TurboGenius The Limits of Random - 2020

Yet another subject that is very popular on roulette discussion forums is
the so-called debate about how random performs.

It's always interesting how those who don't agree that random has limits
will also agree that it does - even to exploit it when possible.
When a bias wheel is detected, this process of testing proves in itself that
the current spins are not "random" and a bias is present... yet the same people
will argue that random has no limits.
It would give the reader the wrong idea that with random "anything can happen".....
either given enough time or spins... "anything" is possible with random.
This simply isn't true. There are things that do happen, but these prove that
a wheel isn't producing random results (bias) and further backs up the argument
for random having limits.

As a quick initial demonstration I've uploaded a video showing software tracking
the results of spins as they happen.



=================================================

Now, this is how random performs.
It isn't chaotic and unpredictable, it actually shows predictable results.
It also shows the limits that random has.

Assume for a moment at spin #1 that we have a fresh set of data being
charted.... is there any locations below 0 ? No. 0 appearances is the low limit
at all times. This already is a limit that exists naturally.
Now a number can appear 10 times more than the others for example... but as soon
as it gets beyond "random" in results the "FAIL" will appear and this isn't considered
a random outcome game.
It could be from a wheel defect or some other cause, but it isn't random.
There is a high limit - and when this limit is surpassed - we don't have random
results.
This again yet alone proves that random has limits.. a low limit and a high limit
and as spins go by (as in the video) - all numbers will gain hits randomly and the
circle grows... at no time is there some strange deviation from this "random"
and if there were, it would NOT be random. The results would have gone beyond
the limits.

Example #1 -


I created 2 blue dots to represent fictional numbers.
One is off on it's own near the center of the circle - it would have appeared
at some "impossible" place in the chart, and another outside of the bottom right -
again appearing at some "impossible" place.

If either of these were an event, "random" would not be the result... because random
has limits.

The green line represents the "mean" or the average -
as we can see MOST numbers appear incredibly close to this "average".
Some have appeared more than expected and are outside of the green average line.
Some have appeared less than expected and are inside of the green average line.

The blue line that connects them all SHOULD be considered as an analogy I like
to use - a "rubber band" that contains random. Some can be greater and some less
than average - but this ALL happens within a controlled area -
what isn't possible with "random" is for either of the blue dots that I added to happen.
If so, then there isn't random - there is a bias/malfunction or defect in the
apparatus producing the spins.

So while many will argue that "anything is possible" - I've just proved and demonstrated
that this statement is false.

Random HAS limits, when it doesn't - it's NOT random.

 

I agree, well said.
I think you're on the right track but your aiming is off.
Refine the ordering then it's all about the triggers.

Cheers

 

Gizomtran said that all table games will be in museums except poker because of his breaking the code and that will cause all casinos to go bankrupt. he posted it on this forum board. what do you think?

 

Imagine the damage one could do if only they had enough time to track numbers......

 

As long as you know the averages

 

Luck of the Irish data
I ran about 500 000 cycles of 37 spins and came up with the following:

(Number on left is number of unique numbers and next number is how many times a spin cycle had exactly that many unique numbers in the test)

37 spin cycle:

15 1
16 12
17 202
18 1417
19 6020
20 18309
21 41304
22 73951
23 98780
24 102814
25 80164
26 47276
27 20934
28 6706
29 1685
30 349
31 35
32 5
This is a test I did in November. I tested over 1 million single zero RNG spins and got this:

2 3210
3 6251
4 9017
5 10906
6 12398
7 12852
8 12454
9 11478
10 10007
11 8619
12 6845
13 5243
14 3857
15 2730
16 1816
17 1128
18 687
19 355
20 246
21 96
22 61
23 29
24 16
25 5
26 3
27 0
28 0
29 0
30 0
31 0
32 0
33 0
34 0
35 0
36 0

The most unique numbers in a row was 25 (The 26 means it hit on the 26th spin, so 25 unique numbers in a row) and this happened only 3 times.
Post above 20 spins NO repeat.

 

Notto, my point was to show how we could make a ton of money with the fallacy . ( nothing about 24 numbers) The fallacy is nicely at work in TG's video . This could be done flat-betting but I would definitely put a progression on it. I've done dozens of these tests and it's DEFINITELY a solid way to make money. There are times when we finally select our numbers (1-4) that some remain at their spot for more spins. That's why we play multiple and don't bet every spin. (Although we could)

Notice the area on the wheel around #1 and #23 "catching up "...