RNG vs Actuals: A challenge

[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

[Steve]

Maui, I needed only look over the data and see only spin and after spin and nothing else. The data is wrong from the start.

With the correct data, and depending on the method you use, the time between analysis and actual profitable play is typically 30 mins - 12 hours. For professional players, that is nothing. It is more obscene to spend 8 hours each day for peanuts.

[MauiSunset]

Maui, I needed only look over the data and see only spin and after spin and nothing else. The data is wrong from the start.

With the correct data, and depending on the method you use, the time between analysis and actual profitable play is typically 30 mins - 12 hours. For professional players, that is nothing. It is more obscene to spend 8 hours each day for peanuts.

Oh come one - this is just psychobabble - a spin is a spin.....

[Steve]

this is just psychobabble - a spin is a spin

Yeah you got me. Just psychobabble 

[MauiSunset]

Yeah you got me. Just psychobabble 

I have not doubt no person here will be able to tell the difference between a RNG and actual spins.

In fact I'll put money where my mouth is - If there is a "winner" of the challenge now running - I will donate $25 USD to the winner's favorite charity.

I don't think a "winner" has been defined so I'll do it here - someone that can guess 75% correct answers - 3 times as many winners as losers - that would be eye opening.  If there are dozens of winners then the person with the the highest number of wins.

This is your big chance to make $25 USD for your favorite charity - and that could be you if you decide.....

[Bayes]

This is the simple truth, take or leave it:

1. How winning numbers are generated with RNG and real wheels is very different, so of course there is a difference. The cause and effect is different. If you dont know what to look for, of course they'd both look random.

2. If you look at spins only, you may look at reds/blacks and in this case, you will be very unlikely to know the difference. But that is not to say there is no difference - only that you dont know the difference. You have a chance to find a difference with bias analysis, but very unlikely over such a low volume of spins unless you have more detailed data. There are other types of patterns but unless you segregate and have detailed data, you are either likely to find very weak or statistically inconclusive patterns (or differences from rng).

3. If you have good quality data, and I mean much more than mere spin results, then certainly you can establish very clear differences between rng and real wheel spins. Does rng have dominant diamonds? Can you measure ball speed and ball fall points of rng? If you only have mere spin results, you will not have enough data for proper analysis.

Whoever suggests there is no difference between rng and real spins doesn't know what they're talking about. It is not a matter of opinion - it is simple fact.

Steve, I would have thought you'd have welcomed this challenge, it will give you an opportunity to actually SHOW (not just make bald assertions without any back-up) that what you're selling really is a 'genuinewinner'.

This is what you say in the FAQ 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.

You also emphatically assert that spins coming from an RNG are NOT beatable, because there is no physics involved. But if you can win solely from monitoring the marquee, then obviously there is no physics involved there either, yet you claim 'clearly' positive results.

I have to admit I'm confused. 

[Bayes]

What you wrote above means nothing. Any comparison between RNG and actual wheels, in the context of bias analysis, ie; taking into account the state of the physical device, ball, dealer, humidity etc is absolutely meaningless. I think most of us get that, so no need to keep repeating it.

And what do you mean by 'the cause and effect is different'? There are two things here - the cause, and the effect. It IS possible for different causes to create the same effect, no rocket science involved there.

And why do you assume that anyone would look at red and black to find the difference? there are a very large number of sophisticated statistical tests which could be put to the task. And you say there are 'other types of patterns' but that 'unless you segregate and have detailed data...'.

What do you mean by 'detailed' data? in this case, the data is only the data on the marquee, that's all you need, right?
Then you go on to talk about dominant diamonds and ball fall points, but like I said, we get that part, and it's completely irrelevant to what you claim.

It all seems like smoke and mirrors to me. How about a straight answer - is your system up to this challenge or not? and if not, why not?

[Bayes]

I don't think a "winner" has been defined so I'll do it here - someone that can guess 75% correct answers - 3 times as many winners as losers - that would be eye opening.  If there are dozens of winners then the person with the the highest number of wins.

Maui, if anyone gets 65 or more out of 100 correct then that's good enough for me. That would be 3 standard deviations above the mean.

[Steve]

Bayes, you too didnt read what I wrote. 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. Ok??

[xman1970]

I have to be honest here your actions (as in replying to posts) often confuse me Steve......

When anybody says something like "I don't agree with you Steve your talking rubbish...." you reply "yes I'm talking rubbish" in a condescending manner........

When anybody says something like "this looks like a great way to prove your wares Steve......." you answer "Oh I'm busy/I cannot be bothered"

For a businessman your PR department leaves a lot to be desired 

[MauiSunset]

Maui, if anyone gets 65 or more out of 100 correct then that's good enough for me. That would be 3 standard deviations above the mean.

I'm assuming that 50 of the 100 sets is RNG and 50 wheel - I'd want to see something that makes it clear that just random luck didn't pick enough winners - so I'm sticking with 75% accuracy for my contest. If someone can tell the difference it should be close to 100% accuracy....

[iggiv]

I have not doubt no person here will be able to tell the difference between a RNG and actual spins.

In fact I'll put money where my mouth is - If there is a "winner" of the challenge now running - I will donate $25 USD to the winner's favorite charity.

I don't think a "winner" has been defined so I'll do it here - someone that can guess 75% correct answers - 3 times as many winners as losers - that would be eye opening.  If there are dozens of winners then the person with the the highest number of wins.

This is your big chance to make $25 USD for your favorite charity - and that could be you if you decide.....

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.

[Steve]

See below:

When anybody says something like "I don't agree with you Steve your talking rubbish...." you reply "yes I'm talking rubbish" in a condescending manner........

This means I dont want to waste the time

When anybody says something like "this looks like a great way to prove your wares Steve......." you answer "Oh I'm busy/I cannot be bothered"

Do you know how many times I have proven my claims, from public demos to open challenges? It is well past the point where if people cant see it, they wont see anything. Should I really waste so much time repeating it all? Or should I just get on with things? Would you if you were me? While sales are still profitable, consider 'sales' of anything is not my focus.

For a businessman your PR department leaves a lot to be desired

Perhaps, but I have the luxury of not needing to care, and just get on with my work. My players know what I do for them.

[Kelly]

No one disputes that a physical wheel creates the numbers in a different way than a software RNG or a hardware RNG. They are all created 3 different ways.  The question is can you see the difference by just looking at the numbers.  To verify that, what you need is number samples like bayses generates. 

[bombus]

I'm assuming that 50 of the 100 sets is RNG and 50 wheel -

At this point I'm virtually the only one openly participating in the challenge (maestro seems to be having a go too), and I never assumed there would be 50% rng & 50% actuals.

Hey, even spike/cheese only gets 72%...

[bombus]

-