RNG vs Actuals: A challenge

[bombus]

Маui, it is not worth 25 bucks. this is a hard work. if u were talking at least a few hundred bucks to the pocket of the winner, then u would find a few winners for sure. Who would take this challenge for 25 bucks? c'mon...
that's ridiculous.

It seems I'm ridiculous, so if I win I'll donate the $25 to iggiv!  

[iggiv]

Bombus, win first )

[Steve]

The question is can you see the difference by just looking at the numbers.

Without more variables/data, unlikely. If we're talking about just spin after spin and nothing more, yes you can do it if its the same wheel AND you have enough data. But it would not be realistic on all wheels. For most wheels, you will realistically need more data. If the wheel's variables changed, and you didnt know about the change, then you are less able to segregate and know when patterns start and end. Then you cant define patterns properly.

[Steve]

I checked samples 1-6 and although I dont believe there is anywhere near enough data for proper analysis, sets 1,3 and 5 look most like real wheel spins. For proper analysis, you need much more. There is not even segregation to direction in the spins.

[Kelly]

Yeah but even if by standing next to wheel taking data, i doubt you would not be able to find the exact same number stream also generated by a software RNG.  Im not disputing  the spin to spin preditability on a physical wheel when knowing what is happening in the wheel. You would have to look under the "hood" in the RNG algorithm to do something similar on the software RNG.  There are people here though that claims they can tell the difference by simply looking at the numbers.  Personally i doubt that any number stream, asuming no biased wheel,  from a casino is also possible in a software RNG.   Which means no one can tell the difference by just looking at the numbers.

Its your turn now, cheese.

[MauiSunset]

I have NO doubt that hundreds of years ago it was possible to write down numbers spun by the wheels and relate them to a dealer and come up with maybe a 1% to 3% or 5% edge over the house - subtracting the 2%+ house edge that leave a net increase of 2%.

Then there was all the cheating done by casinos with magnets.

Why not just buy a casino and do the same thing legally - more money and far easier?

However, today with the wheels that are tested by computers and the rotation of the dealers what would the "edge" be?  1/10 of 1% until the next dealer switches in 60 minutes from now?

My opinion is that this is a topic that started 200+ years ago and ended 20+ years ago but its fun to talk about "secret" tricks that have nothing to do with probability or statistics - totally worthless in my opinion.

But I'm just 1 gambler - who cares...............

[Steve]

Maui, my players regularly achieve around 80% hit rates covering 15 numbers. The house edge is obliterated.

See VIDEO RECORDING of our roulette computer device being publicly demonstrated, with a 93% win rate betting 15 numbers on a modern wheel with bouncy ball - that's a win on almost every spin, in difficult conditions:
nolinks://nolinks.roulettesystemanalysis.com/m/publicdemo.wmv

This is common. It is happening every day. But do you expect it to be plastered all over the newspapers? Or do you expect it to be more underground? Please lets not waste more time.

[MauiSunset]

Maui, my players regularly achieve around 80% hit rates covering 15 numbers. The house edge is obliterated.

See VIDEO RECORDING of our roulette computer device being publicly demonstrated, with a 93% win rate betting 15 numbers on a modern wheel with bouncy ball - that's a win on almost every spin, in difficult conditions:
nolinks://nolinks.roulettesystemanalysis.com/m/publicdemo.wmv

This is common. It is happening every day. But do you expect it to be plastered all over the newspapers? Or do you expect it to be more underground? I really dont know why I waste my time explaining it all to people like you. It admittedly frustrates me how little people know yet they are so convinced they do.

About a year ago I held a competition for folks to demonstrate, in real time with a real Roulette live wheel, just how good they were with their systems.  Only 1 person took me up on my challenge and the results were just random.

Looking at anything not live is like watching a magician make a rabbit pop out of their hat - it's just a illusion.

I know if I run a challenge again there will be 1001 excuses why folks can't demo their systems in front of us live so I won't even try this year...

[Bayes]

Bayes, you too didnt read what I wrote. Normally I would explain more but I honestly cant be bothered. Lets just leave it at that I dont know what I'm talking about. Its all smoke and mirrors. The ball lands wherever it wants to, and the winning number is not due to any variables such as physical properties of the wheel and ball, and its all random without any predictability... all the same as rng. I dont know what I was thinking.

Steve, here it is in black and white on your site:

Q28. Does your system require you to "see" the wheel?

While there are benefits to visually observing the wheel, you do not NEED to actually see the wheel. You can win solely from monitoring the marquee alone (winning number displays). The system has been tested against literally millions of real-life Spielbank Hamburg spins which are simply lists of spins that tell you nothing about what the wheel physically looks like - the test results were still clearly positive.

Sorry, but it can't be clearer than that. All talk of segregating data, spin direction etc is completely irrelevant to your claim, so why do you keep banging on about it? Is it possible to win consistently by merely looking at past spins on the marquee? according to your statements, it is. If that's the case, then why do you even mention other factors being necessary when you say they aren't?

Everything you've said in this thread and the other one implies that in fact you DO need this other data - mere spin results from the marquee are NOT enough. In which case, what you say in the FAQ is extremely misleading, at best (and that's being charitable).

[Bayes]

sample #16

21
22
4
31
32
7
0
0
11
35
35
27
7
33
9
18
29
27
3
1
16
22
0
1
23
17
1
6
13
24
2
22
11
14
36
34
17
17
22
0
16
13
26
9
18
25
12
13
10
34
3
22
30
16
3
23
8
36
8
23
20
7
34
8
30
27
16
11
9
5
18
19
12
11
35
12
6
10
16
14
19
23
26
21
30
14
2
20
28
34
22
16
13
8
20
11
23
10
32
9
24
27
6
2
20
5
4
28
15
31
9
10
30
17
13
8
27
24
4
34
20
30
13
10
27
32
20
21
19
23
1
25
14
20
2
9
9
23
4
12
5
35
17
13
9
14
26
18
20
21
5
18
12
1
14
18
30
13
9
31
30
11
18
10
5
18
33
4
17
30
28
35
29
11
25
8
5
13
29
18
14
26
18
20
2
0
2
0
18
14
3
32
35
27
20
16
7
31
27
7
22
32
2
1
15
23
34
14
32
8
9
5
28
33
18
15
13
25
10
30
13
24
20
26
13
25
35
6
27
35
9
13
29
22
36
23
36
19
6
16
26
18
0
9
20
23
11
26
7
34
11
29
4
27
6
14
17
9
2
1
9
31
33
10
35
33
6
21
30
11
5
14
25
6
17
5
4
0
16
1
25
26
34
20
7
14
27
24
5
2
30
32
17
2
13
9
20
34
3
34


sample #17

15
8
35
3
13
21
10
0
30
29
6
27
27
14
32
32
31
11
8
15
36
20
27
26
2
28
6
13
8
17
31
34
5
6
23
26
12
32
13
36
32
19
20
26
26
18
7
8
35
11
2
13
19
9
29
15
22
31
11
8
23
33
35
7
10
14
10
23
0
2
32
1
3
6
33
28
12
5
21
7
7
6
36
15
9
3
27
32
29
20
31
16
20
24
11
19
2
30
16
16
23
2
0
0
1
16
23
34
31
31
35
13
23
8
0
14
3
28
36
10
20
4
15
9
36
20
23
30
25
12
25
13
23
0
35
25
18
15
22
16
5
13
14
18
28
17
25
21
34
1
8
2
34
0
11
8
28
27
22
27
8
28
6
26
32
26
20
9
27
1
28
0
26
14
6
5
13
20
7
17
33
30
9
27
30
27
12
10
17
6
29
7
35
27
4
36
11
28
26
0
34
35
11
22
13
29
0
5
26
7
10
33
4
7
9
25
27
26
30
4
35
29
6
5
32
19
1
10
15
31
7
3
4
30
19
26
29
4
29
0
24
34
18
35
0
10
20
25
18
4
25
33
0
35
7
19
0
33
31
20
10
12
0
27
20
34
33
30
32
14
35
19
3
1
5
25
10
25
21
17
17
36
20
30
18
35
32
22
2
28
9
22
8
11
10
9
19
20
27
2


sample #18

20
34
10
1
5
27
9
7
23
21
10
32
22
30
7
14
25
0
22
23
25
0
29
25
1
33
26
16
16
25
12
28
1
19
11
24
11
4
23
29
28
9
32
13
21
31
16
33
16
35
5
29
34
9
3
22
31
24
24
34
36
4
34
15
0
34
6
35
27
35
28
10
19
15
8
27
0
24
18
6
4
12
23
13
4
33
18
15
8
1
35
22
7
28
5
12
14
14
2
16
30
2
13
26
27
12
19
21
13
1
2
9
24
17
7
33
25
25
25
6
2
12
28
36
19
13
25
21
1
7
4
24
35
8
2
2
14
12
33
14
36
30
28
6
34
21
1
34
1
15
11
32
8
31
9
23
12
27
7
6
34
25
18
5
21
8
18
14
11
24
19
27
12
27
9
34
32
35
10
36
19
32
36
22
24
30
20
2
1
24
12
5
33
2
14
14
2
31
13
27
17
22
20
5
28
21
6
22
13
33
3
21
23
31
16
12
9
20
31
29
2
33
27
19
33
24
33
36
31
31
10
5
27
16
4
4
26
5
8
8
12
26
22
10
26
3
9
5
33
11
9
14
29
8
3
12
30
26
8
16
12
1
34
22
0
16
15
7
21
8
1
28
25
22
0
22
6
14
5
1
20
14
36
12
23
17
1
23
20
20
18
9
33
6
36
7
9
34
21
33

[bombus]

1: rng

2: rng

3: rng ?

4: actuals

5: rng

6: actuals?

7: rng? This was a tough one but I intend to take a shot at every sample.

8: actuals

9: rng

10: actuals

11: rng

12: actuals?

13: rng?

14:actuals

15: rng

16: rng

17: actuals?

18: rng?

[bombus]

So far I have the tally at 11 x rng, and 7 x actuals.

[Bayes]

I generated the samples by writing a program. The program selected a 1 or 0 randomly and then fetched each sample according to the result (1 =  actuals, 0 = RNG). It did this 100 times to generate 100 samples.

[MauiSunset]

I generated the samples by writing a program. The program selected a 1 or 0 randomly and then fetched each sample according to the result (1 =  actuals, 0 = RNG). It did this 100 times to generate 100 samples, and the result was 49 RNG and 51 actuals, but that's the only clue you're getting.  

This is great - I assumed 50/50 which is what Mother Nature gave us with random numbers.  I wonder what 100 spins of a wheel would have given us with Black being RNG and Red for wheel??

If I were holding this challenge I'd have made all 100 from various casino wheels that could be verified later.  That would have provided hours of entertainment for me.

But that's me  ............

[maestro]

sample-4/rng/
sample-5/actuals/
sample-6/rng/
sample-7/rng/
sample-8/rng/
sample-9/actuals/
sample-10/rng/
sample-11/rng/
sample-12/actual/
sample-13/actual/
sample-14/rng/
sample-15/actual/
sample-16/rng/
sample-17/actuals/
sample-18/actuals/

[maestro]

-