to prove your wares Steve......." you answer "Oh I'm busy/I cannot be bothered"

For a businessman your PR department leaves a lot to be desired  ;)

Quote from: Bayes on January 02, 2012, 07:43:46 PM
Maui, if anyone gets 65 or more out of 100 correct then that's good enough for me. That would be 3 standard deviations above the mean.

I'm assuming that 50 of the 100 sets is RNG and 50 wheel - I'd want to see something that makes it clear that just random luck didn't pick enough winners - so I'm sticking with 75% accuracy for my contest. If someone can tell the difference it should be close to 100% accuracy....

Quote from: MauiSunset on January 02, 2012, 06:50:13 PM
I have not doubt no person here will be able to tell the difference between a RNG and actual spins.

In fact I'll put money where my mouth is - If there is a "winner" of the challenge now running - I will donate $25 USD to the winner's favorite charity.

I don't think a "winner" has been defined so I'll do it here - someone that can guess 75% correct answers - 3 times as many winners as losers - that would be eye opening.  If there are dozens of winners then the person with the the highest number of wins.

This is your big chance to make $25 USD for your favorite charity - and that could be you if you decide.....

Маui, it is not worth 25 bucks. this is a hard work. if u were talking at least a few hundred bucks to the pocket of the winner, then u would find a few winners for sure. Who would take this challenge for 25 bucks? c'mon...
that's ridiculous.

See below:

QuoteWhen anybody says something like "I don't agree with you Steve your talking rubbish...." you reply "yes I'm talking rubbish" in a condescending manner........

This means I dont want to waste the time

When anybody says something like "this looks like a great way to prove your wares Steve......." you answer "Oh I'm busy/I cannot be bothered"

Do you know how many times I have proven my claims, from public demos to open challenges? It is well past the point where if people cant see it, they wont see anything. Should I really waste so much time repeating it all? Or should I just get on with things? Would you if you were me? While sales are still profitable, consider 'sales' of anything is not my focus.

For a businessman your PR department leaves a lot to be desired

Perhaps, but I have the luxury of not needing to care, and just get on with my work. My players know what I do for them.

No one disputes that a physical wheel creates the numbers in a different way than a software RNG or a hardware RNG. They are all created 3 different ways.  The question is can you see the difference by just looking at the numbers.  To verify that, what you need is number samples like bayses generates. 

Quote from: MauiSunset on January 02, 2012, 10:58:18 PM
I'm assuming that 50 of the 100 sets is RNG and 50 wheel -

At this point I'm virtually the only one openly participating in the challenge (maestro seems to be having a go too), and I never assumed there would be 50% rng & 50% actuals.

Hey, even spike/cheese only gets 72%... :o

Quote from: iggiv on January 02, 2012, 11:02:37 PM

Маui, it is not worth 25 bucks. this is a hard work. if u were talking at least a few hundred bucks to the pocket of the winner, then u would find a few winners for sure. Who would take this challenge for 25 bucks? c'mon...
that's ridiculous.

It seems I'm ridiculous, so if I win I'll donate the $25 to iggiv!   ;D

Bombus, win first :))

QuoteThe question is can you see the difference by just looking at the numbers.

Without more variables/data, unlikely. If we're talking about just spin after spin and nothing more, yes you can do it if its the same wheel AND you have enough data. But it would not be realistic on all wheels. For most wheels, you will realistically need more data. If the wheel's variables changed, and you didnt know about the change, then you are less able to segregate and know when patterns start and end. Then you cant define patterns properly.

I checked samples 1-6 and although I dont believe there is anywhere near enough data for proper analysis, sets 1,3 and 5 look most like real wheel spins. For proper analysis, you need much more. There is not even segregation to direction in the spins.

Yeah but even if by standing next to wheel taking data, i doubt you would not be able to find the exact same number stream also generated by a software RNG.  Im not disputing  the spin to spin preditability on a physical wheel when knowing what is happening in the wheel. You would have to look under the "hood" in the RNG algorithm to do something similar on the software RNG.  There are people here though that claims they can tell the difference by simply looking at the numbers.  Personally i doubt that any number stream, asuming no biased wheel,  from a casino is also possible in a software RNG.   Which means no one can tell the difference by just looking at the numbers.

Its your turn now, cheese.

I have NO doubt that hundreds of years ago it was possible to write down numbers spun by the wheels and relate them to a dealer and come up with maybe a 1% to 3% or 5% edge over the house - subtracting the 2%+ house edge that leave a net increase of 2%.

Then there was all the cheating done by casinos with magnets.

Why not just buy a casino and do the same thing legally - more money and far easier?

However, today with the wheels that are tested by computers and the rotation of the dealers what would the "edge" be?  1/10 of 1% until the next dealer switches in 60 minutes from now?

My opinion is that this is a topic that started 200+ years ago and ended 20+ years ago but its fun to talk about "secret" tricks that have nothing to do with probability or statistics - totally worthless in my opinion.

But I'm just 1 gambler - who cares...............

Maui, my players regularly achieve around 80% hit rates covering 15 numbers. The house edge is obliterated.

See VIDEO RECORDING of our roulette computer device being publicly demonstrated, with a 93% win rate betting 15 numbers on a modern wheel with bouncy ball - that's a win on almost every spin, in difficult conditions:
nolinks://nolinks.roulettesystemanalysis.com/m/publicdemo.wmv (nolinks://nolinks.roulettesystemanalysis.com/m/publicdemo.wmv)

This is common. It is happening every day. But do you expect it to be plastered all over the newspapers? Or do you expect it to be more underground? Please lets not waste more time.

Quote from: Steve on January 03, 2012, 01:54:44 AM
Maui, my players regularly achieve around 80% hit rates covering 15 numbers. The house edge is obliterated.

See VIDEO RECORDING of our roulette computer device being publicly demonstrated, with a 93% win rate betting 15 numbers on a modern wheel with bouncy ball - that's a win on almost every spin, in difficult conditions:
nolinks://nolinks.roulettesystemanalysis.com/m/publicdemo.wmv (nolinks://nolinks.roulettesystemanalysis.com/m/publicdemo.wmv)

This is common. It is happening every day. But do you expect it to be plastered all over the newspapers? Or do you expect it to be more underground? I really dont know why I waste my time explaining it all to people like you. It admittedly frustrates me how little people know yet they are so convinced they do.

About a year ago I held a competition for folks to demonstrate, in real time with a real Roulette live wheel, just how good they were with their systems.  Only 1 person took me up on my challenge and the results were just random.

Looking at anything not live is like watching a magician make a rabbit pop out of their hat - it's just a illusion.

I know if I run a challenge again there will be 1001 excuses why folks can't demo their systems in front of us live so I won't even try this year...

Quote from: Steve on January 02, 2012, 08:40:42 PM
Bayes, you too didnt read what I wrote. Normally I would explain more but I honestly cant be bothered. Lets just leave it at that I dont know what I'm talking about. Its all smoke and mirrors. The ball lands wherever it wants to, and the winning number is not due to any variables such as physical properties of the wheel and ball, and its all random without any predictability... all the same as rng. I dont know what I was thinking.

Steve, here it is in black and white on your site:

QuoteQ28. Does your system require you to "see" the wheel?

While there are benefits to visually observing the wheel, you do not NEED to actually see the wheel. You can win solely from monitoring the marquee alone (winning number displays). The system has been tested against literally millions of real-life Spielbank Hamburg spins which are simply lists of spins that tell you nothing about what the wheel physically looks like - the test results were still clearly positive.

Sorry, but it can't be clearer than that. All talk of segregating data, spin direction etc is completely irrelevant to your claim, so why do you keep banging on about it? Is it possible to win consistently by merely looking at past spins on the marquee? according to your statements, it is. If that's the case, then why do you even mention other factors being necessary when you say they aren't?

Everything you've said in this thread and the other one implies that in fact you DO need this other data - mere spin results from the marquee are NOT enough. In which case, what you say in the FAQ is extremely misleading, at best (and that's being charitable).

sample #16

21
22
4
31
32
7
0
0
11
35
35
27
7
33
9
18
29
27
3
1
16
22
0
1
23
17
1
6
13
24
2
22
11
14
36
34
17
17
22
0
16
13
26
9
18
25
12
13
10
34
3
22
30
16
3
23
8
36
8
23
20
7
34
8
30
27
16
11
9
5
18
19
12
11
35
12
6
10
16
14
19
23
26
21
30
14
2
20
28
34
22
16
13
8
20
11
23
10
32
9
24
27
6
2
20
5
4
28
15
31
9
10
30
17
13
8
27
24
4
34
20
30
13
10
27
32
20
21
19
23
1
25
14
20
2
9
9
23
4
12
5
35
17
13
9
14
26
18
20
21
5
18
12
1
14
18
30
13
9
31
30
11
18
10
5
18
33
4
17
30
28
35
29
11
25
8
5
13
29
18
14
26
18
20
2
0
2
0
18
14
3
32
35
27
20
16
7
31
27
7
22
32
2
1
15
23
34
14
32
8
9
5
28
33
18
15
13
25
10
30
13
24
20
26
13
25
35
6
27
35
9
13
29
22
36
23
36
19
6
16
26
18
0
9
20
23
11
26
7
34
11
29
4
27
6
14
17
9
2
1
9
31
33
10
35
33
6
21
30
11
5
14
25
6
17
5
4
0
16
1
25
26
34
20
7
14
27
24
5
2
30
32
17
2
13
9
20
34
3
34


sample #17

15
8
35
3
13
21
10
0
30
29
6
27
27
14
32
32
31
11
8
15
36
20
27
26
2
28
6
13
8
17
31
34
5
6
23
26
12
32
13
36
32
19
20
26
26
18
7
8
35
11
2
13
19
9
29
15
22
31
11
8
23
33
35
7
10
14
10
23
0
2
32
1
3
6
33
28
12
5
21
7
7
6
36
15
9
3
27
32
29
20
31
16
20
24
11
19
2
30
16
16
23
2
0
0
1
16
23
34
31
31
35
13
23
8
0
14
3
28
36
10
20
4
15
9
36
20
23
30
25
12
25
13
23
0
35
25
18
15
22
16
5
13
14
18
28
17
25
21
34
1
8
2
34
0
11
8
28
27
22
27
8
28
6
26
32
26
20
9
27
1
28
0
26
14
6
5
13
20
7
17
33
30
9
27
30
27
12
10
17
6
29
7
35
27
4
36
11
28
26
0
34
35
11
22
13
29
0
5
26
7
10
33
4
7
9
25
27
26
30
4
35
29
6
5
32
19
1
10
15
31
7
3
4
30
19
26
29
4
29
0
24
34
18
35
0
10
20
25
18
4
25
33
0
35
7
19
0
33
31
20
10
12
0
27
20
34
33
30
32
14
35
19
3
1
5
25
10
25
21
17
17
36
20
30
18
35
32
22
2
28
9
22
8
11
10
9
19
20
27
2


sample #18

20
34
10
1
5
27
9
7
23
21
10
32
22
30
7
14
25
0
22
23
25
0
29
25
1
33
26
16
16
25
12
28
1
19
11
24
11
4
23
29
28
9
32
13
21
31
16
33
16
35
5
29
34
9
3
22
31
24
24
34
36
4
34
15
0
34
6
35
27
35
28
10
19
15
8
27
0
24
18
6
4
12
23
13
4
33
18
15
8
1
35
22
7
28
5
12
14
14
2
16
30
2
13
26
27
12
19
21
13
1
2
9
24
17
7
33
25
25
25
6
2
12
28
36
19
13
25
21
1
7
4
24
35
8
2
2
14
12
33
14
36
30
28
6
34
21
1
34
1
15
11
32
8
31
9
23
12
27
7
6
34
25
18
5
21
8
18
14
11
24
19
27
12
27
9
34
32
35
10
36
19
32
36
22
24
30
20
2
1
24
12
5
33
2
14
14
2
31
13
27
17
22
20
5
28
21
6
22
13
33
3
21
23
31
16
12
9
20
31
29
2
33
27
19
33
24
33
36
31
31
10
5
27
16
4
4
26
5
8
8
12
26
22
10
26
3
9
5
33
11
9
14
29
8
3
12
30
26
8
16
12
1
34
22
0
16
15
7
21
8
1
28
25
22
0
22
6
14
5
1
20
14
36
12
23
17
1
23
20
20
18
9
33
6
36
7
9
34
21
33

:)

1: rng

2: rng

3: rng ?

4: actuals

5: rng

6: actuals?

7: rng? This was a tough one but I intend to take a shot at every sample.

8: actuals

9: rng

10: actuals

11: rng

12: actuals?

13: rng?

14:actuals

15: rng

16: rng

17: actuals?

18: rng?

So far I have the tally at 11 x rng, and 7 x actuals.

I generated the samples by writing a program. The program selected a 1 or 0 randomly and then fetched each sample according to the result (1 =  actuals, 0 = RNG). It did this 100 times to generate 100 samples.

Quote from: Bayes on January 03, 2012, 06:46:04 AM
I generated the samples by writing a program. The program selected a 1 or 0 randomly and then fetched each sample according to the result (1 =  actuals, 0 = RNG). It did this 100 times to generate 100 samples, and the result was 49 RNG and 51 actuals, but that's the only clue you're getting.  :biggrin:

This is great - I assumed 50/50 which is what Mother Nature gave us with random numbers.  I wonder what 100 spins of a wheel would have given us with Black being RNG and Red for wheel?????

If I were holding this challenge I'd have made all 100 from various casino wheels that could be verified later.  That would have provided hours of entertainment for me.

But that's me  :diablo:............

sample-4/rng/
sample-5/actuals/
sample-6/rng/
sample-7/rng/
sample-8/rng/
sample-9/actuals/
sample-10/rng/
sample-11/rng/
sample-12/actual/
sample-13/actual/
sample-14/rng/
sample-15/actual/
sample-16/rng/
sample-17/actuals/
sample-18/actuals/

@ Bayes,

Thanks for posting all these numbers, you're a good sport, mate.

To keep it interesting I think it might be time to reveal some results, what do you think?

How about from here on you post the next 3 samples & the first 3 results, etc?

Cheers.

ok bombus, the first 3 samples were:

sample #1 - RNG
sample #2 - Actuals
sample #3 - Actuals

Note that the samples start from the those I posted in THIS thread. There were a couple from the other thread and those were both Actuals.

I'm going to be away for a couple of days, so the next 3 samples will be posted on Friday - take a break!  :)

@ Maui, the actuals I'm using are publicly available, but obviously I'm not going to reveal where you can get them until I've posted all 100 samples (or until the test ends). Initially I started using my own spins from Dublinbet, then realised I wouldn't have enough. Ideally it would be best to have gathered the spins myself, so I can't be 100% sure that these spins are 'accurate' because I don't have the details of how they were collected (for example, sometimes the marquee doesn't reflect the true spin result because of errors in the optical readers), but I'm fairly confident that the source is reliable in this case.

sample #19

0
19
5
6
30
31
14
11
4
36
25
26
21
23
24
23
14
28
22
12
34
34
4
29
11
22
6
2
33
23
6
12
6
21
2
11
29
31
13
20
35
0
26
10
25
6
26
19
17
29
9
22
16
26
12
22
13
23
26
17
31
10
19
13
19
8
27
21
33
21
11
23
15
27
13
2
1
33
4
29
3
32
32
18
3
16
16
14
2
13
16
24
30
34
1
3
34
17
24
30
27
10
31
29
4
27
19
21
20
21
17
19
9
12
1
33
17
10
34
2
9
12
28
3
25
11
25
9
35
22
31
29
36
5
5
29
10
3
30
20
17
15
0
19
1
28
34
15
20
36
23
2
6
20
0
9
13
25
3
33
12
16
23
17
24
24
26
14
4
20
15
23
29
20
14
9
23
6
18
4
15
26
30
11
5
14
33
29
4
11
24
29
25
22
5
0
7
19
7
19
10
10
23
10
19
8
14
18
15
29
31
1
32
29
7
1
33
17
16
6
32
33
23
27
28
33
25
31
26
10
4
31
4
17
22
10
32
3
24
4
1
10
27
25
26
34
4
35
16
6
13
2
17
18
3
33
12
25
16
21
26
33
14
1
14
5
7
18
34
24
30
4
7
22
8
3
9
11
19
33
25
13
28
29
18
0
24
17
28
30
1
16
11
12
25
12
15
31
36
9


sample #20

28
20
10
11
11
34
16
2
16
20
27
2
2
3
4
7
0
13
8
16
1
16
32
0
36
1
1
33
11
5
28
30
25
35
21
33
4
35
3
8
34
12
26
8
14
24
33
19
12
26
11
29
5
24
20
6
35
15
30
29
3
14
5
15
28
7
23
18
0
34
1
21
0
19
25
22
14
14
15
29
36
10
35
25
30
17
23
13
10
4
34
32
20
34
31
9
13
2
2
8
34
6
19
25
5
33
13
6
0
21
31
21
14
32
31
7
35
6
10
0
11
33
1
7
20
2
2
31
33
11
19
1
27
34
24
2
25
10
13
36
4
17
13
14
35
9
21
12
15
2
25
27
16
19
30
29
0
2
33
27
30
27
26
36
13
18
22
9
2
14
12
3
24
14
3
28
2
7
31
5
6
14
35
0
5
29
34
24
30
7
21
17
18
5
9
5
26
5
19
28
24
1
35
18
19
21
8
8
5
18
11
23
3
16
11
15
28
18
0
31
34
29
7
21
12
11
29
18
25
7
21
5
34
36
33
9
22
13
32
12
21
34
22
31
3
19
31
16
28
15
26
15
8
2
34
20
27
36
0
2
6
32
33
35
8
1
29
13
29
36
9
21
30
11
15
30
2
33
27
23
18
11
26
13
21
12
35
35
4
36
20
34
4
19
24
24
36
36
11
33


sample #21

2
26
17
19
8
13
13
21
35
31
6
18
14
36
24
26
35
33
15
11
33
1
3
3
15
13
1
31
23
21
3
31
9
32
25
25
8
33
5
5
22
25
9
23
31
7
7
20
8
36
16
6
18
36
9
21
34
26
5
0
19
22
29
10
11
27
2
22
8
25
13
21
36
23
7
18
10
27
36
31
10
34
8
1
9
21
26
16
23
31
6
26
3
31
3
7
4
21
29
29
23
19
26
32
36
0
3
24
3
15
25
24
2
36
33
16
23
23
4
26
14
1
9
17
27
4
23
24
21
25
36
29
31
7
31
3
17
2
6
23
26
35
36
0
16
16
24
34
1
32
5
14
3
20
21
30
33
6
2
24
23
11
30
5
9
17
16
9
14
5
19
36
18
7
17
34
13
21
22
1
31
3
15
19
25
26
9
10
34
28
1
10
5
28
15
14
11
4
3
13
23
17
12
7
32
32
31
17
26
24
34
10
17
4
23
5
2
28
17
14
10
27
8
18
2
11
36
0
14
35
18
18
4
12
27
30
10
29
28
23
14
36
28
7
12
25
15
11
5
1
14
25
11
30
11
14
9
9
24
22
32
26
11
25
27
1
34
15
3
27
32
17
12
31
11
11
31
22
15
0
29
27
5
25
17
30
32
35
23
31
22
23
8
8
7
34
15
30
1
17

sample-4/rng/
sample-5/actuals/
sample-6/rng/
sample-7/rng/
sample-8/rng/
sample-9/actuals/
sample-10/rng/
sample-11/rng/
sample-12/actual/
sample-13/actual/
sample-14/rng/
sample-15/actual/
sample-16/rng/
sample-17/actuals/
sample-18/actuals/
sample-19/actuals/
sample-20/actuals/
sample-21/rng/

:)

Have a nice break, Bayes.

1: rng

2: rng

3: rng ?

4: actuals

5: rng

6: actuals?

7: rng? This was a tough one but I intend to take a shot at every sample.

8: actuals

9: rng

10: actuals

11: rng

12: actuals?

13: rng?

14:actuals

15: rng

16: rng

17: actuals?

18: rng?

19: actuals?

20: actuals

21: actuals?

sample #4 - Actuals
sample #5 - Actuals
sample #6 - RNG

sample #22

34
15
19
26
20
3
7
25
4
0
35
6
27
25
6
19
1
28
16
21
10
6
13
11
20
7
7
2
2
15
28
28
20
17
6
31
23
11
5
26
23
15
2
23
29
9
30
8
1
19
19
24
10
23
4
22
25
7
15
14
6
36
16
30
11
28
11
0
35
10
0
25
5
4
9
6
11
22
31
23
20
0
11
10
24
17
6
23
2
11
23
23
4
12
15
36
1
14
17
28
0
28
26
31
17
28
5
20
10
9
27
18
9
15
26
29
3
36
32
5
15
22
0
14
31
13
6
2
1
36
5
5
25
4
4
8
27
29
10
7
20
26
25
18
31
9
28
3
5
0
16
31
21
19
24
6
31
24
12
32
13
24
28
36
10
6
2
7
22
15
34
8
33
13
22
10
33
7
6
9
27
13
21
16
34
21
22
13
21
7
3
34
2
10
13
7
16
31
0
31
6
29
19
33
17
0
10
19
0
20
1
12
29
28
18
0
6
25
10
15
31
0
36
26
11
4
29
7
28
36
4
3
31
12
13
36
29
18
4
7
10
9
16
23
32
25
22
23
24
21
30
26
31
32
36
13
34
14
12
4
26
27
21
8
26
0
11
0
12
21
30
9
5
21
26
18
17
13
33
5
14
27
13
33
5
28
22
9
34
6
2
31
33
1
35
24
0
11
36
2


sample #23

26
18
31
1
15
18
25
6
14
23
12
11
35
7
33
34
6
18
23
8
4
14
35
25
30
8
29
9
1
1
9
19
20
30
11
11
19
9
1
10
13
21
28
7
19
26
30
35
28
24
8
9
23
5
32
10
2
19
28
27
19
33
25
5
0
18
35
12
23
13
20
7
8
7
15
27
15
19
2
10
26
2
11
2
1
15
19
33
14
33
27
13
29
26
18
30
19
12
14
6
21
4
14
17
12
10
34
35
18
34
28
16
14
18
20
25
9
18
1
5
5
5
16
6
26
28
32
4
17
3
12
30
11
29
24
21
4
22
35
33
27
7
3
36
7
28
21
4
8
22
22
19
29
0
17
8
7
12
35
19
10
20
14
12
27
26
20
2
35
35
5
21
36
23
7
15
21
23
2
17
30
3
14
20
26
10
17
19
7
26
32
22
12
18
8
27
27
3
9
18
11
4
6
0
6
18
9
10
33
32
25
25
35
8
19
27
11
28
5
4
21
5
31
32
1
26
19
2
8
9
31
13
19
32
24
9
8
2
15
4
22
9
2
31
19
9
5
25
0
8
5
1
9
35
36
33
30
36
33
12
4
17
20
9
1
36
11
12
0
24
30
15
2
22
32
36
16
17
16
32
7
17
3
10
4
14
16
5
2
2
1
21
11
0
18
23
9
9
27
10


sample #24

33
19
16
23
25
3
3
33
6
7
20
35
34
22
36
28
4
16
34
1
32
21
0
33
33
25
11
18
31
1
34
3
30
20
30
30
27
27
29
13
32
25
15
16
31
25
23
26
5
31
14
33
11
18
34
25
2
10
15
18
34
23
18
0
0
33
15
16
16
32
4
28
26
29
12
23
25
17
30
30
29
36
11
7
29
21
10
23
20
4
27
21
24
13
14
22
22
32
3
29
5
12
35
6
24
12
18
33
17
3
15
18
17
17
0
27
12
7
18
34
24
25
24
26
30
1
27
11
3
28
29
22
20
10
36
13
11
32
11
19
34
20
4
22
26
17
1
0
12
16
26
22
31
15
17
14
25
18
36
31
36
19
14
34
19
36
20
13
36
36
23
9
10
35
34
36
0
30
0
22
22
27
11
14
12
32
31
15
23
9
32
27
36
11
7
24
5
24
6
5
0
2
22
9
7
0
6
29
6
3
22
1
24
36
34
29
12
14
13
12
5
33
17
2
18
22
29
17
29
23
9
8
25
19
11
10
21
35
14
21
15
3
9
2
10
2
33
14
4
36
15
12
4
25
24
13
10
16
3
35
19
4
28
26
30
8
20
7
35
11
27
28
35
18
6
6
25
9
20
1
19
36
16
19
26
32
2
15
33
23
7
6
24
30
8
8
33
36
26
21