Roulette RNG vs. Real Wheels

What is the difference? Let's forget about cheating RNGs and faulty wheels for a second. What is the difference in terms of nature, variance, outcomes, degrees of freedom, statistical metrics, etc?

Please talk science. Don't post personal assumptions.

 

With cheating and manipulation aside, for system players the science says they are both random number generators with results so similar that it shouldn't matter which type you use.

 

Forensically speaking you could not tell the difference between 2 or mor posted series of numbers of any length if they are live play or rng.
And you know it.
If you don’t then you have a problem.
To be fair it’s the same for baccarat, pai gao, craps you don’t and cannot say one is rng or live. There is no science involved, imho stupid post.
I can post the results and I guarantee you and everyone else will be none the wiser.
poppy cock , have we sunk this low , why not ask if rain water is wetter than tap water just by touching it.

Cheers

 

Chill the fuck down, I believe the same. I just had some weird test results recently and I heard some people saying that RNG can produce results with huger variances, but in the end, the results (hit rates, etc.) end up equal. I want to hear them explain.

 

I asked them the same thing. They won't answer. As I think, because this is either the secret or one of the foundations of the "secret". Sorry for the bastard questions, as many do here, but the question is real. If the rng also preserves the Lott law, then how can it cheat?
P.s. Still alive..

 

You obviously can’t see the irony of your post .

So here you go princess, this thread sucks, and you should stop anal mind melding with gerbils , they are way too mentally advanced than you are.

You seem content to get into a circle jerk of gormless posts on a topic you just answered for yourself. Next will you ask what our fingers smell like after we wipe our arse?
Get a life idiot.
And continue to fuck your self in the meantime. If you want a shit show lick your front door. Peasant.

 

Happy you didn’t commit hari kiri, as you seemed on edge last post before this. Cheers

 

You deserve the name and the occupation. Wish I could give enough fucks to report your poetry.

 

From a science/maths point of view, a roulette wheel is a linear congruential number generator.
If you google wikipedia you will see that the algorithm for this type of generator is

X(n+1) = (aXn + C) mod m

where X(n+1) is the next number to spun
Xn is the last number spun
a is the multiplier or distance that the ball travels
C is the increment
m is the modulus (37 numbers)

Most RNG use Mersenne twister which is a psuedorandom number generator.

From a human point of view, I don't believe you could see the difference between them.

 

Or what is the difference between rng play for fun vs play for real ?

 

Where money is involved you play for real or not at all.

 

For me the outcomes from an RNG are too random in the short term to be useful for what I do. The results are the same in the long term but I'm playing the extreme short-term and RNG's are useless to me. I can usually tell by looking at outcomes if they came from a real wheel or an RNG. And no you cannot test me. I am not here to convince anybody of anything.

 

I feel that real wheels are more chaotic then RNG'S. For instance the appearance of zeros on the RNG seems to be a much more regular occurrence than on a real wheel. They seem to be more evenly spaced out. I can play actuals on RX and not see a zero for over 100 spins or more. If I switch to playing outcomes from the RNG on RX it seems like I see the zeros very regularly. And the outcomes just look different then they do on a real wheel.

 

Lol see , all you need is a packet of sao biscuits then you can play soggy sao. Lol.

 

It’s the thought that counts. Lol.
It’s truly not my fault you created this thread. Cheers

 

I can't tell the difference. I see stretches all the time in RNG that last well over 100 spins, even on double zero wheels. The two slots that happen to be green on a wheel are no different than any cold numbers. It's just a coincidence that the two greens happen to be in the current set of coldest numbers when they sleep. I'm not going to bother convincing anyone to give up a superstition. It's one of the things that allows me to do better than others. I like doing that. I also enjoy watching others abandoned magical thinking in the gambling world. Once you clean out all the crud that is not true then all you are left with is a better realization of what is real and what is not. I place bets on coincidences that continue for a very few or even one more spin. It's so simple. To have magical expectations added as a supplementary bonus is best left to those that will never do as well as I do. In other words, I enjoy anyone that helps keep the light on at the casino. I'd hate for the gold mine to shut down. There appears to be very little chance of that.

 

Most PRNGs (Pseudo Random Number Generator) in common use fail many quality and statistical tests. The most common RNG is the Mersenne Twister which has many defects including parity (even vs odd).

There is a widely held misconception that a large period is a defining quality of a good PRNG but it is not sufficient to give quality results.

One of the other problems with most PRNGs is the seeding and the state is too small to provide enough degrees of freedom. As a result most PRNGs have woefully insufficient state to arrive at every possible shuffle of a single deck of cards in an equiprobable manner. Forget 8 decks.

To visualise the concept imagine your PRNG can pick any number from 0 to 100 (101 possibilities is also prime). But the PRNG internal state is small so it's limited to picking from a continuously evolving subset of just one 7th of numbers. The period (101) may be sufficient to eventually cover all numbers fairly but certainly the next outcome is not equiprobable and is in fact constrained to just 7 degrees of freedom, not 101 degrees of freedom.

Most RNGs also only have fairness on first degree (single outcomes) they fail statistical tests on pairs, they fail binary-rank test and linear complexity tests.

Other problems include equidistribution, that is about ensuring pairs of outcomes are equally distributed. Many PRNGS are designed to provide this property as part of how they achieve an equiprobable outcome with a long period. However this also means they will fail a collision test. Which is a test where we generate random numbers n bits long and test for a match with other random blocks. The birthday paradox says we should get a collision in the order of SQRT(2^n) numbers but most PRNGs will fail this test an not collide ever because of their long period and trying to generate an equiprobable and equidistributed outcome.

The above are some of the reasons PRNGs don't really compare to real random.

There are a set of statistical tests called the diehard tests (and more recent the dieharder tests) which are often used to assess quality of a random generator. The tests can even be used on a set of outcomes to see if it's random. You can google that.

 

The problem is the collision test being used. I doubt that it is done with just two factors to collide as a good example of a real Roulette wheel. How do I know? I programmed one with real world collision artifacts. The human body can't throw a ball exactly the same. If you set the timing intersects for a real talented musician you will see that they aren't mathematically good at hitting their points well at all. So computers that run MIDI sequences offer the ability to program slight deviations in order to humanize performance.

I included varying degrees of throws, a component for a constancy in gravity, wheel resistance do to programmed imperfections, targets with diamond shaped intercepts in the decent path, different diameter and weighted balls, shallow slot boundaries with random bounce characteristics, and variable wheel speeds. It's all mathematical. It's purely pseudo RNG because it uses randomness to produce real results. There is no such thing as an exact same start point. Humans are incapable of this as demonstrated by expert musicians.

And once I completed the project I still had useful coincidences the likes of real casino's wheels. Boundary intercepts by computers are as old as computers and the simple game of PONG. I'm not suspicious of the RNG. I am fearful of the programmer that won't let zeros sleep. I'm fearful of cheating that would not be easily detected.

 

Another problem RNGs have is their internal state can end up with a lot of zeros which is fairly rare but when it happens ir doesn't give the RNG a lot of substance to work with so the quality and output can be quite poor when it happens, and the decoherence/recovery takes many millions of cycles. Imagine that having millions of outputs of rubbish.

 

Magical thinking, (confirmation bias) does not make research better. You don't believe me. Al Gore wanted a government grant to do research so He took another man's work and submitted a request to research global cooling. At that point Al Gored learned that his path to riches was the government that can be manipulated. You can get any result that you go looking for if your motivation is right. And you can sucker people for decades and get your own Gulfstream V. Basically I do not believe your scientific gobbledygook. You are taking Roulette results out of context and then concluding things as lame as too many zeros. You just blew up all the credibility in your argument. Now don't admit that. It would be a quality of character that might be a far reach.