1. Welcome to the #1 Gambling Community with the best minds across the entire gambling spectrum. REGISTER NOW!
  2. Have a gambling question?

    Post it here and our gambling experts will answer it!
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Join our $5,000 Cash Giveaway!

    Win Cash by Posting and Inviting New Members!

Roulette Turbo vs Steve

Discussion in 'Roulette Forum' started by theLaw, Jun 30, 2018.

  1. gizmotron

    gizmotron Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Likes:
    229
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    The West Coast of USA, RV'ing
    It is due to coincidence. You see what randomness is by studying the coincidences. There is no such thing as "pure randomness." That's been proven by physiological peer reviewed research. You are suggesting that your perception of randomness directly relates to cause and effect. It is a form of magical thinking. It is a process of looking at what it is from a subjective perspective.
     
  2. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    410
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    I get emails from that other forum that I left.
    This was quoted, I assume it's word for word.
    Think about this and then consider what we're dealing with when it comes
    to people trying to "prove me wrong".

    A computer can pick numbers randomly.
    A person picking numbers randomly would be biased and not random.
    What sense does that make ?
    On one hand - whatever numbers you pick won't matter because you can't win.
    On the other hand, you might win picking randomly but then your biased.
    So a program to "pick random numbers" vs a control group of "random numbers" will
    obviously give the exact same results (and.... this is proof that I'm wrong ??)
    If a person picks numbers, then it's not "random" anymore and the results are bias.

    *sighs.
     
  3. Jerome

    Jerome Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Likes:
    2
    Location:
    Britain
    TG,

    A computer picking numbers via its built-in RNG will likely not give the same results as someone picking numbers which he thinks are "random". Studies have shown that people who are asked to make up a random sequence almost always produce a sequence which would never pass a randomness test. They usually don't include enough long streaks. And people who play the lotto almost never pick 1,2,3,4,5,6 because it's "not random enough", they prefer something like 1,7,16,24,29,33 not understanding that the 2 sequences have exactly the same probability.
     
  4. mr j

    mr j Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Likes:
    377
    Occupation:
    self employed
    Location:
    Milwaukee, WIS
    I read that no major lottery in history has there ever been a 6 number sequence in order. It does not have to be
    123456, it can also be 26 27 28 29 30 31. That does NOT mean it cant hit, it only means it probably wont hit.

    If you bought a Quick Pick ticket and you got.....26 27 28 29 30 31, dont throw it out but you might as well buy another ticket.

    Ken
     
  5. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    410
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    I understand your point - however what a person "thinks" doesn't matter, it's still the same as random if they pick 1,2,3,4,5,6.
    I'm not sure what the argument is (if there even is one). A person picking randomly (even if they think it's not random) is still going to produce the same results as the computer picking random numbers. It might not appear "as" random but it doesn't matter.
    A person playing a method or system isn't picking their bets randomly, they have a reason for doing so.
    Maybe his tester is trying to show that "either way it's the same results" ? I have no idea, I'm confused lol.

    I could see a argument if there wasn't a wheel and you had to rely on a human being picking the outcomes, then yes I doubt it would be random (but it could be). But putting a player against a machine just picking numbers randomly... I'm not sure what the point is.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2018
  6. Jerome

    Jerome Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Likes:
    2
    Location:
    Britain
    Huh? How can it be the same as random if a person is picking numbers which they "think" are random when they aren't? A random number stream has to conform to certain objective standards in order to be classified as random, such as each number having an equal chance to be selected, no regular patterns, etc. And If what you say is true then why are there different qualities of random number generators (such as "true" RNGs vs pseudo RNGs)? There are a lot of tests which an RNG has to go through in order to be certified as random. No person just making up "random" numbers out of his head would pass them.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness_tests

    and

    Are the Numbers Really Random?
    This question is surprisingly hard to answer. Before we try, let's define what exactly we mean by a random number.

    When discussing single numbers, a random number is one that is drawn from a set of possible values, each of which is equally probable. In statistics, this is called a uniform distribution, because the distribution of probabilities for each number is uniform (i.e., the same) across the range of possible values. For example, a good (unloaded) die has the probability 1/6 of rolling a one, 1/6 of rolling a two and so on. Hence, the probability of each of the six numbers coming up is exactly the same, so we say any roll of our die has a uniform distribution. When discussing a sequence of random numbers, each number drawn must be statistically independent of the others. This means that drawing one value doesn't make that value less likely to occur again. This is exactly the case with our unloaded die: If you roll a six, that doesn't mean the chance of rolling another six changes.

    So, why is it hard to test whether a given sequence of numbers is random? The reason is that if your random number generator (or your die) is good, each possible sequence of values (or die rolls) is equally likely to appear. This means that a good random number generator will also produce sequences that look nonrandom to the human eye (e.g., a series of ten rolls of six on our die) and which also fail any statistical tests that we might expose it to. If you flip enough coins, you will get sequences of coin flips that seen in isolation from the rest of the sequence don't look random at all.
    https://www.random.org/analysis/

    I don't know the context of the statement either. Do you have a link to the forum thread?
     
  7. Jerome

    Jerome Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Likes:
    2
    Location:
    Britain
    Huh? How can it be the same as random if a person is picking numbers which they "think" are random when they aren't? A random number stream has to conform to certain objective standards in order to be classified as random, such as each number having an equal chance to be selected, no regular patterns, etc. And If what you say is true then why are there different qualities of random number generators (such as "true" RNGs vs pseudo RNGs)? There are a lot of tests which an RNG has to go through in order to be certified as random. If it takes a lot of thought and careful design to come up with a good RNG then no person just making up "random" numbers out of his head would pass the tests of randomness; there is almost certainly going to be some kind of systematic bias. I already mentioned one of the ways this is likely to occur. For outcomes to be random all sequences of the same length have to be equally likely, and this includes sequences which appear to be quite regular (such as 1,2,3,4,5,6) but which anyone making up "random" numbers would probably avoid. Random numbers should also be independent, but as we know many people don't understand independence very well and think that outcomes have to balance out in the short run, so someone believing this is (perhaps unconsciously) going to create dependent outcomes in their "random" sequence.

    I'm not sure either because I don't know the context and haven't read the forum thread in which the statement was written.
     
  8. John Blerg

    John Blerg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2018
    Likes:
    62
    Occupation:
    R&D Gambler & Baccarat Method Founder
    Location:
    Whittier California
    What I heard is 5 and not Detroit people do hear things LOL!
     
  9. John Blerg

    John Blerg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2018
    Likes:
    62
    Occupation:
    R&D Gambler & Baccarat Method Founder
    Location:
    Whittier California
    Grown pro gamblers jealous? Lol
     
  10. mr j

    mr j Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Likes:
    377
    Occupation:
    self employed
    Location:
    Milwaukee, WIS
    I'll tell you whats really funny. This is as RUDE as you can get because Admin has their eye on you big time.

    Your last few posts are hilarious because you try going right up to the line of rudeness, but cant. ;)

    Ken
     

Share This Page