Surely "streaky" is rigged!?!

[steadman]

As an aside, Ramsey Theory is accompanied by rigorous proving and does not, as far as I am aware, have any mention of any on-line casino's Blackjack algorithm no matter how many coloured dots I have joined up.

Interestingly, no online casino as far as I am aware has any rigourous proving therefore it would not be correct to have an acceptance of, for example, a Blackjack algorithm in any online casino as it would be correct to accept Ramsey Theory.

Furthermore, if we are talking mathetical proofs, surely anyone with a healthy questioning of any unproved system (i.e. An online casino BJ) are surely less delusional (in the scientific sense of the word you understand) than those that accept the systems and berate others for not doing so.

[AussieDave]

fortunately there's a big stream in the way

And I'm on the other side of that BIG pond

[Zoozie]

As an aside, Ramsey Theory is accompanied by rigorous proving and does not, as far as I am aware, have any mention of any on-line casino's Blackjack algorithm no matter how many coloured dots I have joined up.

Sorry, but I dont think you got the idea.

The whole point was when you play 9 hands of blackjack you can ALWAYS
find 3 hands that are all loss or wins that also form the arithmetic progression pattern described.

Instead of the red and blue numbers think of them as wins or loss.
Hand 1 won: make a red 1.
Hand 2 won: make a red 2
Hand 3 lost: make a blue 3

When you have 9 hands, there will always be the arithmetic progression of size 3 in the same color. That this pattern will emerge has nothing to do with blackjack, which was excactly what I wanted to state. Just a message to
those people that are looking for conspiracy everywhere.

Zoozie

[AussieDave]

Zoozie,

From my understanding there are two main types of processes used to generate a base seed.

In layman’s terms:
1/ A base seed is extracted randomly from a frequency wave / atmospheric noise.
2/ A base seed is manufactured.

In regard to (1) it's my understanding that this type of seed produces a truly random outcome.

Where as (2) is know as a quasi RNG, where the outcomes are not truly random.

From what I've read RNG's just spit out gobble gook, it's the software that interprets the data and applies it (in this case) to cards, slots, dice or two flies crawling up a virtual wall.


A few Questions if you don't mind?

Which type of seed do casinos generally base their RNG's on? And which type of RNG do casino's use?



Cheers

[Zoozie]

Which type of seed do casinos generally base their RNG's on? And which type of RNG do casino's use?

Sorry, I do not know what kind of RNG the casino software does use.

But I have have heard of another type that uses radioactive decay to
generate the numbers and this is considered truely random also.

It is never the RNG I distrust, it is always the software.

Zoozie

[EasyRhino]

I've heard that a popular seed for software RNG's is the system clock measured down to a very small value, like milliseconds. That usually at least has the advantage of changing frequently.

[GrandMaster]

Read How We Learned to Cheat at Online Poker: A Study in Software Security [Cigital] why the system clock is not a suitable source of randomness.

[steadman]

Just a message to
those people that are looking for conspiracy everywhere.

Zoozie

But surely the results of the Ramsey Theory would be applicable whether the RNG was random, non-random or the casino software was dealing a crooked game - so, in a sense, it's also a message for those looking to believe any software that is laid in front of them as being totally honest.

[frafi]

Hi Zoozie,

in the article in Math Trek: Rainbow Randomness, Science News Online, March 30, 2002 Jacob Licht gave this example:

"EXAMPLE (n = 35): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
This example has a four-term monochromatic (blue) arithmetic progression: 6, 13, 20, 27, with a common difference of 7."

I cannot figure out why he chooses this 6, 13, 20, 27 progression because looking into the data I think the following arithmetic progression is much better here:
15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30 with a common difference of 3.
It gives me 6 terms here.

Another would be 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 with a difference of 5 and 5 terms.

3, 9, 15, 21, 27 with a difference of 6 has also a better spanwidth.

Do you know why excactly this one?

Franz

[Zoozie]

Hi Zoozie,

in the article in Math Trek: Rainbow Randomness, Science News Online, March 30, 2002 Jacob Licht gave this example:

"EXAMPLE (n = 35): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
This example has a four-term monochromatic (blue) arithmetic progression: 6, 13, 20, 27, with a common difference of 7."

I cannot figure out why he chooses this 6, 13, 20, 27 progression because looking into the data I think the following arithmetic progression is much better here:
15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30 with a common difference of 3.
It gives me 6 terms here.

Another would be 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 with a difference of 5 and 5 terms.

3, 9, 15, 21, 27 with a difference of 6 has also a better spanwidth.

Do you know why excactly this one?
Franz

I must compliment you in your findings, you definately understood it.

First of all the number 35 is the minimum number such that there will always be an arithmetic progression of size 4. So take the challenge to find a 2-colouring of the numbers from 1-34 such that it does not happen, but a such does exist or 35 would not be the minimum number. It is not mentioned that 35 is the minimum number needed to find one of size 4 like 9 is the minimum number needed to find one of size 3. But it is so.

The 2-colouring in the article is not a good example since there even exist an arithmetic progression of size 5. Maybe he chose a random coloring and did not notice the one of size 5 or believed it was not important as this can also happen. The important fact was that there will always be one of size 4 (at least).

Generally these minimum numbers are damn hard to find and not many are known. To always find one of size 5 (for a 2-colouring) the minimum number is 178. Some years ago
it was not know what the mimum number was if you wanted an arithmetic progression of size 6, but maybe it has been found since.

So
N=3: 9 numbers is needed
N=4: 35 numers is needed
N=5: 178 numbers is needed.
N=6: ??? numbers is needed.


Zoozie