What do people think about random.org numbers?
RX wheel analysis Passes them as if its a balanced wheel
If I gave 280 Random.org numbers to someone who checks wheel balance at the casino, would he say "this wheel is balanced" or "these are random numbers off random.org"
Hi Turner.
In my views, 280 spins aren't enough for claiming a balanced or imbalanced wheel.
You may want to try adding more zeroes to the right of that figure :)
You know what they say: in the short term "ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN" and 280 spins is considered a rather short term.
Regards,
Vic
RX will pass any amount of random.org numbers.
Thay are random through and through.
I've said it before........If I lined up 800 actuals and 800 random.org numbers, will you be able to tell me which is which (and why) without guessing?
Ken
Quote from: Skakus on Nov 23, 03:30 PM 2011
RX will pass any amount of random.org numbers.
Thay are random through and through.
So, If I test a system with random.org numbers, how far out am I with my conclusions in the eyes of the "got to test using actuals" crew, and, how far out am I in the real world of random.
I mean, I wouldnt want to use actuals from a wonky wheel would I?
Quote from: MrJ on Nov 23, 05:15 PM 2011
I've said it before........If I lined up 800 actuals and 800 random.org numbers, will you be able to tell me which is which (and why) without guessing?
Ken
This is how i envisaged this post going...and I was hoping "for" random.org as a perfectly acceptable roulette test "actual"
Somewhere on this forum Bayes posted 4400 numbers (horror sessions) made up of 22 x 200 actuals from different real wheel sessions. Each of these sessions were supposed to be difficult to win when betting on the specified EC for each session. This was basically because the random dispersion in each session went against the specified EC for that session.
If you run each of the 200 number blocks through RX some of them will actually pass, and some will fail. If you run the whole 4400 through RX the result is a fail.
What this means is that even fair wheels will from time to time throw up results that appear heavily bias.
The funny part is that once a wheel has produced a bias large enough to fail the fair test it then needs to compensate with another relatively opposing bias in order to pass the fair test next time. If you split the two you get two fails but combine the two and you may get a pass.
So even though after long sessions using thousands & thousands of numbers the wheel appears fair, the result is likely to be made up of many periods whereby the wheel was not fair, in fact it could almost be made up of entirely not fair sections all the way through but by virtue of cancelation end up being fair.
This behaviour also creates the possibility that a real bias could exist on a wheel with long term fair results because of other random factors disguising its existence. This is one reason why bias spotters say number collection alone is not enough to confirm a bias.
For this reason I believe random.org numbers (they also behave in the same manner) are as good as actuals for testing purposes.
Just my opinion.
When i have fun i use random org only as if you beat them you beat any actuals.
I use to download 10.000 trails sampels and 100.000 trails a day.
Nice post Skakus, and I agree. "Random" is a tricky concept which can lead to contradictions because it seems that in order for a number sequence to be random, it must also exhibit some regularity at times (ie; be apparently non-random).
QuoteFor this reason I believe random.org numbers (they also behave in the same manner) are as good as actuals for testing purposes
Totally agree, it doesn't matter where your numbers come from, in the long term the up/downs will be the same.
BBBBBBBRRBBBBBBBBB = unfair bias towards black on a short sample, but what happened before that run, and whats going to happen after it, you'll probably find it equals out eventually.
Quote from: superman on Nov 24, 05:07 AM 2011
Totally agree, it doesn't matter where your numbers come from, in the long term the up/downs will be the same.
BBBBBBBRRBBBBBBBBB = unfair bias towards black on a short sample, but what happened before that run, and what's going to happen after it, you'll probably find it equals out eventually.
so im curious. if thats the case does that mean we will never find a system the will win continuously?
Quote from: superman on Nov 24, 05:07 AM 2011
Totally agree, it doesn't matter where your numbers come from, in the long term the up/downs will be the same.
BBBBBBBRRBBBBBBBBB = unfair bias towards black on a short sample, but what happened before that run, and what's going to happen after it, you'll probably find it equals out eventually.
But doesn't this make you think that if we are accepting random.org as true roulette numbers in essence, then we have to notice that random.org doesn't paint them red/black/green or group them nicely into patterns on a baize table.
BBBBBBBRRBBBBBBBBB could be:
31,28,4,4,15,4,35,1,36,26,29,17,13,13,13,15,29,24
or
28,4,6,2,8,20,20,14,34,17,4,33,22,17,11,15,20,20
We see a pattern in BRB because we love patterns. The 2 sets of numbers don't corralate to each other in any way at all.
Bt the way Skakus, your post was a worthy read!
Quote from: frost on Nov 24, 05:14 AM 2011
so I'm curious. if that's the case does that mean we will never find a system the will win continuously?
There's a principle called the impossibility of a gambling system (link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibility_of_a_gambling_system), which says that it's impossible to select any sub-sequence from a random sequence in a way which will improve the odds of winning in the long run. Note that there is no mathematical proof of this, it seems to just be true in repeated experiments (read the forums!). ;D
Here's my little contribution about random:
Imagine you walk by a random generator producing "8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8...."
Somebody could say "Hey ! This thing isn't random at all !", but in fact it is, and you simply happened to be there in the right moment where those numbers spun.
Actually, most events you'd think are "rare" or very unlikely to happens have their equal opposites with the same odds. I'm also a believer (like said previously above), that it'll balance out in the long run, but in the short run, what you'll see is a multitude of "bias" one after another...
IF you can ever make money off a small streak, well a repetition will hurt you. If you exploit repetitions, streaks will kill you. It's one of the other, you can't really have both.
At least from what I learned so far.
as bayes has been one of the best mathematician....i would like to ask..then how cum people say that rng cheats..but in reality it doesnt..its random fucking u ..not rng
random.org does not reflect wheel patterns and behaviour
@darrnyf: The thing with an online casinos is it's so easy for them to give you whatever number it pleases... that's why big (and trustable) casinos have their RNG tested periodically.
BetVoyager for instance generates 10 spins before hand and hash them. The hash (is displayed on screen) and won't change for the next 9 spins. That way, after those 10 spins, you can calculate the hash yourself from the numbers spun (they explains you how to do that) and you can check yourself they didn't alter the numbers to make you lose.
Anyway, all results should be similar, a.k.a, random. Its a quest that goes far beyond our understanding and is a fundamental for nearly everything in life.
You can observe the same behaviour at a super market where people will spread to different cashier. You'd think everybody will go for the smallest waiting line, right? That's not what happens.
You can observe randomness down the the Quantum Mechanics level too if you want; with the "Double Slit Experiment". Some atoms will chose to go left, others right: in a balanced but unpredictable fashion.
They are all the same. RNG, live wheel, dices, coins, weather, quantum mechanics, humans... Nothing can be predicted with accuracy.
My history teacher said once that, we humans, are the dominant specie only because of our ability to make associations and predict a future outcome according to this... ...... it's also why you cannot get your minds away of thinking about Roulette. You want to be able to accurately tell what will be the next result... tho it doesn't work with eveything. You need something that is consistent.
Roulette isn't. That's it. Just embrace it.
I'm no more actively looking for the Holy Grail anymore; I decided I'd simply play a system that gives me the most advantage possible, that is, with the bankroll I can afford to lose and hope for the best.
Call me a freak,
Random's by far creepier sometimes...
one of the best post i have ever heared ...superb nitrix...even i have stopped looking for the grail
when it comes to betvoyager..i have heared very much bad things about them...that they cheat and manipulate...but stil dont know the absolute reality
darrnyf, I think you've misunderstood what nitrix was saying about BV. :-X
Quote from: iggiv on Nov 24, 10:30 PM 2011
random.org does not reflect wheel patterns and behaviour
That sounds like a real wheel in a real casino isnt producing random numbers then.
See, I now have a problem with this in my head
Manchester 235 casino, wheel #2, dealer is Mark.
Wheel spins #13. Thats Black, in the second doz, in Col A, its Odd, its Low, its in street 5.
Random.org
#13
Whats the difference?
Quote from: nitrix on Nov 25, 02:46 AM 2011
@darrnyf: The thing with an online casinos is it's so easy for them to give you whatever number it pleases... that's why big (and trustable) casinos have their RNG tested periodically.
BetVoyager for instance generates 10 spins before hand and hash them. The hash (is displayed on screen) and won't change for the next 9 spins. That way, after those 10 spins, you can calculate the hash yourself from the numbers spun (they explains you how to do that) and you can check yourself they didn't alter the numbers to make you lose.
Anyway, all results should be similar, a.k.a, random. Its a quest that goes far beyond our understanding and is a fundamental for nearly everything in life.
You can observe the same behaviour at a super market where people will spread to different cashier. You'd think everybody will go for the smallest waiting line, right? That's not what happens.
You can observe randomness down the the Quantum Mechanics level too if you want; with the "Double Slit Experiment". Some atoms will chose to go left, others right: in a balanced but unpredictable fashion.
They are all the same. RNG, live wheel, dices, coins, weather, quantum mechanics, humans... Nothing can be predicted with accuracy.
My history teacher said once that, we humans, are the dominant specie only because of our ability to make associations and predict a future outcome according to this... ...... it's also why you cannot get your minds away of thinking about Roulette. You want to be able to accurately tell what will be the next result... though it doesn't work with eveything. You need something that is consistent.
Roulette isn't. That's it. Just embrace it.
I'm no more actively looking for the Holy Grail anymore; I decided I'd simply play a system that gives me the most advantage possible, that is, with the bankroll I can afford to lose and hope for the best.
Call me a freak,
Random's by far creepier sometimes...
Actually, the double slit experiments finds 1 photon goes through both slots at the same time.
Anyhow, I am not really talking RNG here, I am talking how random are random.org with their method of producing random numbers. Is it "no different from a real wheel"
Random.org claim to produce pure random numbers using atmospherical noise or something:
RANDBETWEEN(0,36) in excel doesnt.
There's a difference between a software RNG and hardware RNG. In a so-called pseudo-RNG, the numbers are generated from a "seed" (which could be initialised from the computer's clock) and then repeat after many cycles, so they're not really random but deterministic (although they're random enough for many purposes). A hardware RNG generates numbers from some natural process like radioactive decay. So I'm not sure where a roulette wheel falls in regard to these 2 types, maybe somewhere in between. :-\
BTW, the excel RNG is not a good one.
Question guys: Would you rather toss a coin or pick a ticket from a hat (10 are heads / 10 are tails) ?
We agree they both have the same odds: 1/2 = 50% but would it affects the biggest losing/winning streak length?
I cant help but think it affects something somewhere...
Quote from: turnerfeck on Nov 25, 10:53 AM 2011
That sounds like a real wheel in a real casino isnt producing random numbers then.
See, I now have a problem with this in my head
Manchester 235 casino, wheel #2, dealer is Mark.
Wheel spins #13. that's Black, in the second doz, in Col A, its Odd, its Low, its in street 5.
Random.org
#13
what's the difference?
the difference is that one is created by a computer, another one -- by a dealer Mark and a physical roulette wheel. But u don't have to believe there is a difference. No problem with me.
one can see a glass as half empty, another as half full. Everyone is entitled to have his own opinion about it.
Quote from: iggiv on Nov 26, 10:53 AM 2011
the difference is that one is created by a computer, another one -- by a dealer Mark and a physical roulette wheel. But u don't have to believe there is a difference. No problem with me.
one can see a glass as half empty, another as half full. Everyone is entitled to have his own opinion about it.
Sorry iggiv, I may have sounded like I was having a go. I wasnt.
I wanted to know what patterns and behavious appear in A: (William Hill live Casino actuals) that didnt appear in B: (random.org)
A:18,32,28,35,34,21,3,26,15,2,29,6,18,10,33,1,16,13,4,21,31,32
B: 21,16,6,1,10,4,4,32,24,7,21,11,18,19,22,15,2,36,22,8,3,9
Turner
it is all not consistent my friend. Roulette wheel behaviour is complicated, i can't tell u exactly that these patterns will work right now and those won't. it requires independent analysis and watching the wheel.
and a lot of hard work. Kimo Li's concepts help very much with it. Also You have to take to account that there are NO CONSISTENT patterns that repeat all the time. but if u use targeting areas around hot star and pie "centers of actions" u may realize there is something in it. You can use matrix for it or You can use a wheel itself (i recommend using matrices). You can use single numbers or You can use table layout for it. i recommend using table layout, You can reduce your initial bankroll dramatically this way and use different streets, line, corners as your "variables" targetting "hot areas" . by "centers of action" i mean where neighbours are hit. Also because roulette is "random" or "chaotic" or call it whatever (it changes its hot areas all the time) -- You have to make sure u don't use stiff approaches to all this. You have to introduce as many VARIABLES as possible into your betting.
good luck and happy winnings!
p.s. if u use RX to analyze real casino actuals with wheel behaviour vs "random.org" numbers with using the wheel u will see a difference. but again -- it is A HARD WORK and takes a lot of time and
patience. but hard work sometimes pays off. sometimes it doesn't. i can't guarantee u anything.
these are only my ideas about defeating roulette wheel...You can use them or You can ignore them
Quote from: iggiv on Nov 26, 06:46 PM 2011
these are only my ideas about defeating roulette wheel...You can use them or You can ignore them
I'm not in the habit of ignoring anything. Everyone and everything is a teacher.
There must be something in the whole concept that a wheel made in virtually the same design from 1700's would produce different data than something produced after the millenium using computers and noise theory. For a start, RNG dont select 36 then decide it wasnt quite sat there and jump to 13.
I wonder if anyone has tried to make a genuine roulette generator. Not Random.org where you set between 0 and 36, One that runs numbers in the roulette layoutone way, then the opposite. Runs a process for around 30 secs like the time it takes from coupier to landing in the pocket. etc etc.
Starts the run from where the last run was like a croupier should.
Spils drinks all over your foot....like in a real casino lol
I want someone to make a program that randomly places the numbers around a virtual wheel.
After every new rng result the program spits out a new wheel order.
It would be interesting to play hot sections with this as the section would be hot but the numbers would be new.
Skakus,
Could you expand on this? not sure I understand what you mean but it sounds interesting. If after every spin you generate a new wheel order, then how do you know which sections are 'hot'?
A short example might help. :)
Quote from: turnerfeck on Nov 27, 05:05 AM 2011
There must be something in the whole concept that a wheel made in virtually the same design from 1700's would produce different data than something produced after the millenium using computers and noise theory. For a start, RNG don't select 36 then decide it wasn't quite sat there and jump to 13.
If the wheel is random (all outcomes equally likely and independent) then all patterns will be the same regardless of how they were generated. If you create a 'virtual' wheel and test a system using numbers from random.org and compare with results from a real wheel you won't be able to tell any difference, even though there are no actual sectors. This must be the case because there's nothing special about the order of numbers around the wheel
or on the layout - both are arbitrary and could have been arranged in countless other ways.
At times you will get 'hot' sectors on your virtual wheel, exactly the same as on a real wheel. But in the latter case, you will probably say it's because of dealer signature or bias or whatever, which
could be true, but it isn't necessary at all because the trends and patterns will occur anyway.
Sorry, but Im getting carried away with this.
Just been getting some numbers from Random.org and to quicken things up I selected integers at 3 per selection .
I felt each group of 3 were disjointed so I did 40 numbers so it was a nice line. It looks like a marque.
why do I feel more comfortable seeing it in a line of 40 than 3 at a time. They are completly individual random numbers that have no idea about the last or the next.
Is this a clue to bias against actuals vs random.org?
Quote from: Bayes on Nov 27, 11:18 AM 2011
Skakus,
Could you expand on this? not sure I understand what you mean but it sounds interesting. If after every spin you generate a new wheel order, then how do you know which sections are 'hot'?
A short example might help. :)
Hey, sorry for the slow response, I've been busy with life. :)
You would need a circle numbered 0-36 around the perimeter then inside those numbers would be a second circle of numbers that changed after each spin. This way you would always know what section is hitting but never know what the numbers might be before each spin.
This is just another form of random number generating and I’m certain you would get similar results betting hot sections on the basic French wheel as you would betting hot sections on the blarney Skakus wheel.
In my estimation it would prove the wheel/number relationship is as random as the number streams.
You could do it with red and black too. A different red/black mix around the wheel after every spin should make no difference to the results.
So for the purposes of roulette random.org numbers are as good as any, in my opinion.