Is RNG really random?

[Fripper]

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

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

[Spike!]

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.

[Bayes]

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.

[Spike!]

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.

[MiniBaccarat]

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.

[Bayes]

The 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.

[Bayes]

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!

Yes, where did I say they weren't? what's your point?

[MiniBaccarat]

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!

Yes, where did I say they weren't? what's your point?

Well they are DIFFERENT!
Real random is different to RNG!

The lack of maths knowledge you maths nazi's have is infinite!

Glenn.

[Spike!]

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..

[Bayes]

Well 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.

[Spike!]

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.

[Bayes]

So basically, you're saying that pseudo-RNGs are more random than "true" RNGs, because you can't find any dependable characteristics in them.

[Spike!]

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.

[Jakkalsdraai]

Random is random!  Where do u get off with more random or more chaotic random? 

[Bayes]

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.

[Bayes]

-