What´s the optimal number of spins for testing?

[psimoes]

Thx Turner. Let the kid start his own thread on why should we think RX RNG is "rigged"

Now back on-topic: the 100k session ended up negative. And, the highest it went was 170 (1u=5, so 34 units).

How do we share saved sessions here?

[denzie]

50000 and counting. The variance is destroying what looks like a simple bet. Perhaps this could serve as a lesson: never hedge bets...

Of course it can't win. But what goes up most come down.And vice versa. (No HE) Just look...You went from -1800 to -400...... But ok it isn't playable in real life. It will end at 0 at one point. But nobody gonna stick around to wait for that.

Soooo as I tried before.....Try to play whatever on the table/wheel to balance out is not realistic to play. We could be retired by that time and won 1u 

Thx for the test. Much appreciated 

[denzie]

sorry, bit off topic:

To Kingmaq:

if I provide you a few files both RNG and LIVE wheel sessions eurowheel:
Would you be able to differentiate them?
It would be interesting to know what you call "rigged" and "live"
There is no need to crack the one or the other...
I see you get upset about RNG (for it being rigged and made for losers), so I am sure you find it important to see the difference between both rng and live.
Now can you?

Hey I was going to that point . Lol. But yeah..... CAN YOU?  (I'll give the answer...no)

[psimoes]

Just to clarify, it says "dozen cycle" there, but the system was inactive. It was a fixed bet of 5u on Red and 5u on High. Nothing more. Two ECs that will obviously overlap at times, but they will also "underlap" if there´s such a word.

R+H = +10
R+L = 0
B+H = 0
B+L = -10

Apparently 100k aren´t enough, and who knows how many spins are necessary to break even, let alone reach +2500 for balance. Either that or something weird is happening. As I´ve said, just betting on a single colour went up and down as expected in only 10k.

[denzie]

I expected that outcome to be honest. Mainly coz I've done lots of testing in the past about that. Buuuuuuuuuut. ...I could make it win. Yep. But....It's not playable 

I mean who gonna sit there for 100k spins to be still in loss ? 

[denzie]

, just betting on a single colour went up and down as expected in only 10k.

A graph that goes up and down isn't that bad. Of course we don't start to bet at the top of the mountain.....

(A jigsaw graph)

Although I'm past that point of waiting and waiting

[psimoes]

I expected that outcome to be honest. Mainly coz I've done lots of testing in the past about that. Buuuuuuuuuut. ...I could make it win. Yep. But....It's not playable 

I mean who gonna sit there for 100k spins to be still in loss ? 

Yes, Denzie, but my point is: why is it losing? Just as it went down to -2500, it should also have gone up to +2500. That´s what a 50% chance must end up with.

[denzie]

Yes, Denzie, but my point is: why is it losing? Just as it went down to -2500, it should also have gone up to +2500. That´s what a 50% chance must end up with.

it will....go to sleep and let it run.....Take a look in the morning. Put turbo mode on

[psimoes]

Wow, that being true would just tell we can´t really know how random randomness can be. I´ll do it.

[Proofreaders2000]

According to the late FLAT_INO 400 bets is the 'gold standard'

(Seems like a good place to start)

[psimoes]

Testing one hundred million spins. After 50k it´s a mirror image of the previous. Extreme is the word. It goes to show how any mechanical method relies on luck and nothing more. You can´t tell if a system is good or bad after only a few 100 spin sessions. Old news, everyone should know this. I admit though being surprised by the unpredictability shown after 100k.

On another forum they found out a number sleeping for more than 600 spins. A few million spins were necessary to reach that result. What if a zillon spins will show a number sleeping for a thousand spins? Randomness has no limits.
Wait a minute! Doesn´t this also mean you can´t really tell if a wheel is biased?

[psimoes]

I overestimated the power of my i7. 400000 spins in three hours, it will take a month to compute 100000000. Forget it LOL.
Anyway so far it reached -250 after 1600 spins and peaked to 7300 around the 250000th. And it hasn´t since go down.
This RNG is far from rigged (there is no point, unless UX Soft is affiliated to online casinos, but to believe in that conspiracy you may as well believe the Earth is flat) but I can see how it´s useless for testing long runs.

[denzie]

@psimoes. ... told ya 

But it just ain't playable I guess 

[psimoes]

Denzie, I believe ehat you said but I couldnt confirm it as rx crashed after only 600000 spins. It still didnt go down to at least zero and i guess it would take more than one million spins to go negative.
I ve ran  a few thousands from tandom.orgl and got similar results.

This simple bet is much better for testing ecs than constantling changing from red to black etc after triggers, since the odds never change. Why. Because otherwise you could be fooled into thinking your complicated method had an edge, when in fact it was only facing favourable variance even afyer 100k.
All the success stories you have read  anout the pellagios and joseph jagger and garcia etc that we ve taken for grsnted, i dare to qurstion if all they had eas kust a long lucky streak.

[psimoes]

^^covfefe

sorry