Do RNGs produce random outcomes?

[steinhaug]

Well I for sure would like to have some input on this matter, since I lack the understanding of chaos theory, law of large numbers and such. I am however plenty skilled in software deloping, creating stats, reverse enginering and all this - but math is not my favourite subject. That doesn't mean I don't understand it, however it would be much easier for the people understanding this helping me out. I am not afraid of new words, I can google,

So the topic - do RNGs produce random numbers. I take this as a true statement, or it would have no meaning. The question becomes, what are random numbers? If you were to spot a pattern, (could mean certain numbers appear more often or less) the usual tactic would be to throw in the chaos argument, or law of large numbers. I've seen it used many times.

So let me throw a bone here, a question. Say we have 3 numbers, and the RNG would create a series of numbers. Say we generate 9 numbers, the optimal outcome would be:
1. 3 hits
2. 3 hits
3. 3 hits

If we were to get this result:
1. 1 hit
2. 4 hits
3. 4 hits

Then the argument would be, the sample size is far to small.

My question, how big sample size would we need to the last example to not be random?

 

[ThodorisK]

I do not understand your example. Make it more clear if you want.

 

[aka23]

My question, how big sample size would we need to the last example to not be random?

It depends with how much certainty we say "not random." If less than 1 in a million chance is good enough to be "not random", then we only need ~100 samples in a 1/4/4 distribution. If less than 1 in a billion chance is required, then we need ~150 samples in that distribution.

 

[steinhaug]

Let's say the task was to determine if the produced series of numbers were random, or weighted. I know you like cards, but I'm a slot's person. However talking RNG it is practically the same since we are talking shuffling the deck, or producing reel positions.

Going back to my example, we let the RNG produce 9 random numbers from 1-3. The perfect balance would be 3/9=33%, we should expect to see each number being represented 33.3% of the time the RNG comes with a number.

If the results were to look weighted, meaning that one number appears more often than the others (or less) - how many numbers would we need the RNG to produce for this not being random. Or let me rephrase, how many numbers must the RNG produce before we can state as a fact that certain numbers are weighted (which means that it is not RNG). How big must the samle size be to be sure.

Am I still unclear?

 

[steinhaug]

It depends with how much certainty we say "not random." If less than 1 in a million chance is good enough to be "not random", then we only need ~100 samples in that distribution. If less than 1 in a billion chance is required, then we need ~150 samples in that distribution.

Great! A more concrete question would then be, take a little give a little...

Backinfo:
If we have 40 possible numbers, each number should in theory then get a 100% / 40 numbers = 2,5% chance of hitting. So if we were to pull 1000 numbers from the RNG we should "excpect" a 2.5% hit on each number. So far so good.

Question:
How much could one number be below or over the 2.5%, and how many numbers do we need to produce, for this not to be random. Let me rephrase again. Say the number 1 was off, how much must it be off %, and how many numbers would we have to produce for it not be random? We are talking 1 number off here - the others leveling around 2.5%

I hope my math quiz is understandable. I don't need 100% sure numbers, but a feel of what we are talking about.

 

[lojo]

Kimss, I believe the weighting occurs in the program, not the RNG. Two different animals.

 

[aka23]

Great! A more concrete question would then be, take a little give a little...

Backinfo:
If we have 40 possible numbers, each number should in theory then get a 100% / 40 numbers = 2,5% chance of hitting. So if we were to pull 1000 numbers from the RNG we should "excpect" a 2.5% hit on each number. So far so good.

Question:
How much could one number be below or over the 2.5%, and how many numbers do we need to produce, for this not to be random. Let me rephrase again. Say the number 1 was off, how much must it be off %, and how many numbers would we have to produce for it not be random? We are talking 1 number off here - the others leveling around 2.5%

I hope my math quiz is understandable. I don't need 100% sure numbers, but a feel of what we are talking about.

It sounds like we are talking about 5 Reel Drive reel positions. For the number of hits on a particular reel position to be 5 SDs beyond the mean, the following must be true:

ABS(x - np) > 5*SQRT(np(1-p))
x = actual number of events
n = number of samples
p = chance of event
np = expected number of events
SQRT(np(1-p)) = standard deviation

Or another way of looking at it, ABS(x - np) / SQRT(np(1-p)), correspponds to the number of SDs beyond the mean the result is.

The number of samples required depends on how far the distribution is from expected. The closer the distribution is to expected, the more samples you need.

 

[steinhaug]

Man I wish I understood those formulas, however I should look more into that since it's obviously the correct way of studying the numbers. 5 Reel Drive would be a nice example, but not in this case, however I have more tricks up my sleeves!

The variations on 5 Reel Drive is pretty dramatic looking at the %, I would think everyone agrees here that they are weighted. However a more subtle change would be harder to detect, unless you are looking in the right places. This is why such a formula is of most importance and I thank you for it. I will put on my thinking cap on now and get back a little later,

Thanks again aka23!

 

[happygobrokey]

I do not understand your example. Make it more clear if you want.

examples be damned. you said if someone starts the thread about rng randomness, that you'd disseminate your findings with respect to this.

so disregard the example scenario.

the question: do rng's produce random results?

your contention: they do not.

your proof: i expect it to be forthcoming.

 

[ThodorisK]

I was writing it all night. It will be posted here.

 

[ThodorisK]

What to do? Post it, or keep refining and improving my arguments?

 

[GaryWatson]

What to do? Post it, or keep refining and improving my arguments?

Keep refining and improving your arguments

 

[ThodorisK]

I have done so to a satisfatroty degree. here it comes:

 

[ThodorisK]

Theodoros Kiriakopoulos
Athens, Greece

WHY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A RNG TO PRODUCE RANDOM-INDEPENDENT OUTCOMES

REASON No1
(and how to take advantage of the degree of non-randomness, to have an edge against the casino)

When a mathematician examines if a RNG generates random SEQUENCES of numbers-outcomes, some statistical tests are used (these numbers-outcomes are series of 0 or 1 which correspond to sequences of numbers from 1 to 9 or sequences of cards from ace to king, etc). Read here what these tests are:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

.

BUT WHAT IS A NON-RANDOM SEQUENCE OF NUMBERS?
Very difficult and revealing question. So lets see what the mathematicians claim a non-random sequence of outcomes is:
It is a sequence that it is rejected by these statistical tests.
But note that even if no statistical tests are made, WE KNOW that a RNG will definatelly not generate such a sequence:

Of course we are talking of sequences of the outcome of either 1 or 0.
A statistical test will reject the sequence:
1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 ...
and I think they will also reject the sequence:
1-0-1-0-1-0-1-0-1-0 ...
and as you understand, they will reject many-many more sequences that are predictable or are the results of a mathematical formula.

But all these sequences are equally probable with any other sequences of numbers!
THEREFORE THERE IS NO SEQUENCE OF NUMBERS THAT IT IS NOT RANDOM!

Therefore, the RNGs do not produce random outcomes. The randomness of the outcomes of a RNG, IS BIASED BY THE FACT THAT THE SEQUENCES IT PRODUCES BELONG TO A GROUP OF SEQUENCES WHICH PASS A CERTAIN COMBINATION OF STATISTICAL TESTS. So this combination of statistical tests constitutes a non-random pattern which the outcomes of the RNG follow.

And therefore, the outcomes of a RNG are predictable to a degree. Exactly because we know and we can predict that all predictable sequences will not happen. Therefore, this allows us to have a degree of predictability. Thus the amusing contradiction is that if casinos wanted the outcomes to be completely random-independent-unpredictable, they should not deprive them the possibility of being predictable!

Now how can one take advantage of this small but existent degree of non-randomness and predictability? I guess this degree of non-randomness due to the above reason is quite small. But a small edge of 1% is enough to exceed the house edge in the game of blackjack, and thus the player can have an edge against the casino. And an edge, however small, is enough to make one head up towards infinite profit.

So this is what I did: I played basic strategy, but raised my bet whenever I expected that a sequence of cards rich in aces & pictures was coming. When did I expect this to happen?
First, I knew that since the RNG passed some the LOCAL RANDOMNESS statistical tests (see:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

),
then any same group of cards (e.g. fives, or non-pictures), will be (to a certain degree) evenly distributed in all locations of the sequence of cards. So any same group of cards, would not cluster more than a certain degree of clustering. Thus after 1, or 2, or 3, or a certain number of cards (and therefore hands), the probability of meeting a sequence of cards rich in aces & pictures, will be higher compared with the probability this would had to happen if the outcomes were truly random.
On the other hand, some degree of clustering of the cards should be there, as then we would have the sequence of the type:
Picture no picture picture no picture picture no picture ...
And this sequence would have also certainly be rejected by the statistical tests or some other type of checking.
I made large profits compared to my average bet, having played more than, If I remember well, 20,000 hands, in cryptologic and Netentertainment casinos, simply by doing this:
All the above considerations suggest a particular type of bias, which I did observe also experimentally:
That pictures and aces, as well as non-pictures and non-aces were clustering more than the statistically (randomness supposition) expected, in clusters which lasted for about 4-6 hands when playing one box. So, after having seen 4-6 hands which were poor in ace-pictures, and the last hand was a bit richer in aces-pictures than the previous 3-5 hands, I was expecting a clustering of ace-pictures in the next hands, and raised my bet (from 1$ to at lest 3$, maximoum 4$, very rarely to 5$ or 6$). And after having seen 4-6 hands rich in ace-pictures and the last hand was a bit poorer in aces-pictures than the last 3-5 hands, I lowered my bet to the minimoum of 1$.
I think I made about 600$ profit this way, in these casinos. On the other hand, I ended up very far below the statistically average-expected values in Charwell, Boss media, and other casinos. The thing gets complicated, as one might say that this was only variance (And definatelly not a case of cheating). But I gave up my above experiments in the casinos that I lost, and went only for the bonus, flatbetting 1$ when I was losing or thought I had a bad run. And my raised bets were of a maximoum of 2$, insufficient to create an edge by taking advantage of any RNG bias.

REASON No2

Sequences of numbers based on physical events (which at the bottom line are the MOTION of molecules or subatomic particles) cannot be random-independent, because all events in the Universe depend on the past positions and velocities of these particles, EVEN if Heisnbergs Uncertaintly Principle is correct. Because this Principle means a degree of independency, so there is also a degree of dependency (on past velocities and positions). If I argue on whether this Principle is true or false, we are getting in the field of physics and it takes a whole book to examine this. (I have written a book on physics, but it is in greek, and I keep improving it).

Actually, the pressuposition of independent events that probability theory is based on, is false! Independent events never happen! It is just a theoretical structure! No events in the Universe are independent between them, but their chaotic-complicated pattern makes them appear as if they were independent, so they fall close to the mathematical probability formulas and distributions.

(Evenmore, the money related bets-investments a gambler or investor is making, are also depended by the Law of Justice (Karma), but it takes a book from me to say why I know with a 100% certainty that God is true and has programmed the Law of Justice for each particular soul-perception. But all other arguments in this post are still valid if this paragraph is ignored. But I wanted to mention it).

But, since the random tosses a gambler or investor is making, appear independent-random and seem to obey the probability distributions of theoretically independent random events, even after miliions of such bets-investments, we can grossly assume they are indeed random-independent.

REASON No3
(and why it is impossible for a player to take advantage of the non-randomness of a RNG outcomes in some or all casinos. And why this non-randomness also constitutes cheating by the casino. This does not mean that the below is the only way casinos cheat).

UNBELIEVABLE! LAST LIGHT I FOUND THIS:

Sren: How do you make random numbers and a fair casino game?
Roger: It truly isn't possible for a computer to come up with a coincidental account of numbers. A computer always calculates its numbers based on mathematical statistics. These statistics remain constant regardless of the complexity of the calculating process. I have been responsible for the development of Boss Medias Random Number Generator 'RNG', also for how one can receive a random card at one of our casinos and for how a roulette ball can randomly land on any given number upon any spin of the wheel. The core to our Random number generator is simply a little box attached to a computer via a port called an Orion TRNG. This TRNG interfaces (wide noise), so that a Random number generator can be read from inside the computer. The more technically interested can read more about the process by researching how these mechanisms work. Boss Medias RNG is tested over billions of results that are constantly monitored for accuracy in our 100% random results. You can follow up your interest by looking at the following flow chart in Picture 14: Flowchart
( Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) )

Go to the this page and click on the Picture 14: Flowchart
What the hell are all these procedures? And what does this gentleman mean? Are the future random outcomes cut and modified so that the profits/losses of each player, or the profits/losses of all players playing in a Boss Media casino, will definitely fall close to the statistically expected average payoff? Doesnt that mean that each player NO MATTER WHAT HIS DECISIONS ARE, will surely not win much above (or lose much below) the statistically expected average payoff? If the amount I will lose or win is predetermined to fall within certain limits, then not only the future outcomes are not random-independent events, but this equals to CHEATING. For example, if you are already winning much above the statistical average payoff, and you suddendly make a very big bet, this bet is bound to lose!!!

And therefore, of course, there is no way for the player to take advantage of the non-randomness of such RNG.

All the above are my SO FAR conclusions. As I said, I always attack my so far conclusions with counterarguments, and thus I get more true and detailed knowledge.

Voila!

 

[ThodorisK]

(last NIGHT, not last LIGHT, lol)

 

[aka23]

RNGs don't select outcomes to reduce clusters of cards or prevent long sequences of similar results. These outcomes should occur and do occur, if you play enough hands. If the casino does not shuffle after each hand (some softwares shuffle at unknown points, rather than after each hand), then there will indeed be a reduced chance of ace/face cards after several have occurred. The reasons for this change relate to card counting and missing cards in the deck, rather than RNGs modifying results to prevent clustering.

Computers typically use P-RNGs, generating outcome according to a recursive formula that repeats itself after a huge number of outputs, such as 2^31 - 1. It's not truly random, but it will be nearly impossible to predict the outcome unless you know the formula used.

It's my understand that Boss Media does not use a P-RNG. Instead, it determines outcomes from a natural event designated as random, like radioactive decay or electrical noise, rather than using a formula. I didn't see anything in the Boss Media RNG flowchart or description that suggests players will not win much above or below a cutoff.

 

[happygobrokey]

lame!

1. = circumstantial and not indicative of how the thing really works. you make it seem like aces and faces are related and occur together, and that every non-face is designated a crappy card. an ace or face combined with an 8 or 9 is a good enough hand for me. you are right that AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA or AKAKAKAKAKAKAKAKAKA would not be random, but the thing does not weed these out of its results. every card in the sequence is randomly picked from the n cards that could be in the shoe based on the number of decks the game has. has nothing to do with the groups of cards that make up a hand, or how rich in x-valued cards the previous hands were. and with shuffling each hand, it means that zero cards have come out of the shoe prior to the deal.

2. = without knowing that your results come from these phenomena, and without an intimate knowledge of the particles/waves in question, how could you say there's predictability in their movements. and there is no god, or karma. if there were karma in gambling then what you say in 3 should always happen, or players making a dumb mistake should be damned to lose for their ignorance/carelessness. AND YOU HAVE A PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD??????????????????????????????????????????? this i gotta see.

3. you've never won when you upped your bet? it happens. but more often than not you make that bet as once-only in your mind, so you never get a chance to win it back. if you made your entire session with $25 bets, would you say the game would make you lose all of these? you win just as often with a large bet as a small one, however you make far fewer of the large bets and your bankroll can't support the swings that come with flatbetting in large amounts. try this with your infinite bankroll then. flatbet $1, and on every tenth hand bet $10. see how often you win or lose the $10 bets. after a hundred of these big bets, you will be between 40-60 and 60-40.

my guess is that all the scientific, medical, mathematical advances you have in mind are all conspiracy theories like this one? i mean, proof of god? who the fuck are you? does he talk to you, or did he just give you the power to show through science that he exists? took him long enough. i wonder why he's chosen now to reveal himself. does it have anything to do with any recent unrelated discoveries in science, without which the proof you have of his existence would not have made sense? since you're greek, is this zeus? or is it that lame limp excuse for a christian god? or is it xenu lmao? i'll ask for the third time where you were educated and what degrees you hold?

 

[mikepipe]

Theodoros Kiriakopoulos
Athens, Greece

WHY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A RNG TO PRODUCE RANDOM-INDEPENDENT OUTCOMES

REASON No1
(and how to take advantage of the degree of non-randomness, to have an edge against the casino)

When a mathematician examines if a RNG generates random SEQUENCES of numbers-outcomes, some statistical tests are used (these numbers-outcomes are series of 0 or 1 which correspond to sequences of numbers from 1 to 9 or sequences of cards from ace to king, etc). Read here what these tests are:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

.

BUT WHAT IS A NON-RANDOM SEQUENCE OF NUMBERS?
Very difficult and revealing question. So lets see what the mathematicians claim a non-random sequence of outcomes is:
It is a sequence that it is rejected by these statistical tests.
But note that even if no statistical tests are made, WE KNOW that a RNG will definatelly not generate such a sequence:

Of course we are talking of sequences of the outcome of either 1 or 0.
A statistical test will reject the sequence:
1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 ...
and I think they will also reject the sequence:
1-0-1-0-1-0-1-0-1-0 ...
and as you understand, they will reject many-many more sequences that are predictable or are the results of a mathematical formula.

But all these sequences are equally probable with any other sequences of numbers!
THEREFORE THERE IS NO SEQUENCE OF NUMBERS THAT IT IS NOT RANDOM!

Therefore, the RNGs do not produce random outcomes. The randomness of the outcomes of a RNG, IS BIASED BY THE FACT THAT THE SEQUENCES IT PRODUCES BELONG TO A GROUP OF SEQUENCES WHICH PASS A CERTAIN COMBINATION OF STATISTICAL TESTS. So this combination of statistical tests constitutes a non-random pattern which the outcomes of the RNG follow.

And therefore, the outcomes of a RNG are predictable to a degree.
Voila!

With all due respect Sir: I never read such a weak sensed post in this forum.
I am sorry, but i cannot follow your suggestions in any point.
Good luck, and maybe you do well , joining me in not gambling?

 

[ThodorisK]

Dear happygobrokey,
There is a probability that your comments were out of ingorance, and not out of an intension to mess up the flow of thought of others. So I will respond to you.

First, The paragraph where I mentioned the Law of Jusctice and God, was in brackets, and I clarified that this paragraph can well be COMPLETELLY ignored. Why it can be ignored, would be obvious to the one who undersatnds all the other arguments I mentioned, as I do.
Oh, and the question is not why God has answered to me. If God has answered to me and gave me some secret knowledge, that is an enough gain for me, and I do not have to share it with others in order to make it a gain for me. The question is why should God answer to you?

"you make it seem like aces and faces are related and occur together, and that every non-face is designated a crappy card. an ace or face combined with an 8 or 9 is a good enough hand for me. "

When the cards dealt are ace-picture rich enough, the player has an edge. When the opposite, the casino has an edge. When they are neither rich nor poor, the house has an edge of about 0.5% if the player follows basic strategy. Ask others to clarify this more to you.

"you are right that AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA or AKAKAKAKAKAKAKAKAKA would not be random, but the thing does not weed these out of its results. every card in the sequence is randomly picked ...

I did not say that 1111111... or 101010101... are not random sequences. I said exactly the opposite: That they ARE random. But the statistical tests made to approve or not a RNG sequence, reject them as non-random.
Your following arguments claim that the outcomes of RNG are random because ... a RNG gives out random outcomes! Nice argument!

"without knowing that your results come from these phenomena, and without an intimate knowledge of the particles/waves in question, how could you say there's predictability in their movements."

I did not say that a player can create an edge against the casino because the physical events are not independent-random, I only said that this is a proof-reason that the outcomes of a RNG are not independent-random, whcih is REASON No2. And I only said that this edge can be derived from REASON No1, which is the fact that the statistical tests reject some known sequences as non-random.

Try to calm down your anger against me, or else you will not understand a thing of my sayings. A barking dog cannot think. It just barks.
Or did you understand them but wanted to mess the flow of though of objective thinkers? Let you know I have printouts of all this, so you will not be able to destroy them even if you send me a virus.

All these arguments I read so far are incapable of proving mine as wrong. This a shame though because if they did, these counter-arguments would had helped deepen my knowledge. Therefore I WANT my arguments to be demolished, as I failed to do so myself. I will not reply again to stupid arguments, only to relativelly successful ones, like Nolan's.

But Nolan, I did not see where your arguments proove mine as wrong.
Yes, the results of a logarithm cannot be predicted, one cannot predict with a 100% certainty when a ace-picture is coming, but I talked about a DEGREE of prediction, which can predict that the probability of an-ace picture coming is at least 40%, instead of 39%. Such small gaps are very possible to happen exactly because of the statistical tests which the RNG outcomes pass through.

As for the fact that you did not see in the Boss Media chart or in the words of the executive what I saw, (regarding my REASON No3), well I just have to take your word for it? You provided no argumentation against mine.

 

[ThodorisK]

RNGs don't select outcomes to reduce clusters of cards or prevent long sequences of similar results. These outcomes should occur and do occur, if you play enough hands. If the casino does not shuffle after each hand (some softwares shuffle at unknown points, rather than after each hand), then there will indeed be a reduced chance of ace/face cards after several have occurred.

But that's exactly what the statistical tests are doing: go on, read wikipedia "statistical tests". If a result is 1-1-1-1-1-1..., or if we have 990 ones and 5 zeros in a 1000 digits sequence, this is fails the LOCAL RANDOMNESS tests! REJECT! ZONG! On the other hand, the GLOBAL RANDOMNESS tests demand that some such "abnormalities" SHOULD exist! So that is why I said that there is a COMBINATION of randomness tests that defines a pattern. And there is a pattern, because such a combination of tests is bound to be limited and not consider ALL possible "abnormalities".

Evenmore, if the FUTURE outcomes are made to DEFINATELLY fall close to the average statistical expectations and there are no "local" or "global" "abnormalities", then the future outomes are dependent on this predetermined condition, therefore they are not random-independent.

About reshuffling: The sequence of the generated digits (which has to pass or statistical tests or it is limited by statistical tests), that defines the next cards, is a sequence that it is not terminated and restarted after every reshuffle. As this is also the case regarding the sequence of e.g. roulette outcomes. There is no reshuffling after every spin in roulette. So the sequence of the generated digits which defines the future outcomes of roulette, is not restarted after every spin.

Show me where I am wrong, if I am wrong.

 

[happygobrokey]

re: god, i hope he never darkens my doorstep. and your proof on his existence is that he reveals it to you. every other church-goer has proof too then, i guess.

When the cards dealt are ace-picture rich enough, the player has an edge. When the opposite, the casino has an edge.

when the deck is shuffled prior to every hand, the chance of an ace, queen, 5, 3 coming out are all equal. if you are playing the maximum number of hands in multihand, you may be able to detect a slightly greater chance of a certain point-card to come out given what cards you can see out of the shoe, but any advantage disappears again when a fresh hand is dealt. that is why basic is the only way to play online, because card-counting (reasonably expecting certain valued-cards coming next) only becomes effective when many cards have been exposed and thus excluded from being the next ones in the shoe. and with six or eight decks in play, the reliability of tracking what's been dealt is decreased.

I did not say that 1111111... or 101010101... are not random sequences. I said exactly the opposite: That they ARE random. But the statistical tests made to approve or not a RNG sequence, reject them as non-random.

so if you and the dealer both got consecutive blackjacks for ten hands in a row, you would not be screaming "rigged"? how do you know how software developers test their rng's? if a sequence of ten of the same value was the first thing the program gave out, you would have to assume it's flawed. but if this string came out only once at some point in a billion trials, then of course it's random. but you're saying the thing is programmed not to do this, so what happens if you do get this result at some point? your argument is no good then, but until that point, just like with god, you can believe what you want and think you're right.

I did not say that a player can create an edge against the casino because the physical events are not independent-random, I only said that this is a proof-reason that the outcomes of a RNG are not independent-random

i have conceded (here or elsewhere in your threads) that you cannot produce something entirely random. but that does not mean that the results are not sufficiently random for the purposes of gambling. it is random enough to "pick a number from 1 to 13, 1 to 52, 1 to 416 (eight decks of 52)" randomly. of course if you have extensive knowledge of the program's "guts" or the levels of radiation in the air where the samples are collected, then of course you can detect the non-randomness. but this is never the case. well you, being the disciple of jesus and the omniscient one that you seem to be, probably have reverse-engineered the rng and have been divinely informed of the external data that are used to create the seeds for the algorithm. a regular person will not be able to do this.

finally, i appreciate you calling me an ignorant, barking dog aiming to disrupt the flow of knowledge to the point of attempting to infect your computer. however, these ad hominems, combined with the fallacious appeals to authority you make when "just mentioning" you have proofs of god's existence and innovative theories in physics and medicine, do not add anything to your "proofs" as you post them.

and if you believe in god, nothing is random anyway, so it becomes moot if you'd just give the superseding proof that god exists and created everything and controls our fate. it would save us all here a lot of time and money trying to beat the house, if we knew we're just going to get what we're going to get regardless. maybe we would live more righteously in an attempt to have god smile on us in the casinos.

do some good in the world and share your vast knowledge to enlighten the masses. don't bother with your pet ideas about the integrity of number-choosing devices when you know god planned every output the machine makes.

i'll ask it a fourth time: where did you go to school and what degrees/titles do you hold?

i hope this was cogent and rational and informed enough for you to dignify it with your esteemed response, my liege.

 

[aka23]

RNGs do go through statistical tests to confirm that they are valid. These tests include huge quantities test points. I don't know the specific numbers, but I assume it is well above millions. Among these millions of points, we expect some clustered points. If the RNG only produced 1 and 0s, then in a sample of 2^20 points, you'd expect a sequence of ~21 sequential 1/0 values. The RNG passes, even though some where among the millions of samples there is a "1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1". If on the other hand, the 99% of the millions of outputs were 0 and 1% of the outputs of the millions of outputs were 1, the RNG would obviously fail. It might fail even if 50.1% of the outputs were 1 and 49.9% were 0.

These tests are are not done on the fly while producing outputs. They are typically done both before the software is released and at regular intervals by a 3rd party after the software is in place. I assume that it is quite rare for this type of RNG test to fail, especially after the RNG has been put in the software.

 

[hobobiker]

REJECT! ZONG!
.

yeah ......ZONG is bad.......

this thread is becoming very .....er..........Random..

 

[happygobrokey]

where i come from, a zong is this:

how's that for random?

 

[ThodorisK]

Oh, come on happygobrokey, I did 2 years business administaration at Bradford College. It was supposed to be a Batchelor, but I gave up because of money and because I lost a couple of years i was not going on time in a fucking unpaid "work placement". My english was not so good then, too, but I was passing all other lessons. It was all crap besides hypothesis tests. Generalities. And I only got interested in statistics after I got into gambling and investments.

I also said that it is impossible to take advantage of any non-randomness if REASON No3 is true. Also, I read many times in casinomeister posts, that the payout in e.g. slots is predetermined. Everybody was saying this without freaking out. Have I misunderstood this? (I am asking you to answer me). But even if I misunderstood it, that does not mean this ... misunderstanding does not happen, i.e. that REASON No3 is not true.

Nolan, yes, the sequences might not pass stat tests while the are generated, I do not know, but even this "before or after control" creates a bias.

Right point there, both Happygobrokey and Nolan. In a 1,000,00O digits sample, we expect to see a long run of the same digits. In a smaller sample, we do not expect to see such a long run. In a larger sample, we expect a larger run of the same digits. What about an infinte sample? .... So it depends on the decision of the mathematician! He decides how big this sample should be, and decides the combination of "local randomness" and "global randomness" requirements which seems to him that define randomness the best way ... But doesnt that mean that this can leave a recognisable pattern where we can predict when the probability of an ace-picture coming increases form 39% to 40%? For example, if he has selected a combination of randomness tests that local randomness is extremelly predominant, then the outcomes will be a little close to the pattern 1-0-1-0-1-0-1, so after a non-picture, I there is a higher probability for a picture, than 4/13 (of course this is definatelly not the case, as it would soon be obvious to many players). But if in his combination of stat tests global randomness is predominant, there will be a greater clustering of the same cards compared to the outcomes of RNG approved by a local randomness predominant combination of stat tests.
Therefore each RNG produces outcomes with a specific degree of streakness-alternation. Because the mathematician has to choose an exact relationship between the opposing factors of local and global randomness.
Therefore, each combination of randomness tests results in a higher than 4/13 probability for an picture coming, after a particular number of non-pictures (and after a particular number of pictures).

Now the counterargument to this is ... let me think

 

[ThodorisK]

(a counter-argument besides REASON No3, lol)

 

[aka23]

The National Institute of Standards of Technology's test suite for RNGs is summarized at Old / Expired Link and described in detail elsewhere on the site. Note that they don't focus on local and global randomness, like the Wikipedia introduction to "statistical randomness" that you read. Nor do they imply that RNGs would be rejected due to "local" streaks of the type you have mentioned.

 

[ThodorisK]

All major sofwares use these tests? if yes, how do you know this?

 

[spearmaster]

I'm still having trouble trying to figure out what you are trying to prove - maybe it has something to do with the fact that I only read your posts in the morning or something.

If I guess right, you are saying that RNGs can't be random because it is possible to generate a series of numbers (0-1) which would fail a test of randomness?

Somehow that doesn't make a whole lot of sense...

 

[aka23]

All major sofwares use these tests? if yes, how do you know this?

I expect P-RNGs used by most casino softwares are based on one of a few long tried and tested algorithms. For example, iTechLabs, which tests some casino softwares, recommends the 5 following algorithms on the page at Old / Expired Link :

1. Mersenne Twister by Matsumoto and Nishimura (MT19937).
2. RANLUX by Luscher.
3. L'Ecuyer's Combined Multiple Recursive Generator.
4. L'Ecuyer's Tausworthe generator.
5. Ziff's Implementation of the gfsr4 generator.

If you search for any of these names, you'll find they have passed the NIST tests describe above.

After the RNG is in place, many of the larger casino softwares hire an outside auditor to confirm their RNG. I suspect this is primarily done by reviewing game results over a long period. An example, is the summary statement PWC game for Microgaming gaming roulette over a long period, as described at Outdated URL (Invalid) .

 

[ThodorisK]

To make it more simple, after you see e.g. 20 pictures in a row, the probability for the next card to be a picture is still 4/13? Doesnt the fact that the RNGs have passed certain statistical tests, lessen the probability below 4/13?

One might argue that a sequence made out of really random-independent outomes, would certainly (or almost certainly) pass with success the same statistical tests that the RNGs pass with success.
And therefore, the successful passing of some stat tests, does not create a bias.

But the latter counter-argument gives us the next counter-argument:
Suppose that a real roulette gives outomes which are random-independent between them:
It's another thing to know that some PAST results of a real roulette have successfully passed some stat tests, and another thing TO KNOW WITH A 100% CERTAINTY that ALL THE FUTURE results of this real roulette will successfully pass these tests. Because in this case, the results of this real roulette are not random-independent, because if they were, the probability that the future results would pass the stat tests successfully, would not be 100%, but it would be e.g. 99%!
Are we 100% or 99% certain that a RNG which has passed some stat tests in the past, will pass them again in the future? I think we are 100% and not 99%. Why? I am still thinking on this why. Perhaps I have already prooved it in my previous posts. Or, perhaps I am wrong. Can you help me on this? Anybody?

 

[pokeraddict]

Thodo, have you stopped gambling yet?

 

[spearmaster]

It's another thing to know that some PAST results of a real roulette have successfully passed some stat tests, and another thing TO KNOW WITH A 100% CERTAINTY that ALL THE FUTURE results of this real roulette will successfully pass these tests. Because in this case, the results of this real roulette are not random-independent, because if they were, the probability that the future results would pass the stat tests successfully, would not be 100%, but it would be e.g. 99%!

Pardon me for saying this - in a past post, you did say that your English wasn't that good at the time you were studying - but it appears to me your English is perfectly good - in fact, too good

But instead of mathematical/scientific/geekspeak, which unfortunately I can't be bothered to decipher if it isn't important, would you mind stating your theory in plain English?

I have enough trouble dealing with contracts and stuff like that and I would prefer that my leisure time only be spent enjoying reading and responding to posts... rather than trying to figure out exactly what you are getting at.

Thanks

 

[aka23]

When a casino shuffles, the cards are arranged in a random order using the RNG. The casino then deals cards in the selected order. The chance of drawing a picture card at any given time is (# of picture cards left in decks /# of cards in decks). This probability is 4/13 on the first card dealt after the deck is shuffled. The probability is slightly more or less than 4/13 on the 2nd card dealt, as the fraction (# of picture cards left in decks /# of cards in decks) changes.

Statistical tests rarely return results with a 100% confidence level. I believe most groups that audit casinos uses a 95.0% confidence level for this testing.

 

[ThodorisK]

Forget about the 4/14 etc. Focus on this:

I think the confidence level has nothing to do with what I meant. A confidence level refers to the stat tests made to outcomes that have happened in the past. Am I wrong? Explain clearly.

What I meant is that because the RNG outcomes are produced in a particular way e.g. a logarithm and/or the motion of molecules, electrons, etc, (and perhaps, also because they the FUTURE outcomes are FORCED to obey to some statistical tests)
then:
(perhaps, I cannot be sure),
there are many cases that there is a 100% probability that the FUTURE outcomes of a RNG will succeed these stat tests.
And if the results were truly random-independent, this 100% would not be the case.

This could have as a consequence, either that a player can take an advantage of this bias (as I explain in the REASON No1 paragraph), or it could mean that the average payoff is pretedermined to happen (REASON No3). I dont want to analyse these complications yet.

Do you know any other forum (or anything like a forum) where I can discuss this matter with other mathematicians?

 

[aka23]

RNG tests don't simply report pass/fail. They report the probability of the test results occurring in a random distribution. The confidence level relates to how far off from expected values this probability can be for the test to pass. We arbitrarily designate a certain probability as passing. There is rarely a 100% probability of such a test passing. The probability of a test passing relates to the specified confidence level, and can be calculated. Some RNG algorithms have a higher failure rate than others. The page at

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

lists the failure rate for some RNGs on the NIST test I mentioned earlier. The author of the page is saying his RNG is good because it has a failure rate of 0.175%.

If you want to find a forum with mathematicians, you can probably do so with Google. Note that a couple posters on this forum are mathematicians.

 

[ThodorisK]

So, these confidence levels are refering to the PAST outcomes of the RNG.
So ... I dont want to repeat what I said previously.

I guess the only one who can help me judging my arguments, is myself.
But I dont have enough knowledge on the exact procedure they use for the generation of the RNG outcomes. Do you completelly understand that Boss media chart? Will Moss Media give more more details on their procudure?

 

[ThodorisK]

It truly isn't possible for a computer to come up with a coincidental account of numbers. A computer always calculates its numbers based on mathematical statistics. These statistics remain constant regardless of the complexity of the calculating process.........Boss Medias RNG is tested over billions of results that are constantly monitored for accuracy in our 100% random results. You can follow up your interest by looking at the following flow chart in Picture 14: Flowchart
( Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) )

I still see that what is meant by this guy's words, is that the future outcomes (sequences of digits), before they come out, are filtered by stat tests, so that these outcomes will succeed with a 100% certainty in these tests.

Perhaps he mis-formulated what he meant? I dont think sooo!

 

[aka23]

So, these confidence levels are refering to the PAST outcomes of the RNG.
So ... I dont want to repeat what I said previously.

I guess the only one who can help me judging my arguments, is myself.
But I dont have enough knowledge on the exact procedure they use for the generation of the RNG outcomes. Do you completelly understand that Boss media chart? Will Moss Media give more more details on their procudure?

A RNG is tested with a long sequence of outputs. The result of the RNG test does not use past outcomes of the RNG, only the sequence under test. The outcomes of the RNG test is compared to the the expected outcome in a true random distribution. The confidence interval relates to the distance between the results and the expected results in a true random distribution. These expected results are determined using probability equations.

The Boss Media guy said that their results are "monitored" for accuracy, not that the results are filtered before they come out. They may simply mean that results are audited by a 3rd party, like the other large softwares do. Filtering results before they come out would defeat the purpose of a RNG. And yes, I do understand the basics of the Boss Media flowchart. I'd need more detail about the procedure to "understand completely".

The problem is not that nobody on this forum is able to judge your arguments. The problem is that you do not like the result.

 

[ThodorisK]

By this "100% certaintly" I simply mean that the future outcomes are bound to succeed these tests, simply because they have already been filtred by them before they come out.

It has nothing to do with the "degree of certainty" or else called "confidece level" or "signifocance level" of a hypothesis tests.

Yes, I know, Nolan, you say that's not what he meant. But that's exactly what he expressed.

I also said that even if this is not the case, then for many other reasons, perhaps in many cases the probability of the FUTURE outomes to succeed many stat tests, is 100%, whereas if they were truly random, this probability would be less than 100%.

 

[ThodorisK]

Ok, then, since you understand the chart of Boss Media.

The first data comes from the "noice" which is the motion of molecules or subatimic particles, right?

Then? This data is entered into a logarithm (a mathematical function-equetion), or not?

 

[ThodorisK]

And explain the procedures of the
Picture 14: Flowchart
which is the page:
Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

If I ask Boss Media to explain this chart to me, will they do it?

 

[tennis_balls]

And explain the procedures of the
Picture 14: Flowchart
which is the page:
Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

If I ask Boss Media to explain this chart to me, will they do it?

you go Thodo!

i think you've really got him pinned to the mat now!

CHECK! and MATE!

finally this matter is settled!

 

[aka23]

The Orion RNG uses two Zener diode noise sources to generate "random" numbers. This Orion RNG feeds reseeding, key, and other data into a Mersenne Twister P-RNG with Blowfish cipher encryption that has several different pipes. The 32-bit output of this Mersenne Twister/Blowfish P-RNG is sent to a "random number client."

 

[ThodorisK]

"... there are sites using rogue software that must be exposed ...
...The software is very good, with great control over the profit/winnings. It has the ability to change the winning % per game/table in real-time. Also you can withdraw the profit and limit player's winnings. Games are completely random, if the winning is within the limit. If the bet is causing winning over the set limit, the generator is generating another number until the winning is within the limit (or player loses).
..."
Michael Shackleford (

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

)

Compare the above meaning of these words, with the meaning of the bolow words:

"Sren: How do you make random numbers and a fair casino game?
Roger: It truly isn't possible for a computer to come up with a coincidental account of numbers. A computer always calculates its numbers based on mathematical statistics. These statistics remain constant regardless of the complexity of the calculating process. I have been responsible for the development of Boss Medias Random Number Generator 'RNG' ..."
Roger Jnsson (Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) )

I think Mr Roger has to re-formulate what he meant.

The 2 above meanings are the same: REASON No3:
"Are the future random outcomes cut and modified so that the profits/losses of each player, or the profits/losses of all players playing in a Boss Media casino, will definitely fall close to the statistically expected average payoff? Doesnt that mean that each player NO MATTER WHAT HIS DECISIONS ARE, will surely not win much above (or lose much below) the statistically expected average payoff? If the amount I will lose or win is predetermined to fall within certain limits, then not only the future outcomes are not random-independent events, but this equals to CHEATING. For example, if you are already winning much above the statistical average payoff, and you suddendly make a very big bet, this bet is bound to lose!!!"
Theodoros Kiriakopoulos

And of course, this cheating is impossible to be statistically prooven, as the results will be very close to the statistically average loss!

I honestly did not want to proove cheating when I started writing in this thread. I wanted to reveal and discuss my possible discovery on how to make an edge for the player out of the degree of the non-randomness (REASON No1). But the day this thread started, I found Roger's words! Shit!

But I still think that there might be a way to translate the degree of non-randomness into an edge for the player, if Roger meant something else, and if most casinos dont apply REASON No3 (as Aka23 is 100% certain this is the case).

So I dont want to discuss again cheating in this thread and REASON No3. I think I have exhausted the matter.

I only want to discuss if it is possible to take advantage the degree of non-randomness to create an edge for the player (supposing there is no cheating, not even in the REASON No3 form of cheating). So supposing this, I start again about if it is possible for the player to have an edge:

 

[spearmaster]

For example, if you are already winning much above the statistical average payoff, and you suddendly make a very big bet, this bet is bound to lose!!!"

This is what is known as "gambler's fallacy".

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Please understand this: There is no such thing as an event being "due." An event is not more likely just because it has not happened for a long time. For example, many people mistakenly believe that if one color in roulette has won several times in a row then the other color is overdue and they should bet on it. While the ratio of reds to blacks will always approach 50/50 in the long term, it can not be concluded that this will happen in the short term. It does not matter what the history of past spins is; every trial in games of luck like roulette are independent, and each color is equally likely to come up every time. If you don't believe me, try guessing the toss of 1,000 coin flips using any method of prediction you like. I guarantee that 99% of the time you will get between 459 and 541 correct.

The idea that events can be "due" is known as the Gambler's Fallacy.

 

[KasinoKing]

Sheeesh this is one of the most boring threads I ever tried to read!

I echo Spear:-

But instead of mathematical/scientific/geekspeak, which unfortunately I can't be bothered to decipher if it isn't important, would you mind stating your theory in plain English?

So are you saying casino software is rigged, RNG's are not 100% truly random (which no one can detect & doesn't matter a toss to the person playing the game anyway), it's impossible to beat the house edge, or maybe something which we have not already heard 1000+ times before...?
(That question is to Thodorisk, not Spear!)

This is what is known as "gambler's fallacy".

Originally Posted by Wizard of Odds

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Please understand this: There is no such thing as an event being "due." An event is not more likely just because it has not happened for a long time. For example, many people mistakenly believe that if one color in roulette has won several times in a row then the other color is overdue and they should bet on it. While the ratio of reds to blacks will always approach 50/50 in the long term, it can not be concluded that this will happen in the short term.

In my mind those two bold bits totally contradict each other.
It's OK - please no-one try to convince me otherwise!
I am quite happy to carry on winning in my ignorance and using my gamblers fallacy...

 

[tennis_balls]

I am quite happy to carry on winning in my ignorance and using my gamblers fallacy...

That's because you are on the top of a double-secret list that online casinos use to ensure that there are a few perrenial winners. The software recognizes KK's IP address and then re-directs his action to the +EV RNG.

 

[aka23]

I believe the Wizard of Odds quote relates to Start Your Own Casino software. This small software has advertised itself to be unfair to potential buyers. For a more detailed summary, see the rogue section of this site at https://www.casinomeister.com/online-casinos/reviews/start-your-own/ . Start Your Own Casino software is (or has been) unfair, but this does not mean Boss Media or any other software has similar problems. The Boss Media rep's statement is poorly worded, yet clearly has a different meaning. While we are quoting Wizard of Odds, note the following statement about Boss Media BJ fairness in Wizard's Q/A column:

You need to give me some hard numbers to have this taken this seriously. For example if you played 1000 hands you would expect the dealer to have a 10 or face card up about 308 times. The probability of the actual number being within 50 of 308 is 99.93%. If you were outside of 50 then we could raise our eyebrows and if you were outside even more we could really get serious. However I can't do much with "the majority." I indicate how to gather data a test for online cheating in my FAQ. Finally, I want to say that I strongly feel that Boss Media is playing a fair game.

 

[ThodorisK]

Aka, do you know how often the "noise" re-seeds the logarithm?