Is RNG really random?

[Spike!]

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..

[Bayes]

You 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.

[EvilGenius]

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. . .

[Spike!]

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.

[Fripper]

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 =)

[pins]

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.

[bombus]

Dublin Bet, live wheel, table 1, 17&34.

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.

[Jack Wad]

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

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. . !

[Ulysses]

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 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?

[superman]

does 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

[Bayes]

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!

[buffalowizard]

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 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

[Ulysses]

Thanks Superman I got a p.m off Bayes today.

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!

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.

Are 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.

[buffalowizard]

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

[Fripper]

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 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?

[Fripper]

-