TurboGenius Gambler's Fallacy (absurd ?) Proof.

Very cool !
The format might be a problem. To import into RX the listing has to be one number at a time
without commas, etc.
I grabbed 500 spins from the site and removed the commas and put the numbers in the proper
format to import into RX

 

I might know a thing or two about that....
You are absolutely right.

 

Here are those spins run through RX -


Nothing out of the ordinary.
Turns out the spins can be imported without me having to do anything to them lol.

 

& as far as random having limits or being (truly) random or not ..


gives a qwawck what MJ, B, DSSA sayes ..


here's an article by NIST, the U.S. government institution, funded with $1,034.5 billion in 2021 https://www.nist.gov/director/congressional-and-legislative-affairs/nist-appropriations-summary-0 out of which $40-46m or ≈4.2% are dedicated directly in quantum research itself -- that's besides those dedicated to research facilities construction .. https://www.aip.org/fyi/2021/final-fy21-appropriations-national-institute-standards-and-technology

& lo & behold .. they use a phrase


"certifying random"

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2015/11/nist-team-proves-spooky-action-distance-really-real
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2012/10/truly-random-numbers-not-chance




Why the hell should they be spending in extent of 40m/year on this ?!
.. or should I listen to the qweank(s) .. the expert(s) of math ..

 

They must have never wasted time listening to Sir Anyone or "all the experts throughout history". lol

 

There are many statistical tests and most PRNGs fail them. The most popular one being the Mersenne Twister (MT), a piece of garbage but is used by some casinos. Certainly there still exist opportunities to exploit naive use of that PRNG.

The other problem is the PRNG state is too small to provide the necessary degrees of freedom. The state is so small it cannot be used to provide an equiprobable shuffle of a single deck of cards let alone 8.

The combinatorial space for a single deck is more than the number of bits of state the MT has so you can't arrive at every possible combination of deck shuffle. Over time you can visit every combination but never EVER have an equiprobable chance of every possiblity on the next shuffle. This creates outcomes and deck sequences that don't match true random.

The other problem is parity. The MT doesn't pass even and oddness statistical tests.

Another problem is it is only first order unbiased. meaning single outcomes are not biased. But it fails second and third order tests, meaning if we look at pairs, triples etc they are not uniformly distributed.

Suffice to say there are very few PRNGs worth using and MT is not one I would use.

Fortuna is a recent one and makes the most from the available entropy, still need to be careful with state size and the degrees of freedom required as every PRNG has a limit on the state size.

Back in the day when I was developing high grade cryptographic equipment we used Johnson-Nyquist noise as a source of quantum entropy. Most financial transaction systems, ATM's VisaCard MasterCard, Amex etc have been secured using this equipment to secure their transactions and provide secure key generation. SWIFT interbank payments, even Hong Kong Jockey Club used it to secure billions of dollars of transactions daily.

 

As I said you have no idea the extent that intelligence agencies go to ensure random has no local bias. It's not good enough to rely only on sources within our own galaxy.

 

Some questions are rhetoric .. @TwoUp up.

In addition to that .. what do you suggest? [you know what & why I am talking about ..]

 

Sorry, I had to laugh. Lol

 

I know, and my answer was intended for all those not in the know.

I can't go into specifics, but you have to think worst case and consider how would an adversary who knows what sources you're sampling not be able to feasibly sample or poison the same data to introduce bias. And how would you avoid local effects or other systemic biases.

It's a tough problem, similar parallels exist in block chain approaches to secure random generation where all actors but one (or some threshold) are assumed to be Byzantine and corrupt the process and protocol of arriving at a random value without anyone being able to influence the outcome through their participation or dropping out of the protocol when the answer doesn't suit them and thereby forcing another run of the protocol. For example look at the RandHound paper.

It's warfare basically.

 

Wow, do I really have to spell it out? The HE isn't only paid on winning bets, unless you win every bet. It's paid on losing bets too because there are too many numbers on the wheel. That means on average it takes longer to get a win than it would have done without the extra number. In other words, a higher number of losses between wins. The short payout and and the extra number are two sides of the same coin, and that means you pay the HE on both winning and losing bets.

And do you really believe that keeping sessions short is the key to avoiding the house edge? That's like saying I will never have to replace the tyres on my car because I only ever drive short distances, lol.

And here's a reply to Dr Sir you made in the other thread:

This is a very elementary mistake. Sorry, but I just can't take you seriously any more.

 

You're not an AP and have no interest in looking for a bias, so why even bring it up? Of course outcomes can be NOT random, but you're playing WITHIN the confines of "random" and insist that you can get an edge within those confines, not outside them. So I'm not sure what your point is.

 

Hogwash.

Benas is correct, because probability is a numerical encoding of a state of knowledge, it's not an objective "thing" out there which everyone agrees on. If you have no information which suggests otherwise, then your assessment is that the wheel is random, but it may not be to an expert in bias like Dr Sir.

And of course there are degrees of randomness. Just in the last few posts you've been discussing RNGs and their quality; what does that suggest if not degrees of randomness. Otherwise it would be meaningless to suggest that one RNG was "better" than another.

And LF, when are you going to keep your promise about not posting here again? lol.

 

So, so wrong, lost bets are not impacted by house edge.

There are never too many numbers as you can bet any of the 37 numbers and they will hit according to the true odds. It's like arguing a coin has too many sides because the house charges 2.7% on a win. Both sides are equally likely to hit and if you chose wrong one you simply lose the bet, no house edge paid, if you win, great you get paid true odds less 2.7% tax. Dues paid.

A loss is simply a loss and house house tax is only ever extracted on the win.

Do you believe that every time you press go on your roulette simulator that the past simulations you have run effect the house edge and variance of the current simulation?

How many simulations have you squandered?

Anything you do now will be tainted from the past sessions and simulations. Your now trapped in a universe of house edge exceding the square root of the variance from the past. What will you do now?

In fact you imply no-one can ever do a clean simulation or test anything, because you say they taint the results with the burdens from the past. Who's past? Everyone's? Or does the wheel real or simulated know it's you?

See you won't answer my direct questions because you just got exposed with a fallacy.

Each session is independent, the house edge and the negative variance is compartmentalized to that session. If you win the session you beat the negative variance and paid the house edge due. If you lose you got beaten by the negative variance.

Every session starts anew. I seriously can't believe I have to say this.

You may as well pack your bags now MJ.

 

I don't have the mood to respond to your post anymore.
I couldn't care less anymore.
Real winners don't care.

So yes this is my last post.

I have to write this before I go.

I am THE EXPERT in systems betting.

 

I have to write this last post from THE EXPERT in systems betting.

If you don't win with flatbet you're not exploiting randomness correctly.

Random spins is not that unpredictable like what mathboyz tell you.

It's blardy predictable if you understand random correctly.

Let me tell you how predictable random is.

I win with betting a SINGLE chip, the same chip size every bet.

I win EASILY.

That's how SIMPLE to beat random spins.

Now you know why I claim this title as THE EXPERT in systems betting.

Check my history posts on forums.
I wrote the details how.
It's all about physics and math.

Too bad you guys refuse to believe what THE EXPERT posted.

Goodbye forums.

 

Could you provide a link pls. I'm always interested to learn more

 

The following literatures.

V. K. Rohatgi and A. K. Saleh, An Introduction to Probability and Statistics, Second Edition, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte. Ltd., Singapore, 2001

J. D. Gibbons and S. Chakraborti, Nonparametric Statistical Inference, Third Edition, Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, 1992

B. R. Bhat, Stochastic Models: Analysis and Applications, Reprint, New Age International (P) Ltd., New Delhi, 2004

 

Gambling forums is the worse place to get your facts.

Google to get the correct facts.

https://creativemaths.net/blog/rand...om sample is a,of the previous objects chosen.

 

Check out CHT posts on rouletteLife and Steve's forum.

I posted the links, the videos.

Everything you require about the specific physics and math, I posted.

Denzie, I finally made the breakthrough.

The answer is in physics.
It's a science law.
Math merely does the counting.

One single chip at the right place, right time,
I win more than lose.
Any wheel.
Any casino.

Check it out.

Without this physics law and counting math you have no chance to win single chip flatbet.