Ok, here we go again!
When I played the other day I saw something. Number 2 and 5 are linked in a way, I don't know how, but they just are. If you watch a serie of spins you will see that if for example 2 comes out first, number 5 will come out in the next 12 spins very often.
Not just that, not so often but it sure does from time to time is that it looks like this: 2,5 or 5,2. The other number hits directly on the first spin. That is what I call a hallelujah moment!
I think it is the same way with number 4 and 7.
So, how can this be? Don't ask me, because I don't know. But I really do not think that it is totally random. How can a computer know which number it will choose? It has to be some kind of pattern. But, i don't know :P
It is things like that one that makes me think that it is not totally random.
Now, come with your fine answers. I'm here to listen to what you know.
Bring it on!
/Fripper
RNG's are not true random in the extreme short term. They mimic true random in the long term and this is apparently good enough for the math crowd.
What is "true" random? This suggests that there is some ideal standard of random by which other RNGs are, or should be, judged. But there is no such thing.
Good pseudo-RNGs (software generated) pass all the randomness tests, and so are judged to be random, even though the means by which the numbers are generated is ultimately deterministic.
What is "true" random?>>>
The purest true random comes from decaying radioactivity. The atmospheric noise random.org uses is close. A roulette wheel is close enough. The psuedo random spewed out by RNG's is a joke.
Quote from: Bayes on May 25, 2010, 04:27:26 AM
What is "true" random? This suggests that there is some ideal standard of random by which other RNGs are, or should be, judged. But there is no such thing.
Do you think flipping the cards of a deck is the same as the colour results from a roulette wheel,
they're both 50/50 & random!
The lack of maths knowledge you maths nazi's have is infinite!
Glenn.
QuoteThe psuedo random spewed out by RNG's is a joke.
Assuming you're not dealing with rigged software (in which case you're facing an impossible task) then why can't you learn to "read" a particular RNG? In principle, why couldn't this be done?
If you say you can't "read" pseudo-RNGs maybe that's only because you haven't spent enough time trying to beat them.
QuoteDo you think flipping the cards of a deck is the same as the colour results from a roulette wheel,
they're both 50/50 & random!
Yes, where did I say they weren't? what's your point?
Quote from: MiniBaccarat on May 25, 2010, 04:42:23 AM
Do you think flipping the cards of a deck is the same as the colour results from a roulette wheel,
they're both 50/50 & random!
Quote from: Bayes on May 25, 2010, 04:46:24 AM
Yes, where did I say they weren't? what's your point?
Well they are DIFFERENT!
Real random is different to RNG!
Quote from: MiniBaccarat on May 25, 2010, 04:42:23 AM
The lack of maths knowledge you maths nazi's have is infinite!
Glenn.
then why can't you learn to "read" a particular RNG? >>>
The short term results aren't the same, they're unreliable. Long term results match true random, and that makes everybody happy.
Its funny, when those RNG virtual roulette setups hit Vegas, all the old timers said they were bogus, they couldn't play them. It was the short term random that was screwing them up, they just couldn't voice it..
QuoteWell they are DIFFERENT!
Real random is different to RNG!
Glenn, you're not making any sense. On the one hand you say that they are both 50:50 random, but also that they're different. The characteristics of any random game are determined completely by the probability distribution. It doesn't matter how the outcomes are actually generated, whether by cards, dice, roulette or an RNG. There's no way anyone can distinguish between them.
It doesn't matter how the outcomes are actually generated>>
It most certainly DOES matter. RNG's are called 'psuedo' for a reason. The definition of psuedo is: 'False or counterfeit; fake.' True random and fake random and they're the same? Not in this universe.
When I first started playing, I practiced on both all the time. I realized after about 6 months that they were different, I never got as good a result on RNG's as I did on a real wheel.
So basically, you're saying that pseudo-RNGs are more random than "true" RNGs, because you can't find any dependable characteristics in them.
you're saying that pseudo-RNGs are more random than "true" RNGs>>>>
I used to think that, now I think the random is different, not more or less. Lets call it more chaotic.
Random is random! ;D Where do u get off with more random or more chaotic random? ;D
It seems to me that "random" is subjective. A thing may appear random until you understand it - so it's a function of your state of knowledge. Are there such things as inherently random events? maybe, but isn't one of the things which drives science the belief that there is no such thing as "random"? Einstein, when discussing quantum mechanics, said "God does not play dice". He believed that there is an underlying order to the way the universe works. Understanding that order is work in progress.
It seems to me that "random" is subjective.>>
Whatever. All I can tell you is I can't beat RNG's worth a damn and I can beat real random all day long. You trust RNG's, you play em. Makes no difference to me, its your money..
QuoteYou trust RNG's, you play em.
It's not a question of trust. Like I said, you can't beat rigged software. You're saying that a pseudo-RNG is unbeatable, even if it's fair.
I don't think so. . .
A computer can only do what it is told. Thus, it's randomness is based on what a person told the computer to do. But that doesn't mean that a RNG doesn't look random. . .
When I was learning C++ the first type of "randomness" I would learn was time-based. This would give you short-term results that looked random but after a while you could find I pattern. This was easy to fix though, as you could just make a number appear less often if it appeared to many times already and make it look like "stuff evens out in the end".
As an example, the RNG I play tends to even out quite well within only 500 spins. The hitrate on the zero is always between 2% and 4%. Random?
At least that is what I believe and thus I am more focused on trying to beat the RNGs rather than the live wheel. I think that is doable by playing alot while observing and taking notes. I have currently a system that works well until I get a a message telling me that I have been inactive to long (usually only a few seconds when this happens). When I get back I always lose my money. . .
You're saying that a pseudo-RNG is unbeatable, even if it's fair.>>>
It is for me. But as I said, what do I know. Play it till the cows come home, its YOUR money.
I have seen that it is the same with numbers 13 and 31. They do from time to time hit directly after eachother, take a look at it.
So, any ideas for that? How can this be?
Thanks for the answers this far, it is fun to read and learn a few new things =)
everybody sees the numbers in a different way. with me . it is 12.19. 8.and 17. can you make a system out of this. you could walk around the casino and every time you saw the numbers that you think follow one another back them. you will find out if you are right.
Dublin Bet, live wheel, table 1, 17&34. :thumbsup:
I've noticed these two wheel neighbors tend to follow each other fairly consistently on this wheel. When either of them hit, I play both with a small stake for 10 or so spins. When one wins I stop then wait for either to show again before starting another attack... Nice little spot play while betting other things.
Quote from: Jakkalsdraai link=topic=16349. msg109910#msg109910 date=1274777351
Random is random! ;D Where do u get off with more random or more chaotic random? ;D
They're just fooling themselves. .
You can find anything in pseudo random. .
If you look long enough. .
Better to understand a little than to misunderstand a lot. . !
RNG is random enough in that it passes third party auditors checks, but that doesn't mean it is as random as true randomness. What this means to me is that I can (nearly always) gain the edge in RNG instead of hoping for a run of luck with real randomness as real true live wheel randomness is utterly undeniably indefinably random. Some say seeing numbers that link a lot in rng is just your own individual pattern recognition that your brain interprets as bias. Is this rng linking mumbo jumbo provable by testing? Probably yes, but no one seems to care about someone else's set of linked numbers as they conflict with their own set of numbers (tunnel vision). Flipper started this thread with his head scratching that the numbers 2, 5 and 4, 7 had a bias in rng. Those numbers have been known about for a long time before Flipper noticed a bias with them and they are part of some of the other linking paired numbers that exhibit high bias I play (with a lot of success). The guy who discovered the bias linking numbers in rng has a roulette site called nolinks://nolinks.fouroulette.com (nolinks://nolinks.fouroulette.com) theres a page called predict roulette with all 37 numbers and what bias each number exhibits. It could be he's deluding himself and deluding me, but I if I am deluded then I hope I stay this deluded long in to the future. I have a list of linking numbers that go beyond the fou roulette list which I was going to share with a guy on another forum for testing called tacticalmethods.com but that site has disappeared or I just can't find it, does anyone know where it is now?
Quotedoes anyone know where it is now?
I think it has closed down, the last thread was asking for donations, guess none came forward to donate.
Bayes will know
Hi Ulysses,
Yes, superman is correct (I've sent you a p.m.). If you have some spins (playtech, MG, wagerlogic) I will write some code to see if the "linked numbers" theory holds up. By "holds up" I mean - does playing these sets of numbers give any better results than expectation? Personally I'm sceptical that they do, but nothing ventured, nothing gained!
Quote from: Ulysses on July 16, 2010, 10:04:39 PM
RNG is random enough in that it passes third party auditors checks, but that doesn't mean it is as random as true randomness. What this means to me is that I can (nearly always) gain the edge in RNG instead of hoping for a run of luck with real randomness as real true live wheel randomness is utterly undeniably indefinably random. Some say seeing numbers that link a lot in rng is just your own individual pattern recognition that your brain interprets as bias. Is this rng linking mumbo jumbo provable by testing? Probably yes, but no one seems to care about someone else's set of linked numbers as they conflict with their own set of numbers (tunnel vision). Flipper started this thread with his head scratching that the numbers 2, 5 and 4, 7 had a bias in rng. Those numbers have been known about for a long time before Flipper noticed a bias with them and they are part of some of the other linking paired numbers that exhibit high bias I play (with a lot of success). The guy who discovered the bias linking numbers in rng has a roulette site called nolinks://nolinks.fouroulette.com (nolinks://nolinks.fouroulette.com) theres a page called predict roulette with all 37 numbers and what bias each number exhibits. It could be he's deluding himself and deluding me, but I if I am deluded then I hope I stay this deluded long in to the future. I have a list of linking numbers that go beyond the fou roulette list which I was going to share with a guy on another forum for testing called tacticalmethods.com but that site has disappeared or I just can't find it, does anyone know where it is now?
Hi Ulysses
Are the two sets of numbers completely different, and do you have more success with one than the other?
Thanks
BW
Thanks Superman I got a p.m off Bayes today.
QuoteIf you have some spins (playtech, MG, wagerlogic) I will write some code to see if the "linked numbers" theory holds up. By "holds up" I mean - does playing these sets of numbers give any better results than expectation? Personally I'm sceptical that they do, but nothing ventured, nothing gained!
You can use any spins from the rng 'actuals'. To test them with code is difficult as a computer simulation doesn't allow for the emergence of patterns in play that alter a human user to change to a different set of linked numbers. I mean I only play them when my gut feeling is right which is based on past experience of playing these numbers. I wouldn't allow a computer bot to dictate the state of play as it would need to be as complex as human brain, but taken as a limited test I don't see why not.
If you still want to test, just use 3 link pairs to see how they perform with the 2-5, 4-7 and 6-9 or if you want test even more together with 11-28, 18, 33, 12-21, 13-31, 23-32 whatever you decide to test remember that when a marker number lands like 9 you test it to see if 6 or 9 hit within 18 spins maximum. You can lower this spin betting range to see if it works optimally better but as I said before its not using human logic to determine the best course of action when its cold coded and making absolute decisions. Doesn't bother me what the test will produce but it would bother me if it was used in real money play by others as a bot, as I just dint believe bots are usefull for this style of play.
QuoteAre the two sets of numbers completely different, and do you have more success with one than the other?
hi buffalo wiz, yes the two sets are different, the 4 and 7 have a slight edge on the 2 and 5. I wait for a virtual win before playing either of them.
Quote from: Ulysses on July 17, 2010, 10:13:48 AM
Thanks Superman I got a p.m off Bayes today.
You can use any spins from the rng 'actuals'. To test them with code is difficult as a computer simulation doesn't allow for the emergence of patterns in play that alter a human user to change to a different set of linked numbers. I mean I only play them when my gut feeling is right which is based on past experience of playing these numbers. I wouldn't allow a computer bot to dictate the state of play as it would need to be as complex as human brain, but taken as a limited test I don't see why not.
If you still want to test, just use 3 link pairs to see how they perform with the 2-5, 4-7 and 6-9 or if you want test even more together with 11-28, 18, 33, 12-21, 13-31, 23-32 whatever you decide to test remember that when a marker number lands like 9 you test it to see if 6 or 9 hit within 18 spins maximum. You can lower this spin betting range to see if it works optimally better but as I said before its not using human logic to determine the best course of action when its cold coded and making absolute decisions. Doesn't bother me what the test will produce but it would bother me if it was used in real money play by others as a bot, as I just dint believe bots are usefull for this style of play.
hi buffalo wiz, yes the two sets are different, the 4 and 7 have a slight edge on the 2 and 5. I wait for a virtual win before playing either of them.
When you say you wait for a win, do you mean after a hit within 18 spins, then bet those numbers to hit again for 18?
Thanks Ulysses
Quote from: Ulysses on July 16, 2010, 10:04:39 PM
RNG is random enough in that it passes third party auditors checks, but that doesn't mean it is as random as true randomness. What this means to me is that I can (nearly always) gain the edge in RNG instead of hoping for a run of luck with real randomness as real true live wheel randomness is utterly undeniably indefinably random. Some say seeing numbers that link a lot in rng is just your own individual pattern recognition that your brain interprets as bias. Is this rng linking mumbo jumbo provable by testing? Probably yes, but no one seems to care about someone else's set of linked numbers as they conflict with their own set of numbers (tunnel vision). Flipper started this thread with his head scratching that the numbers 2, 5 and 4, 7 had a bias in rng. Those numbers have been known about for a long time before Flipper noticed a bias with them and they are part of some of the other linking paired numbers that exhibit high bias I play (with a lot of success). The guy who discovered the bias linking numbers in rng has a roulette site called nolinks://nolinks.fouroulette.com (nolinks://nolinks.fouroulette.com) theres a page called predict roulette with all 37 numbers and what bias each number exhibits. It could be he's deluding himself and deluding me, but I if I am deluded then I hope I stay this deluded long in to the future. I have a list of linking numbers that go beyond the fou roulette list which I was going to share with a guy on another forum for testing called tacticalmethods.com but that site has disappeared or I just can't find it, does anyone know where it is now?
Yes you are right Ulysses. I found the site fourroulette.com and started to investigate. I was suprised by how often it does work, but then it comes to several games that your "magic" numbers just sleeps. This is random and you can'tnow when it's going to happen. If you do, you will make money. It is fun tho, to look at these numbers and se them hit after eachother from time to time. You get a little excited, atleast I do.
So you are saying that you play these numbers and that 4-7 has a little advantage of 2-5? Waiting for a virtual win sounds nice, maybe I will test that. I'm not into coding but if someone tests this, please share what you have found.
Do you think that every number has a "partner" Ulysses?
QuoteWhen you say you wait for a win, do you mean after a hit within 18 spins, then bet those numbers to hit again for 18?
Stage 1: No I meant wait for a win without betting up to 18 spins like this 27 34 7 17 19 6 22 28 10 4
Stage 2: Now wait for the next showing of 4 or the 7 up to 18 spins like this 0 33 4 (start betting the 4 and 7) 14 35 23 18 16 29 4
Repeat stage 2
note: do not keep betting 4 and 7 after a win. Always wait for another fresh 4 or 7 before betting it for 18 spins max.
QuoteI was surprised by how often it does work, but then it comes to several games that your "magic" numbers just sleeps.
Yes it would be nice if we had the world handed to us on a plate with these numbers working every time but it comes down to strategy when I play them. I make conscious decisions whether I bet or not. If it is sleeping I bide my time and wait it out. When I recognise its reemergence is getting stronger I bet with higher stakes. Remember there is nothing 'magical' about these linked numbers except that they show me a higher probability of producing a wins more often. Remember to that I play lots of different linked pairs at different times, it comes down to my own experience with playing this style for instance some games there will be no need for me to play 4,7 or 2,5 it all depends on the current state of numbers in play that dictates what and when to bet. I would say its best that you just have fun with it Flipper (and anyone else) rather than risk money unless you learn to put a strategy in place with more experience of what to look out for.
QuoteQuote from: Bayes on July 17, 2010, 07:29:26 AM
If you have some spins (playtech, MG, wagerlogic) I will write some code to see if the "linked numbers" theory holds up. By "holds up" I mean - does playing these sets of numbers give any better results than expectation? Personally I'm sceptical that they do, but nothing ventured, nothing gained!
Have you started any coding bayes? If not I will try and code myself. Do you know of a similar program that I can use as a skeleton template to adjust code for this system?
Quote from: Spike! link=topic=16349. msg109839#msg109839 date=1274747429
RNG's are not true random in the extreme short term. They mimic true random in the long term and this is apparently good enough for the math crowd.
Is that another educated guess. . ?
found this below, but I doubt anyone really knows which way or other rng is truly honest, the way I gain confidence in an rng casino is where I win more then play that casino more often.
nolinks://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/online/654-simple-algorithm-question-cant-find-answer-sorry-if-asked-before/#post30710 (nolinks://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/online/654-simple-algorithm-question-cant-find-answer-sorry-if-asked-before/#post30710)
Wizard quoted
QuoteOf course every online casino will say they play fairly in all games. Given the lack of regulation, you have to take them at their word. If you want to prove they are not playing fairly, then gather some evidence. Note how I proved that the Elka/Oyster casinos were letting players win in roulette in free play mode. If you're not sure how a casino might be cheating in blackjack, then flat bet, and note your net win and total hands played. No approximating, and use perfect basic strategy. It may take a huge sample size to prove a slight case of cheating.
However, in my opinion, all the major Internet casinos play fairly. It would be horrible business not to. There is plenty of money to be made with the natural house edge. Yet everybody gets accused of cheating. I attribute it to selective memory. I don't know if these rumors still persist, but it used to be commonly (and incorrectly) believed that Microgaming had a "take down" mode in blackjack, and RTG blackjack was programmed like a slot machine. If you want to find actual cheating, your odds are better with low-budget software.