PRNG, TRNG, Actuals

[Number Six]

Sounds like a good little program. If it can incorporate true random then no one can complain...it'll be interesting to see what excuses people come up with for losing...anything to admit that their system was a washout and couldn't cope with randomness.

[Mr Chips]

As I put Gizmotron's PRNG numbers into 'sections' and got what I thought would be the expected result, I thought it would be
interesting to get 100 numbers from Random.org (TRNG) and see how they compare with the PRNG.
 
[table=,]
sections,fcst,sections,fcst
2,,11
14,,30
5,7,15
---,,0,11
9,,---
11,,9
0,11,5
---,,11,14
0,,---
25,,20
14,,16
10,12,11,9
---,,---
29,,5
27,,6
18,11,2
---,,12,13
16,,---
11,,27
34,9,34
---,,32
20,,17,21
36,,---
20,11,4
---,,13
28,,33
33,,14
25,7,32
---,,5
13,,24
0,,13
22,,35
32,,14,n/a
29,,---
20,15,29
---,,19
30,,0
15,,0
4,9,31
---,,31,7
5,,---
3,,25
13,8,30
---,,8,10
29,,---
17,,34
26,10,1
---,,9,8
1,,---
24,,6
7,7,28
---,,3,7
24,,---
30,,10
15,9,31
---,,32,5
24,,---
15,,27
21
14,15
---
2
7
2,9
---
33
34
28,13
---
[/table]
 
The above 'sections' and forecasts is what I would expect from Random.org TRNG numbers :
 
7,7
 
14,15
 
12,13
 
9,8
 
As I mentioned previously it is sometimes difficult to differentiate between PRNG and TRNG especially a small sample of
numbers, but I have found that eventually the results become quite clear.
 
I don't mind in the least being proved wrong, as I am only interested in the truth of numbers and building on the knowledge
I have so far accumulated.
 
TwoCatSam, Sam, very kindly produced 5000 actuals, which I have found immensely useful. His worksheets are showing
'sections', which were used for 4Selecta and if you caste your eye and work out the forecasts you will also see they are
in line with my expectations and that of TRNG numbers.
 
nolinks://vlsroulette.com/actuals-permanences/the-twocat-5000/msg19244/
 
Mr Chips

[gizmotron]

Here is the deal, and I'm not trying to sell something, LOL.

The general consensus is that nobody will trust this thing. Those that have hidden, unshared methods or systems think it will give away their systems. So it's a complete waste of my time. I would not be able to participate too. I could use the development platform to extract the encryption key. Then I could cheat. So I would always be suspected for that. I would never trust an on-line version to keep my own method secret. The only thing that would work is for me to open a school for teaching my own method. I'll just take all the work I've done and put it into that, if I ever need to.

Someone else will have to come up with a fool proof challenge method for competitions.

[Ulysses]

Hello Chips, here are a 100 PRNG's from a playtech casino, today. Plus thanks for the info on Horizon replay. Also looked at your sections and forecasts and don't really understand what it's about, forgive me as I'm not the sharpest tool in the box, but could you give me a short dummies guide explanation as I am very interested. If not, no worries. Lastly, have you ever looked into the Golden Ratio (1 + the square root of 5 then divided by 2) I know you like primes, but this golden ratio fascinates me. Uly  wiki golden ratio

 

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

[Mr Chips]

Here is the deal, and I'm not trying to sell something, LOL.

The general consensus is that nobody will trust this thing. Those that have hidden, unshared methods or systems think it will give away their systems. So it's a complete waste of my time. I would not be able to participate too. I could use the development platform to extract the encryption key. Then I could cheat. So I would always be suspected for that. I would never trust an on-line version to keep my own method secret. The only thing that would work is for me to open a school for teaching my own method. I'll just take all the work I've done and put it into that, if I ever need to.

Someone else will have to come up with a fool proof challenge method for competitions.

Well, surprise, surprise.
 
Not that I am particularly concerned myself, but no doubt others will be.
 
It seems to be prevalent among certain  programmers that they suggest or
agree on a project, get everyone's interested then decide to pull out and make
a number of lame excuses. I speak from experience having been on the
receiving end of such a situation.

This thread is not about a competion, but feel free to voice your opinion if you
so wish.
 
Mr Chips

[Ulysses]

Gizmotron
Don't be so disheartened, I was looking forward to your test and I'm sure many others were too. Sometimes people just have to trust each other regardless of what may or may not happen. If all systems failed except yours, so what, I would accept that. Some may have insecurity issues to deal with but that's just normal behaviour in any group of people. In the grand scheme of things, it's not that important what anyone thinks as long as your happy with it. Uly  P.S never trust a robot with blue eye brows lol

[gizmotron]

It seems to be prevalent among certain  programmers that they suggest or agree on a project, get everyone's interested then decide to pull out and make a number of lame excuses. I speak from experience having been on the receiving end of such a situation.

Well I was attempting to get a consensus on this thread. It breaks down right here most of all. Once that was resolved the objections continued degrading down to other superstitions. The only people that want this are those still searching for a winning method that actually works. If you need that to be lame then fine. It's a total pain in the ass to do all this work for others only to have it thrown in the gutter. So I'll finish it for my own interests.

Believe it or not it was Arte & Bliss who wised me up. It's no wonder that there is no useful competition platform. Nobody trusts anybody.

[Mr Chips]

Uly,
 
Thanks very much for the numbers.
 
I noticed some time ago when using 'sections' that there appeared to be a difference between PRNG and TRNG.

When making forecasts, which I described above and using Actuals or TRNG I would get a certain number of correct
forecasts. Some for example, if the forecast was 13, the result would be 14 or 12, also the next number would be 13.
 
PRNG produced far fewer such results and would for the next number produce 14 or 12 and the frequency of the
correct forecasts would be less.
 
Many people will of course dispute this discrepancy between PRNG and TRNG, but until I get proof otherwise I will
continue to identify such differences, when they occur.
 
I can't recall coming across the Golden Ratio, but I have made a note of it, thanks.
 
Mr Chips

[Ulysses]

Thanks Chips, I think it's a clever comparison and the discrepancy is quite clear to see. I will keep checking this as I play, really intriguing. Thanks again.

[Mr Chips]

Thanks Chips, I think it's a clever comparison and the discrepancy is quite clear to see. I will keep checking this as I play, really intriguing. Thanks again.

I couldn't identify PRNG from those numbers from the playtech casino. Perhaps
someone can throw some light on them.
 
I got the following result:
 
13,14
 
12
---
13
 
7,7
 
Mr Chips
 

[Number Six]

Hi Mr Chips,

Forgive me, I'm not trying to be cynical or anything, but if you are analysing these TRNG and PRNG numbers what are you expecting to find? Are you looking for something to exploit? For example, if playtech is software-based number generation, are you hoping to find a way of beating it...or is this just a sort of brain exercise?

[Mr Chips]

Hi Mr Chips,

Forgive me, I'm not trying to be cynical or anything, but if you are analysing these TRNG and PRNG numbers what are you expecting to find? Are you looking for something to exploit? For example, if playtech is software-based number generation, are you hoping to find a way of beating it...or is this just a sort of brain exercise?

My brain doesn't need further exercise lol.
 
It would take a lot of work to come to a satisfactory conclusion about the
differences between PRNG and TRNG /Actuals. I notice it because I have used
'sections' for such a long time and on the occasions when I used PRNG numbers
the results are so very different. So this is just my take on it.
 
I don't know if it is possible to exploit PRNG in relation to the discrepancy I have
described, it would also certainly take a lot of work.
 
If you look on Random.org it states that TRNG should be used for gambling and I
would certainly agree.
 
Mr Chips

[Ulysses]

Hello Chips,

If you look on Random.org it states that TRNG should be used for gambling and I
would certainly agree.

I asked Dr Mads Haars at Random.org a while back, about his presumption that online gambling uses TRNG and not PRNG and he said he didn't know either way. My best guess is it is PRNG as I can predict online much better than real, but who knows what it uses. The independent auditors of the software like PriceWaterhouse state they check the software algorithm and results for randomness. At the end of the day I will play where I can make money, be it online or real. Online is good for me, so until that changes I wont just look the gift horse in the mouth.

[Ulysses]

-