To Bayes

[spike]

I saw a question you asked about why RNG's play
differently than actuals. RNG's tend to produce
unreliable results. You'll be playing along and its
just fine, and the RNG will veer off into 30 spins
of nonsense before getting back on track again.

Actuals aren't like that. Once in awhile you'll hit
patches that are confusing, but they don't last long.
You can usually figure out whats happening. RNG's
are just too sporadic for any real play, who has time
to sit around and wait for them to straighten out.

RNG's are pseudo random, fake random, and thats pretty
useless, unless you're a casino tring to make money.
The math guys always say its how it comes out in the
long run that counts, and RNG and actuals are identical
in the long run. The truth is, its how they come out spin
to spin that counts, if you're trying to win. You need reliability
in the short term, where the bets are placed.

[Ralph]

Some casinos may use pseudo random, this can nobody checking against true random see any different way they comes. With inside information possible.

All casinos do not us random from a pseudo random generator, they use true random.
The numbers are often delivered from outside source.

It is easy to put 1000000 bets on an online casino in a year, on a live it will take far more time, at an casino you will see more strange movement just because the amount of spins.

I saw 24 reds a few days ago, first time, but  for sure after a couple of millions spins.
The largest number of bets I have done and recorded in a day is 12300.
Player using bots, may put far more bets than I have done.

How ever the numbers are generated it is random if they are unpredictable, and they are, you can never know thats coming next spins.

[Skakus]

I saw a question you asked about why RNG's play
differently than actuals. RNG's tend to produce
unreliable results. You'll be playing along and its
just fine, and the RNG will veer off into 30 spins
of nonsense before getting back on track again.

Actuals aren't like that. Once in awhile you'll hit
patches that are confusing, but they don't last long.
You can usually figure out what's happening. RNG's
are just too sporadic for any real play, who has time
to sit around and wait for them to straighten out.

RNG's are pseudo random, fake random, and that's pretty
useless, unless you're a casino tring to make money.
The math guys always say its how it comes out in the
long run that counts, and RNG and actuals are identical
in the long run. The truth is, its how they come out spin
to spin that counts, if you're trying to win. You need reliability
in the short term, where the bets are placed.

Spike is absolutely right about the short term relevance of spins, and everyone should take heed, but he is referring to “his” way of deciphering the random flow, and in the short term. For mainstream system players the game is quite different, so for the bulk of us, dispite the short term focus, there is no discernable difference between the types of random outcomes delivered from rng or actuals.

Apart from guessing on the EC’s I don’t know exactly what spike does, but I do guess on the EC’s a bit too, and I can’t see any significant difference between the random types, especially when you consider each next bet in the short term is basically 50/50, win or lose, eat or be eaten, live or die, sink or swim, triumph or tragedy, prevail or perish... spin by spin. 

[F_LAT_INO]

I saw a question you asked about why RNG's play
differently than actuals. RNG's tend to produce
unreliable results. You'll be playing along and its
just fine, and the RNG will veer off into 30 spins
of nonsense before getting back on track again.

Actuals aren't like that. Once in awhile you'll hit
patches that are confusing, but they don't last long.
You can usually figure out what's happening. RNG's
are just too sporadic for any real play, who has time
to sit around and wait for them to straighten out.

RNG's are pseudo random, fake random, and that's pretty
useless, unless you're a casino tring to make money.
The math guys always say its how it comes out in the
long run that counts, and RNG and actuals are identical
in the long run. The truth is, its how they come out spin
to spin that counts, if you're trying to win. You need reliability
in the short term, where the bets are placed.
[/quote


Something I completely agree with.

[Skakus]

What's so bad about the odd 30 spins of nonsense?

[Bayes]

Spike is absolutely right about the short term relevance of spins, and everyone should take heed, but he is referring to “his” way of deciphering the random flow, and in the short term. For mainstream system players the game is quite different, so for the bulk of us, dispite the short term focus, there is no discernable difference between the types of random outcomes delivered from rng or actuals.

hmm... maybe.

But however you decipher the random flow, whatever filter you use, it doesn't make any difference to the stats - either short term or long term. Suppose that you're right and there really is a difference between short term and long term. Let's say for the sake of argument that "short term" is the last 30 spins. Now no matter how you interpret those spins, no matter what "filter" you pass them through, you're going to get the same basic distribution of wins and losses.

You can divide up the spins into short term samples and test separately, but the binomial distribution will tell you that in 30 spins, the chance of at least X wins is a certain %, exactly Y losses is another %, at most Z losses is another %, and so on.

If you combine the short term samples you're going to get the long term results. I don't deny that it might seem as though it's POSSIBLE for the short term results to add up to the "predicted" long term results and yet not be what's predicted in the short term. For example, suppose that in the last 30 spins there are exactly 15 reds and 15 blacks, and that the pattern was R,B,R,B,R,B,R ie; alternately red and black. Now suppose that in the next 30 spins the pattern was RR,BB,RR,BB and so on up to 30 spins, and in the next 30 spins the pattern is RRR,BBB,RRR,BBB... and so on. Now, in the "long term" you would expect the numbers of reds and blacks to be equal, and thereby give the expected long term results. But in the short term, results are NOT what's expected because spins appear to be not independent.

So there you have it: it seems that you CAN have non-random results in the short term but random in the long term. The trouble with this is that the long term stats have only been measured with respect to red vs black, but there are many other attributes that make random numbers random, and those sequences of short term spins, when pooled into one large sample (in the order they were generated), would fail virtually all tests which measure randomness.

But in fact, we never do see RNG spins fail the randomness tests. If they did, online casinos wouldn't use them; it's not in their interest for the RNG to generate non-random spins.

It's all so vague. Spike, if I knew what you meant by "different" (in regards to RNG vs actuals), then we would have something to work with. We don't even have a definition of what "short term" is.

I seem to remember you saying that random.org spins were no different than actuals for the way you play?

[ddarko]

to me this is a very simple one & I agree with Spike.

AS the numbers are created in two different manners (a physical wheel & a computer chip) I think it's fair to assume the numbers will be different as well.

Imagine you have eggs on toast poached & scrambled 

Both are eggs on toast, but both taste differently

[Bayes]

ddarko,

It's not as simple as that. The essential thing for a random number generator is that each number has an equal chance of hitting (and that numbers are independent), and a roulette wheel is just one way of ensuring that.

And why don't the statistical tests show any difference if there is a difference? These tests are far more sensitive than you can measure just by looking at the spins.

[Johnlegend]

ddarko,

It's not as simple as that. The essential thing for a random number generator is that each number has an equal chance of hitting (and that numbers are independent), and a roulette wheel is just one way of ensuring that.

And why don't the statistical tests show any difference if there is a difference? These tests are far more sensitive than you can measure just by looking at the spins.

There was a time when I would have agreed that there was a major difference between a live roulette wheel and an RNG. I am no longer in that way of thinking. This is thanks to Bayes taking the time to set up an RNG. And now I am playing a real money RNG at BV for the last 3 weeks or so. I can see absoulutely no difference in the breakdown of results to those I attain when I play live.

Unless the people who run BV. Suddenly decide they are tired of me winning say a year from now. I can see no reason why this should change. I am winning on their real play RNG just as I can on there Fun mode RNG. Or on Bayes RNG. Or on Ladbrokes Fun mode RNG.
I have no doubt there may be some dodgy sites out there running RNG software. But at least at present BV isnt one of them. I think it comes down more to the method being used and the person using it. And using the Hit and Run application to get in and out without being too greedy.

[ddarko]

ddarko,

It's not as simple as that. The essential thing for a random number generator is that each number has an equal chance of hitting (and that numbers are independent), and a roulette wheel is just one way of ensuring that.

And why don't the statistical tests show any difference if there is a difference? These tests are far more sensitive than you can measure just by looking at the spins.

Hi there Bayes 

To me it IS that simple, to be honest it doesn't matter to me, live wheel is the only medium I play roulette on.

thanks for the reply 

[Johnlegend]

Hi there Bayes 

To me it IS that simple, to be honest it doesn't matter to me, live wheel is the only medium I play roulette on.

thanks for the reply 

I only used to play on live wheels for over 17 years. Now I see some serious potential on CERTAIN RNGS. To make a faster turnover with ideas that aren't really workable on a live wheel. BUT, have random beaten hands down. I would like you to direct us to the source of your dis-contentment Ddarko. Because I have had bad experiences with certain RNGs. But I now realize they are not all cheating. I have beaten 4 different RNGs now. I am gearing up to put five against the notorious Ladbrokes real money RNG. It will tell me once and for all if they cheat or not.

[Twisteruk]

Well for me it speaks volumes when a Casino (Wankerhill) stop you usin their Live Wheel coz ure winning too much but say you can play their RNG ok

To me that says it all ! IF there was no difference wud they not ban you from both ??

And I speak from MY experience because the above happened to ME !

[Johnlegend]

Well for me it speaks volumes when a Casino (Wankerhill) stop you using their Live Wheel because your winning too much but say you can play their RNG ok

To me that says it all ! IF there was no difference would they not ban you from both ??

And I speak from MY experience because the above happened to ME !

WH are really in the same boat as Ladbrokes Twister. They are using Playtech I think. Bet365 too. If its fair I will beat it. If its not, well you know the story.

[GARNabby]

Well for me it speaks volumes when a Casino (Wankerhill) stop you using their Live Wheel because your winning too much but say you can play their RNG ok

To me that says it all ! IF there was no difference would they not ban you from both ??

Trying too hard to make a "round peg fit a square hole".

Just because they don't know the obvious, as do the majority of the well-established landed casinos, doesn't make it otherwise.

[ddarko]

Well for me it speaks volumes when a Casino (Wankerhill) stop you using their Live Wheel because your winning too much but say you can play their RNG ok

To me that says it all ! IF there was no difference would they not ban you from both ??

And I speak from MY experience because the above happened to ME !

I couldn't agree with you more Twister 

Also at quite a few online casino's the max on a number for a live wheel is £50

but

£250 on a number for RNG ??

Why on earth is that ??