del

[leex1528]

If you would run a simulation of bets/rolls (same server seed and client seed) the outcome over many bets should roughly show equal distribution of numbers. It might happen in 1000 bets, 10000 bets, or 100000 bets, but it will happen. But knowing this will happen allows you to change the way you bet in your advantage.

Now if you say there is not equal distribution of numbers, that's even better. You can determine where most of the roll/bets hit and play that to your advantage.

Either way, not looking to the past results to determine the way you play dice is why most call it a luck game.

This is 1000 percent wrong.

Lets just look at flipping a coin to make things simple. The equal distribution happens from having the correct probability happen over and over and over again over a large sample.

If you flip 10 heads in a row, the odds of the next one being heads is still 50/50. If you keep flipping a coin, eventually your results will get to 50/50, not because tails is more likely on future events, but just because you keep doing it.

If you get 10 heads out of 10 flips you got heads 100% of the time.

If the next 10 are 50/50, you have 15 out of 20, 75% heads

If the next 10 are 50/50, you have 20 out of 30, 66 2/3% heads

If the next 10 are 50/50, you have 25 out of 40, 62.5% heads

If the next 10 are 50/50, you have 30 out of 50,  60% heads.

And so on and so on until you get back down to 50.

Stats are a crazy thing.  Looking at things in a short run, getting 10 heads in 10 flips is .5^10.  Not good odds.

However after 10 flips, the odds of flipping the next coin is still 50/50.  In your example after the 10 ones are head, the next 100 rolls are still supposed to be closer to 50 heads 50 tails than anything else. 

That's what I was showing. It is unlikely to get 10 heads in a row. But if you do, the next one is still 50/50, AND you will get to 50/50 over the long term without changing the odds.

Yeah I was mostly agreeing with you, but sort of.  I was saying the dice don't know that they rolled 10 heads in a row, so even after the 10 rolls it won't start to go more toward 50/50, from that point on it would be closer to 50/50, but after I suppose 100000 rolls if you had 10 more heads than tails it still would be close to 50/50. 

[ndnh]

If you would run a simulation of bets/rolls (same server seed and client seed) the outcome over many bets should roughly show equal distribution of numbers. It might happen in 1000 bets, 10000 bets, or 100000 bets, but it will happen. But knowing this will happen allows you to change the way you bet in your advantage.

Now if you say there is not equal distribution of numbers, that's even better. You can determine where most of the roll/bets hit and play that to your advantage.

Either way, not looking to the past results to determine the way you play dice is why most call it a luck game.

Which is called gambler's fallacy.
The funny thing is you are the first guy I have seen who have that fallacy for select (may be only for pseudo random) cases but does not have it for the rest.

LOL, your evening out strategy doesn't work. Pseudo random is kind of pre-determined random (in this case) numbers generated using a certain method. It is not predictable and does not even out (esp. in finite rolls).

That's what I was showing. It is unlikely to get 10 heads in a row. But if you do, the next one is still 50/50, AND you will get to 50/50 over the long term without changing the odds.

Yeah I was mostly agreeing with you, but sort of.  I was saying the dice don't know that they rolled 10 heads in a row, so even after the 10 rolls it won't start to go more toward 50/50, from that point on it would be closer to 50/50, but after I suppose 100000 rolls if you had 10 more heads than tails it still would be close to 50/50.  

To clarify, if you make infinite rolls (10^100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...)
the heads and tails tend to even out. But when you take 10 or a trillion rolls, there is no such concept.

Yeah, it is mostly correct, but if it was to even out, as the rolls go by, the tails would have more odds than heads which is incorrect. So Phildo is not exactly wrong, but in this particular part, leex is 100% correct.

tl'dr There is no such thing called evening out in practical cases/finite rolls.

[bfisher1968]

I'll agree with if you show me your betting simulations and state which dice game algorithm you used.

All I can tell you is I have made a dice simulator for JD and PD and if you group the results by 10s you do reach a point where you approach equal distribution of numbers.

Using this method I can within a good % know that a bet will win in a worst case situation.

If you would run a simulation of bets/rolls (same server seed and client seed) the outcome over many bets should roughly show equal distribution of numbers. It might happen in 1000 bets, 10000 bets, or 100000 bets, but it will happen. But knowing this will happen allows you to change the way you bet in your advantage.

Now if you say there is not equal distribution of numbers, that's even better. You can determine where most of the roll/bets hit and play that to your advantage.

Either way, not looking to the past results to determine the way you play dice is why most call it a luck game.

Which is called gambler's fallacy.
The funny thing is you are the first guy I have seen who have that fallacy for select (may be only for pseudo random) cases but does not have it for the rest.

LOL, your evening out strategy doesn't work. Pseudo random is kind of pre-determined random (in this case) numbers generated using a certain method. It is not predictable and does not even out (esp. in finite rolls).

That's what I was showing. It is unlikely to get 10 heads in a row. But if you do, the next one is still 50/50, AND you will get to 50/50 over the long term without changing the odds.

Yeah I was mostly agreeing with you, but sort of.  I was saying the dice don't know that they rolled 10 heads in a row, so even after the 10 rolls it won't start to go more toward 50/50, from that point on it would be closer to 50/50, but after I suppose 100000 rolls if you had 10 more heads than tails it still would be close to 50/50.  

To clarify, if you make infinite rolls (10^100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...)
the heads and tails tend to even out. But when you take 10 or a trillion rolls, there is no such concept.

Yeah, it is mostly correct, but if it was to even out, as the rolls go by, the tails would have more odds than heads which is incorrect. So Phildo is not exactly wrong, but in this particular part, leex is 100% correct.

tl'dr There is no such thing called evening out in practical cases/finite rolls.

[bfisher1968]

Which dice site?

I'll agree with if you show me your betting simulations and state which dice game algorithm you used.

All I can tell you is I have made a dice simulator for JD and PD and if you group the results by 10s you do reach a point where you approach equal distribution of numbers.

Using this method I can within a good % know that a bet will win in a worst case situation.

Let us check.

Server seed hash
3aaac305ec911f3dc3965c731dfe6db16902eb23822487a593114e68922c9e32
Server seed
a151b24df86e5dea2ef3--snip---
Client seed
ndnhc


What is the 89th nonce roll?

Nonce: 88 - roll: 98.89
Nonce: 87 - roll: 56.1
Nonce: 86 - roll: 35.51
Nonce: 85 - roll: 52.52
Nonce: 84 - roll: 54.18
Nonce: 83 - roll: 6
Nonce: 82 - roll: 68.76
Nonce: 81 - roll: 16.11
Nonce: 80 - roll: 66.23
Nonce: 79 - roll: 0.46
Nonce: 78 - roll: 36.88
Nonce: 77 - roll: 59.19
Nonce: 76 - roll: 79.42
Nonce: 75 - roll: 40.23
Nonce: 74 - roll: 63.26
Nonce: 73 - roll: 63.24
Nonce: 72 - roll: 21.22
Nonce: 71 - roll: 4.21
Nonce: 70 - roll: 48.35
Nonce: 69 - roll: 59.79
Nonce: 68 - roll: 60.91
Nonce: 67 - roll: 41.93
Nonce: 66 - roll: 23.16
Nonce: 65 - roll: 30.72
Nonce: 64 - roll: 85.32
Nonce: 63 - roll: 80.74
Nonce: 62 - roll: 26.08
Nonce: 61 - roll: 98.65
Nonce: 60 - roll: 80.26
Nonce: 59 - roll: 90.74
Nonce: 58 - roll: 95.12
Nonce: 57 - roll: 18.41
Nonce: 56 - roll: 19.54
Nonce: 55 - roll: 92.7
Nonce: 54 - roll: 31.53
Nonce: 53 - roll: 20.12
Nonce: 52 - roll: 82.97
Nonce: 51 - roll: 92.78
Nonce: 50 - roll: 24.69
Nonce: 49 - roll: 91.51
Nonce: 48 - roll: 42.3
Nonce: 47 - roll: 18.55
Nonce: 46 - roll: 48.49
Nonce: 45 - roll: 42.94
Nonce: 44 - roll: 22.84
Nonce: 43 - roll: 76.58
Nonce: 42 - roll: 93.79
Nonce: 41 - roll: 91.96
Nonce: 40 - roll: 75.94
Nonce: 39 - roll: 74.44
Nonce: 38 - roll: 54.75
Nonce: 37 - roll: 6.88
Nonce: 36 - roll: 92.08
Nonce: 35 - roll: 83.98
Nonce: 34 - roll: 44.43
Nonce: 33 - roll: 9.52
Nonce: 32 - roll: 84.54
Nonce: 31 - roll: 5.33
Nonce: 30 - roll: 88
Nonce: 29 - roll: 86.96
Nonce: 28 - roll: 87.83
Nonce: 27 - roll: 53.67
Nonce: 26 - roll: 81.23
Nonce: 25 - roll: 63.29
Nonce: 24 - roll: 44.41
Nonce: 23 - roll: 29.08
Nonce: 22 - roll: 79.29
Nonce: 21 - roll: 81
Nonce: 20 - roll: 66.28
Nonce: 19 - roll: 78.82
Nonce: 18 - roll: 45.61
Nonce: 17 - roll: 6.91
Nonce: 16 - roll: 97.79
Nonce: 15 - roll: 94.84
Nonce: 14 - roll: 37.74
Nonce: 13 - roll: 45.23
Nonce: 12 - roll: 72.75
Nonce: 11 - roll: 17.79
Nonce: 10 - roll: 28.56
Nonce: 9 - roll: 2.33
Nonce: 8 - roll: 13.51
Nonce: 7 - roll: 70.9
Nonce: 6 - roll: 53.81
Nonce: 5 - roll: 72.72
Nonce: 4 - roll: 36.48
Nonce: 3 - roll: 9.2
Nonce: 2 - roll: 63.17
Nonce: 1 - roll: 96.17
Nonce: 0 - roll: 42.1

Edit: PrimeDice. I can give thousands, just doesn't want it too long, lol.

[ndnh]

Had edited the post. Here are 10000 rolls to support your analysis.

I'll agree with if you show me your betting simulations and state which dice game algorithm you used.

All I can tell you is I have made a dice simulator for JD and PD and if you group the results by 10s you do reach a point where you approach equal distribution of numbers.

Using this method I can within a good % know that a bet will win in a worst case situation.

Let us check.

Server seed hash
3aaac305ec911f3dc3965c731dfe6db16902eb23822487a593114e68922c9e32
Server seed
a151b24df86e5dea2ef3--snip---
Client seed
ndnhc


What is the 10001st nonce roll?

PrimeDice

http://pastebin.com/VAEyF5B1

[CanIHazBitcoin777]

To clarify, if you make infinite rolls (10^100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...)
the heads and tails tend to even out. But when you take 10 or a trillion rolls, there is no such concept.

Yeah, it is mostly correct, but if it was to even out, as the rolls go by, the tails would have more odds than heads which is incorrect. So Phildo is not exactly wrong, but in this particular part, leex is 100% correct.

tl'dr There is no such thing called evening out in practical cases/finite rolls.

But the local probability always converge to the basic probability.

I just rolled 20000000 times with the virtual coin and turned out:  10000630 heads and 9999370 tails, which is very close to eachother.

Maximum consecutive is 29

[bfisher1968]

This is just a guess between 35 - 15.  But if I was to bet chance 35 and below and win in about 12 bets

Edited - I just saw the pastebin, I wish you didn't do that. now my answer means nothing.

Never said I can predict the next roll, just be educated in what bets do and when.

Basically when I simulate a betting idea, checking maximum loses before a win happens. I do this with many server seed and client seed pairs. Once I believe I got the maximum loses possible I add 10% to that number and then back in to the biggest bet I can make without going bust.

[ndnh]

To clarify, if you make infinite rolls (10^100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...)
the heads and tails tend to even out. But when you take 10 or a trillion rolls, there is no such concept.

Yeah, it is mostly correct, but if it was to even out, as the rolls go by, the tails would have more odds than heads which is incorrect. So Phildo is not exactly wrong, but in this particular part, leex is 100% correct.

tl'dr There is no such thing called evening out in practical cases/finite rolls.

But the local probability always converge to the basic probability.

I just rolled 20000000 times with the virtual coin and turned out:  10000630 heads and 9999370 tails, which is very close to eachother.

Maximum consecutive is 29

[IMG.]http://i62.tinypic.com/35k34nc.png[/img]

Of course. That is expected. But still the difference is ~1250. Try making it 0-10.

In dice by evening out I mean tending towards an equal number of 0.0000, 0.0001, 0.0002 to 99.9999

[bfisher1968]

Was there ever a time they where equal?

To clarify, if you make infinite rolls (10^100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...)
the heads and tails tend to even out. But when you take 10 or a trillion rolls, there is no such concept.

Yeah, it is mostly correct, but if it was to even out, as the rolls go by, the tails would have more odds than heads which is incorrect. So Phildo is not exactly wrong, but in this particular part, leex is 100% correct.

tl'dr There is no such thing called evening out in practical cases/finite rolls.

But the local probability always converge to the basic probability.

I just rolled 20000000 times with the virtual coin and turned out:  10000630 heads and 9999370 tails, which is very close to eachother.

Maximum consecutive is 29

http://i62.tinypic.com/35k34nc.png

[CanIHazBitcoin777]

To clarify, if you make infinite rolls (10^100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...)
the heads and tails tend to even out. But when you take 10 or a trillion rolls, there is no such concept.

Yeah, it is mostly correct, but if it was to even out, as the rolls go by, the tails would have more odds than heads which is incorrect. So Phildo is not exactly wrong, but in this particular part, leex is 100% correct.

tl'dr There is no such thing called evening out in practical cases/finite rolls.

But the local probability always converge to the basic probability.

I just rolled 20000000 times with the virtual coin and turned out:  10000630 heads and 9999370 tails, which is very close to eachother.

Maximum consecutive is 29

[IMG.]http://i62.tinypic.com/35k34nc.png[/img]

Of course. That is expected. But still the difference is ~1250. Try making it 0-10.

In dice by evening out I mean tending towards an equal number of 0.0000, 0.0001, 0.0002 to 99.9999

The number of rolls have to be increased, maybe 200 billion? But i`m not going to simulate that.

Was there ever a time they where equal?

Either increase the number of rolls, or try rolling it many times. Its all about odds here.

[ndnh]

Was there ever a time they where equal?

It could be equal in just two rolls!