A child's definition of random

[243 lines=daft]

A lot of the time on casino forums, you can see posts about various concerns about random number generators and/or players being 'targetted' by casinos based on how they play the games or who they are.

Personally I think these are red herring concerns. I don't think there's a bias towards aor against any particular player, and I think the RNGs are legitimately random.

But...
I think there's a third element, an 'emperor's new clothes' concern that players sometimes try to voice, but which never really gets addressed, and effectively slips through the net, largely because it's quite hard to define.

And I think it can be simpified to an absolutely simple, tangible, question that a child could understand.
this is the question ... (drumroll please)


'Is the Random Number Generator the only factor that influences the result of any one gamble?'

Simple question. Almost stupidly simple.
But it has never been asked or answered as far as I can see. And I have looked but have never been able to find any kind of statement that specifically addresses that point.
Go on, try to find any example of that being satisfactorily and specifically addressed.

The independent audit/tests that establish whether a casino is returning its stated return to player do not address this, making them well-intentioned but essentially worthless expenditures of time and money.

Players representatives (either forum owners or gambing experts such as the Wizard of Odds, all imo with their hearts in the right place) have apparently never asked this simple question, despite being on first name terms with these casinos.
And I think that's maybe because it's too hard to find a tangible adult equivalent to that question, BUT in a simplified childlike form i think it gets to the point and could alleviate so many player concerns..

..if only it could be asked and (officially) answered.

 

[nisosbar]

Actually, I think this question has been asked and answered before, in various forms.

I won't pretend to be an expert, but there are a couple ways in which factors other than the RNG have an impact on a game's results, and the one factor I can think of off the top of my head is that some games deliver results which are WEIGHTED according to what has been fed into the slot previously - weighted as a function of the size of the slot's CYCLE - i.e., 300 or 400 or 900 spins or whatever it's been set at.

This kind of practice is apparently unpopular with many players - it makes sense why on one level, but on another level, it doesn't seem much different than games that are influenced only by the RNG, since in both cases over the long term, the casino is going to win.

 

[quber]

Actually, I think this question has been asked and answered before, in various forms.

I won't pretend to be an expert, but there are a couple ways in which factors other than the RNG have an impact on a game's results, and the one factor I can think of off the top of my head is that some games deliver results which are WEIGHTED according to what has been fed into the slot previously - weighted as a function of the size of the slot's CYCLE - i.e., 300 or 400 or 900 spins or whatever it's been set at.

This kind of practice is apparently unpopular with many players - it makes sense why on one level, but on another level, it doesn't seem much different than games that are influenced only by the RNG, since in both cases over the long term, the casino is going to win.

There is a lot of difference to a player between a weighted slot and a totally random one.

On a random slot my 1st, 100th or 1000th spin, or any spin in between, has the same chance of producing any result. On a weighted slot this isn't so my 1st or 100th, or any in between, may have no chance at all of winning the top prize.

Over the long term, as you say, the casino is going to win but how many spins is the 'long term'? 1 million, 2 million? so do I have to play that many spins to have been given a fair game with all weighting balanced out?