How Truly Random is Random

[deisik]

This thought has been nagging me since I first saw the pic below (taken from here):



The image on the left features a uniform distribution (which many erroneously come to think of as random), while the points on the right image are allegedly distributed randomly (read, it is a random distribution). But if we think about it, we may come to the idea that random is not truly random at a higher level. Really, if you hit some random outcome, you could in fact expect more of such outcomes in close vicinity of that first outcome as the image above clearly reveals. So how truly random is what universally considered random?

I'm starting the thread in the Gambling discussion section because this domain (i.e. gambling) is where the idea of randomness and whether random is truly random have most applications and implications. Yeah, you thought it right, for gambling and our success at it

[1714951545]

1714951545

[1714951545]

1714951545

[NeuroticFish]

It may worth adding that usually in computer science pseudo-random numbers are generated. Truly random (?) values are only to be found in nature. And pseudo-randomness may, strangely(?), be closer to what you expect in statistics.

[deisik]

It may worth adding that usually in computer science pseudo-random numbers are generated. Truly random (?) values are only to be found in nature. And pseudo-randomness may, strangely(?), be closer to what you expect in statistics

This point can be challenged

I'm not very familiar with the gory details of how pseudo-random numbers are generated, but as far as I know, the devices designed for this purpose are using some natural, stochastic processes. In other words, you can't actually say that hardware random number generators are not "natural" (pardon the double negative) as they are what can be found in nature and as random as nature itself goes and does

[NeuroticFish]

In other words, you can't actually say that hardware random number generators are not "natural" (pardon the double negative) as they are what can be found in nature and as random as nature itself goes and does

That's correct. But I expect that all online casinos use software random number generators. Of course, whether the majority uses one or another, may need to be asked/verified.

[seoincorporation]

Random is one side of luck, if you flip a coin 100 times in theory that's random and 50 coins should see the face and the other 50 should see back. But since luck is a fact there is a chance to see 100 faces. But what does it mean? it only means our random universe was too small.

Is the same in computer science, if we chose 3 times random numbers between 1,2 and 3, that doesn't mean we will get the numbers 1,2,3 un different orders. If the universe is small we will not see the numbers as random.

[Wapfika]

This makes me think, if there will be a calculation on how random a randomness can really be. I usually use random in betting. If there is a system who decides random chances to won is not still that big. When I have no time to think of numbers in lotteries I take random and it will give the number easily. It can be like a bot that have tons of prepared generated numbers that will only be use once.

[deisik]

In other words, you can't actually say that hardware random number generators are not "natural" (pardon the double negative) as they are what can be found in nature and as random as nature itself goes and does

That's correct. But I expect that all online casinos use software random number generators. Of course, whether the majority uses one or another, may need to be asked/verified

If I'm not mistaken, WB uses a hardware random number generator

When I was translating for them, I encountered the part which made reference to such a device. But that's not actually my point here, in this topic. I'm not talking about pseudo-random numbers and how genuinely random they are. Even if we look at a really random distribution generated by a truly stochastic process (by however strict measure), we will see patterns as the image above shows

Indeed, these patterns of outcomes are random themselves (to repeat, I don't question their randomness). But the very fact that there are patterns takes a bit from the randomness of these outcomes making them somewhat less random. In this regard, a uniform distribution seems to be more random on this level, which leads us to question the very idea and understanding of what randomness actually is

[panganib999]

You know how every mathematical problem has a solution? It's kinda similar with the choice of randomness. Its like, every random choice, combined with another, and then one more, can possible be solved using a solution. This might result in the randomness, not being random anymore. Plus, the group we actually manipulate with our randomness is finite, which is why it seems that it's not actually random, and there is a thought process to it. Heck, you even think of answering multiple choices with patterns right? But imagine if there were infinite choices, randomizing then and there could truly be called random.

[Hydrogen]

Generating random numbers is a dedicated and specialized branch of computer study all its own.

That said what do people think about RNGs (random number generators) which utilize past weather data as a basis for generating unpredictable and random seeming sequences of numbers? Is it possible to emulate randomness via utilizing a preset generated list of numbers derived from a seemingly randomized source?

Isn't it interesting how subjects taught in school like math, probability and science which on the surface can appear incredibly boring. Suddenly become exciting and interesting when applied to topics like gambling or video games where they can be utilized to effectively analyze and produce results one wouldn't normally expect.

[GSpgh]

Indeed, these patterns of outcomes are random themselves (to repeat, I don't question their randomness). But the very fact that there are patterns takes a bit from the randomness of these outcomes making them somewhat less random. In this regard, a uniform distribution seems to be more random on this level, which leads us to question the very idea and understanding of what randomness actually is

There is more pattern in the uniform distribution picture than in the other one. Think about it. If you wanted to guess the next pixel on that picture you would have a much better chance than with the random one.

We as humans have evolved on pattern recognition, it's our basic survival tool, but we sometimes see them where they don't exist. Our pattern recognition has limitations and your pictures exploit that. Trust math, not your eyes. I don't want to start posting pictures of optical illusions - I think you know what i'm talking about.

[Shimmiry]

Generating random numbers is a dedicated and specialized branch of computer study all its own.

That said what do people think about RNGs (random number generators) which utilize past weather data as a basis for generating unpredictable and random seeming sequences of numbers? Is it possible to emulate randomness via utilizing a preset generated list of numbers derived from a seemingly randomized source?

Isn't it interesting how subjects taught in school like math, probability and science which on the surface can appear incredibly boring. Suddenly become exciting and interesting when applied to topics like gambling or video games where they can be utilized to effectively analyze and produce results one wouldn't normally expect.

Random is a generated numbers depends on the logic and sequence of the amount those numbers get by the computer and not verifying each number. The goal of the random is to give a different set of number, by some cases if the developers set a small amount of value like in gambling there is a high chance of probability to predict what kind of combination will show commonly this happens on card and dice games. If you are good in statistic, numbers, random and probability. You have a higher chance of winning different games related to each topic.

[YuginKadoya]

I think the idea of randomness is everywhere when we shuffle the music from our phone or Ipad when you are getting Gashapon toys or capsule toys we always get a random item, I think some gambling program gets their idea from certain simple things like these and in the image on the left might see random movements but the truth is it is not because they had a path they always correspond on moving so there is no colliding with one another while on the other image the dots collides at one another and specifically there is no organized movement I think that is the key in randomness for certain program on gambling sites, and this I think my conclusion on each image.

[desticy]

Random is a rather specific thing, sometimes even esoteric, but for me this has always been just math.
The main difficulty of a random house is that for its full manifestation a huge number of events is necessary, otherwise there is a giant error that does not allow an adequate analysis of its results.

[Krislaw]

Randomness becomes less fair in some gambling situations like when the winning streak starts getting high, the system starts to favour those with less bet. The probability of you winning a high odd with a little stake is mostly low and vice versa . So, I don't consider most results of every random to fair when it comes to gambling.

[STT]

The only way a computer can be random is by reference to a physical process of some type, they usually utilise some sort of atomic decay factor or something that works long term for the computer to extract in a consistent way.      The probably most relevant history for this topic would be use of computers in lottery type situations where numbers are picked automatically, they have to go to great efforts to avoid any ability for people to reverse engineer a series or sequence to the numbers chosen.
   Normally I see them rotate a number of machines to try and stop any build up of possible bias and the machine used for each lottery pick is changed on the day after closure of all entries so that seals the deal on possible predictability.

[MATHReX]

That's my take on it,
Let's say we run a function which returns a random value where value is an integer and between 1 to 100.
The probability of particular value to come more than once in 100 executions will be high.
In this case, we can say random is not so random because the area to select the randomness is too small.

Now, let's take a case of a x-y graph which is literally infinite in both the axis and we are to execute a function which returns 10 pairs of (x,y) coordinates randomly where x and y are float values.
Then the number of executions it will take to get the identical set to come twice is near to zero.
Here, Random is very very random.

So, it does come down to the vastness that we are playing in to generate randomness.

[Naida_BR]

In my opinion, both pictures depict random dots.
On the left side the possibility of "catching" a dot is evenly distributed while on the right side you might "catch" more dots but you can "catch" nothing as well. I think that the second option is what casinos are using in order to be profitable.

[swogerino]

I think this is a tricky question.I think that slot machine software can be manipulated and not be truly random however provably fair when is implemented like it should moves away this doubt from my head and I believe random is truly random.

Truly random I think is only where the casino house has its cut always provided like in poker when multiple random people are playing.

[Ucy]

My guess is all or most of the factors responsible for the distribution have to be known and understood else it's considered random distribution.
I believe nothing is really random. We humans are limited in our understanding of what creates the so called randomness, so we use the word random.
There are probably unknown reasons why the points at the right are distributed that way. You can easily understand why if you have sufficient understanding of how it's generated

[deisik]

Indeed, these patterns of outcomes are random themselves (to repeat, I don't question their randomness). But the very fact that there are patterns takes a bit from the randomness of these outcomes making them somewhat less random. In this regard, a uniform distribution seems to be more random on this level, which leads us to question the very idea and understanding of what randomness actually is

There is more pattern in the uniform distribution picture than in the other one. Think about it. If you wanted to guess the next pixel on that picture you would have a much better chance than with the random one

Okay, let's think about it, shall we?

You already see both distributions. But let's assume that you don't. That is, you know nothing about the type of the distribution, whether it is random or otherwise. But you know that any random distribution is, well, random, that any pattern you might look for would also be random. However, you also know that with a random distribution you are bound to find some patterns, and this is not "random" specifically because it is a random distribution

So how random is it really? If you see a dot, aren't you more likely to see another dot nearby with such a distribution? But that means things are no longer random to you even if the distribution of dots itself remains totally random. You take advantage of some feature or property of a random distribution that any random distribution has (namely, patterns), and thereby you stop it being random despite it being random. Isn't it a nice paradox or conundrum?

[imstillthebest]

nice comparison  op  . i think randomness or shall i say fairness will trully differ from one site to another   .

 there are gambling sites that doesnt have a provably fair system which i think winning on these platform are quite impossible  but there are those that claims to have a provably fair system and we can check it  . they seem to be winnable after playin some but its still on your control if you can stop before your luck goes down and got busted  .

[AliMan]

My guess is all or most of the factors responsible for the distribution have to be known and understood else it's considered random distribution.
I believe nothing is really random. We humans are limited in our understanding of what creates the so called randomness, so we use the word random.
There are probably unknown reasons why the points at the right are distributed that way. You can easily understand why if you have sufficient understanding of how it's generated

The pattern has been applied on most casino distributed lucky picks, and I guess analysis couldn't be relied with it. You must understand that having random chances depends on how the computer generated a lucky choices, and human isn't capable to do it in his own. Indeed, limitations follows so we can't further instigate most probable move towards guessing the possible outcome.

[vintages]

I kinda agree that random selection or occurrence is not natural at all.
We human tend to hold on to it as the best selection method for something or a process because it has less manipulation or alternation. It's funny to say that during a random selection process, there are high chances that à random selection will occur twice or thrice, it takes proper studying to determine a next occurrence, most gamblers have come to apply this to winning.

[GSpgh]

Okay, let's think about it, shall we?

You already see both distributions. But let's assume that you don't. That is, you know nothing about the type of the distribution, whether it is random or otherwise. But you know that any random distribution is, well, random, that any pattern you might look for would also be random. However, you also know that with a random distribution you are bound to find some patterns, and this is not "random" specifically because it is a random distribution

So how random is it really? If you see a dot, aren't you more likely to see another dot nearby with such a distribution? But that means things are no longer random to you even if the distribution of dots itself remains totally random. You take advantage of some feature or property of a random distribution that any random distribution has (namely, patterns), and thereby you stop it being random despite it being random. Isn't it a nice paradox or conundrum?

There is no such thing as "random to you", at least there is no use for such a thing unless you're into some weird art forms. For any practical use of randomness, such as gambling or cryptography or statistics, math trumps human perception of randomness.

You seem to be basing your opinion on an axiom that random has patterns but it doesn't. Despite the appearance of patterns (alltho I can't say that I see any patterns in your second picture - a few dots next to each other is not a pattern) there are no proven patterns in, for example, bitcoin RNG. Which has a big big incentive to be cracked, wouldn't you agree? So random is random.

So how random is it really? If you see a dot, aren't you more likely to see another dot nearby with such a distribution?

In a truly random distribution you should expect another dot anywhere with an equal chance, including next to the first dot. It is not more or less likely. It's an optical illusion. On the contrary, if no dots at all have another one nearby that is definitely not random.

For example in a 100x100 picture if you have 100 pixels on it then the next pixel has a ~ 1/25 chance (maybe slightly less due to edges etc) of touching another one and it gets much higher as you put more of them down.

Here's another one. If run a random "pixelator" enough times you should have a non-zero chance of creating a picture where all pixels are in a single large block (similar to a winning/losing streak in gambling).

[Betwrong]

~

~

Here's what I think about it after making probably over a million bets on various dice sites. Indeed the left picture can hardly be the result of a random distribution because the dots are evenly distributed across the surface, and this is not what happens when the process is truly random. If that was the case the martingale would work perfectly, but the thing is that in a really random process you can get 20 wins in a row, winning 2,000 sats with that, and you can get 20 losses in row, losing over 1 BTC with the same settings.

But, although there is always a deviation from the even distribution, it's very important to realize that there is no way of predicting where the deviation is going to occur.

[LbtalkL]

I am just curious about how the online gambling site generated winners like on dice, it is truly random and not pre-programmed? how can they prove it? Is their programming can be checked and verified online by the public or these gambling sites has license to operate? Do they need to get a license? So many questions came out in mind.

[Debonaire217]

I am just curious about how the online gambling site generated winners like on dice, it is truly random and not pre-programmed? how can they prove it? Is their programming can be checked and verified online by the public or these gambling sites has license to operate? Do they need to get a license? So many questions came out in mind.

Technically if they are following some regulations on how the gambling site should work, it should be random and strictly no other codes attached to manipulate the outcomes. But since there are no such restrictions in the gambling platforms, I think there is still a bit of a hole where the luck favors the house  most of the time. But still, it could be considered profitable if you are lucky enough.

[Beparanf]

I am just curious about how the online gambling site generated winners like on dice, it is truly random and not pre-programmed? how can they prove it? Is their programming can be checked and verified online by the public or these gambling sites has license to operate? Do they need to get a license? So many questions came out in mind.

Technically if they are following some regulations on how the gambling site should work, it should be random and strictly no other codes attached to manipulate the outcomes. But since there are no such restrictions in the gambling platforms, I think there is still a bit of a hole where the luck favors the house  most of the time. But still, it could be considered profitable if you are lucky enough.

I don't do random bets as I also believe that it focus more on the owner privileges, but there are cases that we can really win thru random as it seems to be like a cycle with no definite number of when will it take place, random bets were good for just one time bet for testing luck, it's not for a entire game since we need to decide what we need to do or bet based on the movements of the game.

[deisik]

So how random is it really? If you see a dot, aren't you more likely to see another dot nearby with such a distribution? But that means things are no longer random to you even if the distribution of dots itself remains totally random. You take advantage of some feature or property of a random distribution that any random distribution has (namely, patterns), and thereby you stop it being random despite it being random. Isn't it a nice paradox or conundrum?

There is no such thing as "random to you", at least there is no use for such a thing unless you're into some weird art forms. For any practical use of randomness, such as gambling or cryptography or statistics, math trumps human perception of randomness

Well, let's discuss it

You seem to be basing your opinion on an axiom that random has patterns but it doesn't. Despite the appearance of patterns (alltho I can't say that I see any patterns in your second picture - a few dots next to each other is not a pattern) there are no proven patterns in, for example, bitcoin RNG. Which has a big big incentive to be cracked, wouldn't you agree? So random is random

It is not like I just saw that picture and decided to start a discussion here

It means I came prepared for a thorough clash of opinions. Here's my story (for the sake of "practical use of randomness"). I have an acquaintance which I hadn't seen since like 2012 till this summer. We met in last July, and we both made a point that we hadn't seen each other for about 7 years. Then he said that we would likely not see each other again for another 7 years

Obviously, I expected better as I was already well aware that random events of the same type have a tendency to come together, one after another. And what do you think? In a week or so I met him again in a totally different place under totally different circumstances (even at a different time of the day, for that matter). He was surprised but I definitely was not. In fact, I actually felt like we were going to meet again pretty soon (this is the practical part of all it)

But then it was my turn to be surprised as in a couple of days we met once more in a completely different setting (needless to say that my acquaintance was completely flabbergasted). Me, I didn't really expect that such an event was going to repeat itself again, either, as I thought these two encounters in so short a timespan was more than enough. And we haven't seen each other since summer (and probably won't for another 7 years, right)

That said, I don't know how it can possibly trump "human perception of randomness" as this perception, as you call it, allows to override the randomness of something, and make decisions precisely based on that randomness (or rather its override). I don't know either how that can be construed as an impractical use of randomness as it is quite the opposite. To sum it up, if you encounter something ostensibly random and seldom, expect more of it in about or around

So how random is it really? If you see a dot, aren't you more likely to see another dot nearby with such a distribution?

In a truly random distribution you should expect another dot anywhere with an equal chance, including next to the first dot. It is not more or less likely. It's an optical illusion. On the contrary, if no dots at all have another one nearby that is definitely not random

Then what about stars being grouped in galaxies? This grouping is said to be entirely random as otherwise the whole theory of the Big Bang doesn't hold. I think you can't go beyond that as far as randomness is concerned as there is no manifestation of randomness of a larger scale. Is this an optical illusion too according to you?

[Assface16678]

So how random is it really? If you see a dot, aren't you more likely to see another dot nearby with such a distribution? But that means things are no longer random to you even if the distribution of dots itself remains totally random. You take advantage of some feature or property of a random distribution that any random distribution has (namely, patterns), and thereby you stop it being random despite it being random. Isn't it a nice paradox or conundrum?

There is no such thing as "random to you", at least there is no use for such a thing unless you're into some weird art forms. For any practical use of randomness, such as gambling or cryptography or statistics, math trumps human perception of randomness

Well, let's discuss it

You seem to be basing your opinion on an axiom that random has patterns but it doesn't. Despite the appearance of patterns (alltho I can't say that I see any patterns in your second picture - a few dots next to each other is not a pattern) there are no proven patterns in, for example, bitcoin RNG. Which has a big big incentive to be cracked, wouldn't you agree? So random is random

It is not like I just saw that picture and decided to start a discussion here

It means I came prepared for a thorough clash of opinions. Here's my story (for the sake of "practical use of randomness"). I have an acquaintance which I hadn't seen since like 2012 till this summer. We met in last July, and we both made a point that we hadn't seen each other for about 7 years. Then he said that we would likely not see each other again for another 7 years

Obviously, I expected better as I was already well aware that random events of the same type have a tendency to come together, one after another. And what do you think? In a week or so I met him again in a totally different place under totally different circumstances (even at a different time of the day, for that matter). He was surprised but I definitely was not. In fact, I actually assumed that we would meet again pretty soon

But then it was my turn to be surprised as in a couple of days we met once more in a completely different setting (needless to say that my acquaintance was completely flabbergasted). Me, I didn't really expect that such an event was going to repeat itself again as I thought these two encounters in so short a timespan was more than enough. And we haven't seen each other since summer

So I don't know how that can possibly trump "human perception of randomness" as this perception, as you call it, allows to override the randomness of something, and make decisions precisely based on that randomness. I don't know either how that can be construed as an impractical use of randomness as it is quite the opposite

So how random is it really? If you see a dot, aren't you more likely to see another dot nearby with such a distribution?

In a truly random distribution you should expect another dot anywhere with an equal chance, including next to the first dot. It is not more or less likely. It's an optical illusion. On the contrary, if no dots at all have another one nearby that is definitely not random

So what about stars being grouped in galaxies? This grouping is said to be entirely random as otherwise the whole theory of the Big Bang doesn't hold. I think you can't go beyond that as far as randomness is concerned as there is no manifestation of randomness of a larger scale. Is this an optical illusion too?

The computer generates random numbers or codes, and those are programmed to get a value. Those details are just made by the developers those are the one who handles the system that is responsible in the whole logic, there's a consequent and doubting on the producing of numbers because they have the authority to change the value and logic is limited data are limited will show on the system.

[deisik]

The computer generates random numbers or codes, and those are programmed to get a value. Those details are just made by the developers those are the one who handles the system that is responsible in the whole logic, there's a consequent and doubting on the producing of numbers because they have the authority to change the value and logic is limited data are limited will show on the system

I'm not sure I'm able to follow your thought through (I tried, really and hard). Care to explain in more layman terms what it is about?

Here's what I think about it after making probably over a million bets on various dice sites

22248573. Yeah, you read it right, I rolled over 22 million times at WB since July 24 (just in case, I'm still rolling). I think I can safely assume that during this rolling marathon I've seen quite a few outliers. And you know what? They definitely come in packs (maybe that's because of the casino's prime theme, if you know what I mean). For example, you can roll for a whole week and see nothing of interest. Then you witness 2-3 massive outliers within a single day that will give you jitters and make you sweat. You kinda come to expect them in series, and that's a real thing with your skin in the game, not something to be discarded as inconsequential

So much for the so-called randomness

[shield132]

This thought has been nagging me since I first saw the pic below (taken from here):



The image on the left features a uniform distribution (which many erroneously come to think of as random), while the points on the right image are allegedly distributed randomly (read, it is a random distribution). But if we think about it, we may come to the idea that random is not truly random at a higher level. Really, if you hit some random outcome, you could in fact expect more of such outcomes in close vicinity of that first outcome as the image above clearly reveals. So how truly random is what universally considered random?

I'm starting the thread in the Gambling discussion section because this domain (i.e. gambling) is where the idea of randomness and whether random is truly random have most applications and implications. Yeah, you thought it right, for gambling and our success at it

Good question, really. But at first, Random is chosen accidentally and even in these pictures, there are unlimited random versions to set those spots, one random can even be to spot them all in one place. Why are there unlimited random versions? Cause there is space on those pictures. Remind this from math: Imagine rabbit and turtle are going to compete, turtle is 10 meter away but rabit runs 10 meter in 5 second. Competition started but mathematically numbers are unlimited and we can say that turtle is always further than rabbit despite the fact that turtle can run 1/10 meter in 10 second and rabbit runs 20 meter in 10 second, that's because milliseconds are unlimited.

[Zicadis]

In my opinion true randomness is defined as an event which by chance you would expect to be very low, especially when different there can be various different outcomes.
In gambling, for example, this is the case and so true randomness are equally probabilistic events meaning that each player gets a fair chance. Though, in the context of gambling this is very much dependent on the provider   

[Betwrong]

Here's what I think about it after making probably over a million bets on various dice sites

22248573. Yeah, you read it right, I rolled over 22 million times at WB since July 24 (just in case, I'm still rolling). I think I can safely assume that during this rolling marathon I've seen quite a few outliers. And you know what? They definitely come in packs (maybe that's because of the casino's prime theme, if you know what I mean). For example, you can roll for a whole week and see nothing of interest. Then you witness 2-3 massive outliers within a single day that will give you jitters and make you sweat. You kinda come to expect them in series, and that's a real thing with your skin in the game, not something to be discarded as inconsequential

So much for the so-called randomness

I can tell you what I "noticed" playing couple of years ago on PD. I was playing manually, so I could pay attention to each bet, and I was hunting 99x payout, and it seemed to me that every time after the dice rolls over 99.00, the very next roll was below 1.00. So, I started to exploit my "knowledge", and you know what? It worked! Not every time, but enough to make me think I could do it forever, winning some money in the process. Then, after it stopped working, I "improved" my betting strategy by supposing that it was going to be not the very next roll, but that if over 99.00 was rolled then a roll below 1.00 will definitely happen within the next 10-15 rolls (and vice versa). It seemed that it was working for some time too, but then it stopped working, and after losing a significant amount I decided to abandon that strategy for good.

Taking into account that rolls on PD are provable fair, I tend to think that all of those were just coincidences. But if you think that provably fair outcomes can somehow be not random, then this topic is definitely worth further investigation.

[deisik]

Here's what I think about it after making probably over a million bets on various dice sites

22248573. Yeah, you read it right, I rolled over 22 million times at WB since July 24 (just in case, I'm still rolling). I think I can safely assume that during this rolling marathon I've seen quite a few outliers. And you know what? They definitely come in packs (maybe that's because of the casino's prime theme, if you know what I mean). For example, you can roll for a whole week and see nothing of interest. Then you witness 2-3 massive outliers within a single day that will give you jitters and make you sweat. You kinda come to expect them in series, and that's a real thing with your skin in the game, not something to be discarded as inconsequential

So much for the so-called randomness

I can tell you what I "noticed" playing couple of years ago on PD. I was playing manually, so I could pay attention to each bet, and I was hunting 99x payout, and it seemed to me that every time after the dice rolls over 99.00, the very next roll was below 1.00. So, I started to exploit my "knowledge", and you know what? It worked! Not every time, but enough to make me think I could do it forever, winning some money in the process. Then, after it stopped working, I "improved" my betting strategy by supposing that it was going to be not the very next roll, but that if over 99.00 was rolled then a roll below 1.00 will definitely happen within the next 10-15 rolls (and vice versa). It seemed that it was working for some time too, but then it stopped working, and after losing a significant amount I decided to abandon that strategy for good

I can explain to you what happened

And what happened is actually quite in line with the idea set forth in the OP. More specifically, you noticed a pattern, and had been exploiting it for some time. But since bets are random (allegedly), the patterns are random too (necessarily), so it shouldn't in fact have surprised you (had you been aware of this intrinsic property of genuine randomness at the time) that your "strategy" stopped working after some time as another pattern had most certainly revealed itself (which you failed to discover and take advantage of). Patterns are random, but their existence itself is not random at all. It is a feature of a truly random distribution

Taking into account that rolls on PD are provable fair, I tend to think that all of those were just coincidences. But if you think that provably fair outcomes can somehow be not random, then this topic is definitely worth further investigation

No, I'm not saying that. What I am saying, though, is that true randomness destroys itself at a higher level by always being randomly patterned (given enough sample size, of course). And, more importantly, this feature can be taken advantage of in certain circumstances (with some precautions)

[GSpgh]

I am just curious about how the online gambling site generated winners like on dice, it is truly random and not pre-programmed? how can they prove it? Is their programming can be checked and verified online by the public or these gambling sites has license to operate? Do they need to get a license? So many questions came out in mind.

If a gambling site doesn't use random numbers or uses a flawed RNG it risks being exploited. It's in their best interest to the best possible RNG.

Technically if they are following some regulations on how the gambling site should work, it should be random and strictly no other codes attached to manipulate the outcomes. But since there are no such restrictions in the gambling platforms, I think there is still a bit of a hole where the luck favors the house  most of the time. But still, it could be considered profitable if you are lucky enough.

The house has a built-in advantage called the house edge. Again, if they fiddled with the numbers it could turn against them. For example in some (most? all?) dice games the players can chose low or high, so if the house favored one outcome and players noticed that they would start bidding in the other outcome and clean the bankroll.

That said, I don't know how it can possibly trump "human perception of randomness" as this perception, as you call it, allows to override the randomness of something, and make decisions precisely based on that randomness (or rather its override). I don't know either how that can be construed as an impractical use of randomness as it is quite the opposite. To sum it up, if you encounter something ostensibly random and seldom, expect more of it in about or around

I don't know what this means, other than humans are bad at generating randomness? You also seem to say that random must be rare. It's not rare, it's random. It can happen 3 times today and then never again for 100 years.

Then what about stars being grouped in galaxies? This grouping is said to be entirely random as otherwise the whole theory of the Big Bang doesn't hold. I think you can't go beyond that as far as randomness is concerned as there is no manifestation of randomness of a larger scale. Is this an optical illusion too according to you?

Galaxies are not random, they're bound by gravity. If you mean the initial distribution of matter then, again, random doesn't mean uniform distribution so I think being random would actually explain clumps of matter forming and the coalescing into stars and so on. Big Bang is thought to have started with lower (than today) entropy and it has been increasing since then but it's a whole different topic.

[desticy]

For example, if we talk about online casinos, then I never believed that there was an honest random number generator because it was impossible to verify.
Of course, there are honest online casinos, but doubts all exactly creep in.

I don’t like things that can’t be verified, for example, casinos or poker or blackjack very much depend on the honesty of the random number generator, and some online casinos were caught in this kind of fraud.
As for blockchain technology, everything here is more likely honest than not. Indeed, cryptography in its true form cannot be faked or changed.

[deisik]

Technically if they are following some regulations on how the gambling site should work, it should be random and strictly no other codes attached to manipulate the outcomes. But since there are no such restrictions in the gambling platforms, I think there is still a bit of a hole where the luck favors the house  most of the time. But still, it could be considered profitable if you are lucky enough.

The house has a built-in advantage called the house edge. Again, if they fiddled with the numbers it could turn against them. For example in some (most? all?) dice games the players can chose low or high, so if the house favored one outcome and players noticed that they would start bidding in the other outcome and clean the bankroll

If they were to cheat, you would be losing either way (or rather any way)

That said, I don't know how it can possibly trump "human perception of randomness" as this perception, as you call it, allows to override the randomness of something, and make decisions precisely based on that randomness (or rather its override). I don't know either how that can be construed as an impractical use of randomness as it is quite the opposite. To sum it up, if you encounter something ostensibly random and seldom, expect more of it in about or around

I don't know what this means, other than humans are bad at generating randomness? You also seem to say that random must be rare. It's not rare, it's random. It can happen 3 times today and then never again for 100 years

But isn't it what I mean exactly? If something happened once, then expect more of it (read, rare is relative). Actually, it is not like I have invented this as there are quite a few witticisms and pieces of common wisdom regarding this phenomenon (e.g. an evil chance seldom comes alone, troubles never come singly, etc)

Then what about stars being grouped in galaxies? This grouping is said to be entirely random as otherwise the whole theory of the Big Bang doesn't hold. I think you can't go beyond that as far as randomness is concerned as there is no manifestation of randomness of a larger scale. Is this an optical illusion too according to you?

Galaxies are not random, they're bound by gravity. If you mean the initial distribution of matter then, again, random doesn't mean uniform distribution so I think being random would actually explain clumps of matter forming and the coalescing into stars and so on. Big Bang is thought to have started with lower (than today) entropy and it has been increasing since then but it's a whole different topic

Indeed galaxies are bound by gravity

But what makes galaxies in the first place? Why are there many and not just one conglomeration of stars, all tightly packed together? If this is random (in fact, it is kinda a scientific fact), you have to accept that patterns are a distinctive feature or property of randomness. The Universe has innumerable billions of stars, and that's more than enough to evaluate its properties

Besides, you can't have it any other way from a purely mathematical point of view (the approach which you seem to be particularly fond of). How come? The reason is simple. If it were not for patterns, you would have a uniform distribution which is not random by definition, as simple as it gets. Stated differently, you can't have a random distribution without patterns given sufficient sample size

[GSpgh]

If they were to cheat, you would be losing either way (or rather any way)

Sorry, I meant a provably fair game and even then some systemic flaw and/or complacency from the player's side (e.g. not entering their own seed) would be required for the casino to attempt it. I though this was obvious from the context. If it's not provably fair then randomness doesn't matter, they can take your money any way they want.

But isn't it what I mean exactly? If something happened once, then expect more of it (read, rare is relative). Actually, it is not like I have invented this as there are quite a few witticisms and pieces of common wisdom regarding this phenomenon (e.g. an evil chance seldom comes alone, troubles never come singly, etc)

Sounds more like superstition. I can't take it seriously in a discussion about randomness.

Indeed galaxies are bound by gravity

But what makes galaxies in the first place? Why are there many and not just one conglomeration of stars, all tightly packed together? If this is random (in fact, it is kinda a scientific fact), you have to accept that patterns are a distinctive feature or property of randomness. The Universe has innumerable billions of stars, and that's more than enough to evaluate its properties

Universe is expanding and has been doing so since the Big Bang. So it can't be in one big clump. It would probably be a very neatly organized sparse cloud of particles if not for randomness, which caused it to stick into various blobs.

Besides, you can't have it any other way from a purely mathematical point of view (the approach which you seem to be particularly fond of). How come? The reason is simple. If it were not for patterns, you would have a uniform distribution which is not random by definition, as simple as it gets. Stated differently, you can't have a random distribution without patterns given sufficient sample size

Uniform distribution is a very distinctive pattern. The definition of random is: "proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern". So it's the other way round. Random doesn't stop being random because you spotted a pattern. It either wasn't random to begin with, or you're wrong and there is no pattern.

[doomistake]

In my opinion, even if it is uniformly distributed or not, randomness may vary depends on our judgment about it, the point is, no matter how random it is, random will be still random, I mean the difference will not be far away to what we are trying to figure out in your post but if we are going to think about it, it will not make any change to the fact we can't beat the random unique patterns that each gambling sites have in order to make huge bankrolls every single day.

[acroman08]

This thought has been nagging me since I first saw the pic below (taken from here):



The image on the left features a uniform distribution (which many erroneously come to think of as random), while the points on the right image are allegedly distributed randomly (read, it is a random distribution). But if we think about it, we may come to the idea that random is not truly random at a higher level. Really, if you hit some random outcome, you could in fact expect more of such outcomes in close vicinity of that first outcome as the image above clearly reveals. So how truly random is what universally considered random?

I'm starting the thread in the Gambling discussion section because this domain (i.e. gambling) is where the idea of randomness and whether random is truly random have most applications and implications. Yeah, you thought it right, for gambling and our success at it

you are overthinking it. reading the meaning of random on a dictionary will already give you the answer to what is considered random. but in your case, you are looking for another meaning
(or not or was just intrigued) or other reason why random isn't random and that is mostly associated with supernatural(god) that has planned everything and what people consider random
isn't actually random but was planned.

[IadixDev]

This thought has been nagging me since I first saw the pic below (taken from here):



The image on the left features a uniform distribution (which many erroneously come to think of as random), while the points on the right image are allegedly distributed randomly (read, it is a random distribution). But if we think about it, we may come to the idea that random is not truly random at a higher level. Really, if you hit some random outcome, you could in fact expect more of such outcomes in close vicinity of that first outcome as the image above clearly reveals. So how truly random is what universally considered random?

I'm starting the thread in the Gambling discussion section because this domain (i.e. gambling) is where the idea of randomness and whether random is truly random have most applications and implications. Yeah, you thought it right, for gambling and our success at it

Ever heard of poisson distribution ?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution

Its the law that govern certain category of random events.

If you flip a coin, the average distribution will tend toward 50/50, and the occurrence of ten time the same result will be lower than occurrence of 50/50 with a distribution law.

[deisik]

Indeed galaxies are bound by gravity

But what makes galaxies in the first place? Why are there many and not just one conglomeration of stars, all tightly packed together? If this is random (in fact, it is kinda a scientific fact), you have to accept that patterns are a distinctive feature or property of randomness. The Universe has innumerable billions of stars, and that's more than enough to evaluate its properties

Universe is expanding and has been doing so since the Big Bang. So it can't be in one big clump. It would probably be a very neatly organized sparse cloud of particles if not for randomness, which caused it to stick into various blobs

Should it be construed in the way you think that the distribution of galaxies in the Universe is not random?

Besides, you can't have it any other way from a purely mathematical point of view (the approach which you seem to be particularly fond of). How come? The reason is simple. If it were not for patterns, you would have a uniform distribution which is not random by definition, as simple as it gets. Stated differently, you can't have a random distribution without patterns given sufficient sample size

Uniform distribution is a very distinctive pattern

Indeed it is patterned, but it has only one pattern, while in a random distribution you can see plenty of them. They are random too, but it is exactly their randomness (which leads to them being many) that distinguishes the latter from the former. If you remove these patterns, you will get a uniform distribution, which violates the assumption of randomness (though the opposite is not necessarily true). So any way you twist the semantics of it, a random distribution without patterns (as in plural) turns into a uniform distribution (with just one repetitive pattern), and thus stops being random

So it's the other way round. Random doesn't stop being random because you spotted a pattern. It either wasn't random to begin with, or you're wrong and there is no pattern

There's not only one pattern in a random distribution as there are many, and their very existence makes a random distribution somewhat less random, from a practical point of view (superstitions or otherwise)

[Debonaire217]

It may worth adding that usually in computer science pseudo-random numbers are generated. Truly random (?) values are only to be found in nature. And pseudo-randomness may, strangely(?), be closer to what you expect in statistics.

In my computer programming class, we're task to random out numbers and sometimes, tutorials are saying that random numbers mostly comes from the current time you have in your computer's clock. In this case, the system is basing the random number which is not actually random at all. Applying it to the context of gambling, random chances could possibly have a basis of it being random and might not be random at all.

[Patatas]

The source for the data should have been provided to see how they actually mined it to generate those charts. I mean I want to know which algorithm produces that distribution. You could argue but will the output be different if the test data is feed into a more efficient algorithm?

Speaking generally, the randomness use on the gambling sites that is the seed and hash work quite differently than just filliping a coin and expecting a random result every time.

[IadixDev]

It may worth adding that usually in computer science pseudo-random numbers are generated. Truly random (?) values are only to be found in nature. And pseudo-randomness may, strangely(?), be closer to what you expect in statistics.

In my computer programming class, we're task to random out numbers and sometimes, tutorials are saying that random numbers mostly comes from the current time you have in your computer's clock. In this case, the system is basing the random number which is not actually random at all. Applying it to the context of gambling, random chances could possibly have a basis of it being random and might not be random at all.

The rationale for gambling is different from the problematic of RNG in computer science, for gambling you still want something that will have poisson like distribution to have a "fair" game where the chances of winning are still known.

Chaotic mechanical processes in the end tend toward poisson distribution if the parameters stay constant, like dice or roulette or coin tossing, even at quantum level on long enough time you can find average with good statistcal match.

Turing machine are not good at creating randomness they are not made for this, on the contrary. They are perfect exemple of closed system with very low entropy.

[buwaytress]

Try to double or triple or even x10 the number of dots on your piece of paper and you get "patterns" forming. Repeat the experiment 1 million times and you might find other patterns appearing.

I love thinking about the concept of randomness, too. Not so much from a mathematical perspective though.

When you flip a coin, the air, the way you flip, the way the coin is manufactured, all affect the outcome in ways we can't really calculate. When you roll a 10-sided die or 6-sided one, the manufacturing of it, the way some sides might have more density than others. The way a "10" is grooved means that side is ever so lighter than the side that has a "1". For sure all these affect the outcome, and, therefore, have a say in how random the coinflip or dice throw is. I've seen people manipulate dice throws, coin flips, measuring exactly how much strength to flip the coin, ensuring every throw has the same number of flips.

The way a dealer shuffles. The way a casino card stack is cut, the way the roulette wheels are oiled. The way the metal ball hits when it's thrown on the wheel.

How random is random? It's a lovely question!

[Debonaire217]

Try to double or triple or even x10 the number of dots on your piece of paper and you get "patterns" forming. Repeat the experiment 1 million times and you might find other patterns appearing.

I love thinking about the concept of randomness, too. Not so much from a mathematical perspective though.

When you flip a coin, the air, the way you flip, the way the coin is manufactured, all affect the outcome in ways we can't really calculate. When you roll a 10-sided die or 6-sided one, the manufacturing of it, the way some sides might have more density than others. The way a "10" is grooved means that side is ever so lighter than the side that has a "1". For sure all these affect the outcome, and, therefore, have a say in how random the coinflip or dice throw is. I've seen people manipulate dice throws, coin flips, measuring exactly how much strength to flip the coin, ensuring every throw has the same number of flips.

The way a dealer shuffles. The way a casino card stack is cut, the way the roulette wheels are oiled. The way the metal ball hits when it's thrown on the wheel.

How random is random? It's a lovely question!

I like the way you explain things that affects its random outcomes, but what if we consider randomness of a computer system? All physical tangible things could be impacted by their physical characteristics on how they were created. What about the computer system who uses random generating functions, do they have any basis at all? Are they really random? How come they are programmed to provide random numbers if computers are precise and absolute.

[Ucy]

This thought has been nagging me since I first saw the pic below (taken from here):



The image on the left features a uniform distribution (which many erroneously come to think of as random), while the points on the right image are allegedly distributed randomly (read, it is a random distribution). But if we think about it, we may come to the idea that random is not truly random at a higher level. Really, if you hit some random outcome, you could in fact expect more of such outcomes in close vicinity of that first outcome as the image above clearly reveals. So how truly random is what universally considered random?

I'm starting the thread in the Gambling discussion section because this domain (i.e. gambling) is where the idea of randomness and whether random is truly random have most applications and implications. Yeah, you thought it right, for gambling and our success at it

you are overthinking it. reading the meaning of random on a dictionary will already give you the answer to what is considered random. but in your case, you are looking for another meaning
(or not or was just intrigued) or other reason why random isn't random and that is mostly associated with supernatural(GOD) that has planned everything and what people consider random
isn't actually random but was planned.

I totally agree. Random is not in the dictionary of the CREATOR of the universe and everything. That word is for those whose knowledge are limited.
There is definitely something responsible for falling chaff to be scattered randomly on the ground after being thrown in the air. If you can know, understand and control those things which cause the scattering or randomness, you could  prevent the so called randomness from occurring or make the chaff land on the ground exactly how you want.

[deisik]

Try to double or triple or even x10 the number of dots on your piece of paper and you get "patterns" forming. Repeat the experiment 1 million times and you might find other patterns appearing

But that's what I'm talking about

Randomness is all about patterns, even if those patterns are random on their own. With this in mind, you can try to exploit this property consciously once you definitely see or assume that you are dealing with random events, or if you know that beforehand (which is often the case in real life). In fact, we are all using this subtlety of randomness in everyday life without even thinking about it, without even being aware of it

The way a dealer shuffles. The way a casino card stack is cut, the way the roulette wheels are oiled. The way the metal ball hits when it's thrown on the wheel

I see what you are getting at, but in this topic I'm speaking mostly about the outcomes which are considered the representation of the built-in randomness of the world. Whether they are truly random in this sense is another question. Technically, our assumptions about these outcomes can just reflect our lack of knowledge (read, God doesn't play dice)

[IadixDev]

Try to double or triple or even x10 the number of dots on your piece of paper and you get "patterns" forming. Repeat the experiment 1 million times and you might find other patterns appearing.

I love thinking about the concept of randomness, too. Not so much from a mathematical perspective though.

When you flip a coin, the air, the way you flip, the way the coin is manufactured, all affect the outcome in ways we can't really calculate. When you roll a 10-sided die or 6-sided one, the manufacturing of it, the way some sides might have more density than others. The way a "10" is grooved means that side is ever so lighter than the side that has a "1". For sure all these affect the outcome, and, therefore, have a say in how random the coinflip or dice throw is. I've seen people manipulate dice throws, coin flips, measuring exactly how much strength to flip the coin, ensuring every throw has the same number of flips.

The way a dealer shuffles. The way a casino card stack is cut, the way the roulette wheels are oiled. The way the metal ball hits when it's thrown on the wheel.

How random is random? It's a lovely question!

All thèse things you describe are things that actually make the game "less random". If the roulette is not perfectly oiled and the ball is not round leading to number 21 having 2% more occurrence than number 11, then you got a rigged game, which doesnt follow a poisson distribution. If one rely on such knowledge to win the game he is essentially cheating.

[IadixDev]

Try to double or triple or even x10 the number of dots on your piece of paper and you get "patterns" forming. Repeat the experiment 1 million times and you might find other patterns appearing.

I love thinking about the concept of randomness, too. Not so much from a mathematical perspective though.

When you flip a coin, the air, the way you flip, the way the coin is manufactured, all affect the outcome in ways we can't really calculate. When you roll a 10-sided die or 6-sided one, the manufacturing of it, the way some sides might have more density than others. The way a "10" is grooved means that side is ever so lighter than the side that has a "1". For sure all these affect the outcome, and, therefore, have a say in how random the coinflip or dice throw is. I've seen people manipulate dice throws, coin flips, measuring exactly how much strength to flip the coin, ensuring every throw has the same number of flips.

The way a dealer shuffles. The way a casino card stack is cut, the way the roulette wheels are oiled. The way the metal ball hits when it's thrown on the wheel.

How random is random? It's a lovely question!

I like the way you explain things that affects its random outcomes, but what if we consider randomness of a computer system? All physical tangible things could be impacted by their physical characteristics on how they were created. What about the computer system who uses random generating functions, do they have any basis at all? Are they really random? How come they are programmed to provide random numbers if computers are precise and absolute.

In computer science there are lot of different kind of random number generators, not all of them are suited for gambling.

You can have Perlin noise or fractal noise which can be used in computer graphics like to generate landscape or Marble or in audio synthesis etc but they will have certain distribution that doesnt make them suitable for gambling.

Uniform distribution is white noise but there are other kind of distribution and algorithm that can be suited for some specific purpose.

But you can easily say there will always be a known pattern in anything generated by a computer program, and the séquence can always be reproduced if you know the initial parameters ( seed etc) and the algorithm.

[IadixDev]

Try to double or triple or even x10 the number of dots on your piece of paper and you get "patterns" forming. Repeat the experiment 1 million times and you might find other patterns appearing

But that's what I'm talking about

Randomness is all about patterns, even if those patterns are random on their own. With this in mind, you can try to exploit this property consciously once you definitely see or assume that you are dealing with random events, or if you know that beforehand (which is often the case in real life). In fact, we are all using this subtlety of randomness in everyday life without even thinking about it, without even being aware of it

The way a dealer shuffles. The way a casino card stack is cut, the way the roulette wheels are oiled. The way the metal ball hits when it's thrown on the wheel

I see what you are getting at, but in this topic I'm speaking mostly about the outcomes which are considered the representation of the built-in randomness of the world. Whether they are truly random in this sense is another question. Technically, our assumptions about these outcomes can just reflect our lack of knowledge (read, God doesn't play dice)

Then the answer is 42

Montgomery had found that the statistical distribution of the zeros on the critical line of the Riemann zeta function has a certain property, now called Montgomery’s pair correlation conjecture. He explained that the zeros tend to repel between neighboring levels. At teatime, Montgomery mentioned his result to Freeman Dyson, Professor in the School of Natural Sciences.

In the 1960s, Dyson had worked on random matrix theory, which was proposed by physicist Eugene Wigner in 1951 to describe nuclear physics. The quantum mechanics of a heavy nucleus is complex and poorly understood. Wigner made a bold conjecture that the statistics of the energy levels could be captured by random matrices. Because of Dyson’s work on random matrices, the distribution or the statistical behavior of the eigenvalues of these matrices has been understood since the 1960s.

Dyson immediately saw that the statistical distribution found by Montgomery appeared to be the same as the pair correlation distribution for the eigenvalues of a random Hermitian matrix that he had discovered a decade earlier. “His result was the same as mine. They were coming from completely different directions and you get the same answer” says Dyson. “It shows that there is a lot there that we don’t understand, and when we do understand it, it will probably be obvious. But at the moment, it is just a miracle.”

The unexpected discovery by Montgomery and Dyson at teatime in the 1970s opened a tantalizing connection between prime numbers and mathematical physics that remains strange and mysterious today. Prime numbers are the building blocks of all numbers and have been studied for more than two thousand years, beginning with the ancient Greeks, who proved that there are infinitely many primes and that they are irregularly spaced.

More than forty years after the teatime conversation between Dyson and Montgomery, the answer to the question of why the same laws of distribution seem to govern the zeros of the Riemann zeta function and the eigenvalues of random matrices remains elusive, but the hunt for an explanation has prompted active research at the intersection of number theory, mathematical physics, probability, and statistics. The search is producing a much better understanding of zeta functions, prime numbers, and random matrices from a variety of angles, including analyzing various systems to see if they reflect Wigner’s prediction that the energy levels of large complex quantum systems exhibit a universal statistical behavior, a delicate balance between chaos and order defined by a precise formula


https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2013/primes-random-matrices


This is the zero of riemann zeta function

[buwaytress]

I see what you are getting at, but in this topic I'm speaking mostly about the outcomes which are considered the representation of the built-in randomness of the world. Whether they are truly random in this sense is another question. Technically, our assumptions about these outcomes can just reflect our lack of knowledge (read, God doesn't play dice)

And as such we are always in the pursuit of more knowledge, not the completion of knowledge (as Asimov so properly and comprehensively explains in The Last Question).

But even if there is built in randomness, all the laws of physics still can apply -- wear and tear, different points of gravity having different effects on how things should work. Take a system and place it into another environment and it works differently.

Then, how we view and perceive the random results even have an effect on that randomness. The images you show, for example, to a colour-blind person, and then maybe viewed on a different monochrome, or a different resolution.

But you're right, our assumptions cannot even possibly comprehend new understandings and even new definitions of random.

[ralle14]

I am just curious about how the online gambling site generated winners like on dice, it is truly random and not pre-programmed? how can they prove it? Is their programming can be checked and verified online by the public or these gambling sites has license to operate? Do they need to get a license? So many questions came out in mind.

Imo it is random since there are days where high rollers could take a piece of the bankroll or suddenly hit a very big multiplier like that one time on stake where a guy hits several x10 multipliers in a row which add up to a million. Before, gambling sites don't have licenses from what I know they only put restrictions on a few countries but now most of them have a verified curacao license on the bottom of their page.

[AicecreaME]

If you remove these patterns, you will get a uniform distribution, which violates the assumption of randomness (though the opposite is not necessarily true).

I disagree. Uniform distribution doesn't violates the assumption of randomness, besides, it is still random, for example, if a certain program will distribute 0-9 integers with the same interval (uniform distribution) the numbers that will be distributed will still random, and it will not stop being random, in my opinion.

This randomness topic of yours is a bit tricky if you are going to let it go deeper in your mind.

[Ranly123]

Being random is how a person understand and translate something. Example of which is our thoughts, if we think of something some people will think of it randomly but for us it's planned.

[AniviaBtc]

Being random is how a person understand and translate something. Example of which is our thoughts, if we think of something some people will think of it randomly but for us it's planned.

What are you trying to say? Being random is not like that, random is unpredictable and it is the outcome without pattern. It's just simply as that, don't make yourself overthink about being random.

In relation to gambling, random is very random because im gambling there are many outcomes and if you try to bet at random, your chances to win is very small. There are a lot of combinations in the gambling, and random is just 0.00000001% depends on the number of choices.

[GSpgh]

Universe is expanding and has been doing so since the Big Bang. So it can't be in one big clump. It would probably be a very neatly organized sparse cloud of particles if not for randomness, which caused it to stick into various blobs

Should it be construed in the way you think that the distribution of galaxies in the Universe is not random?

That's literally the opposite of what I said. This discussion is going in circles now.

There's not only one pattern in a random distribution as there are many, and their very existence makes a random distribution somewhat less random, from a practical point of view (superstitions or otherwise)

Again, that doesn't fit the basic dictionary definition of random. By definition random doesn't have patterns. If you're seeing patterns then your randomization algorithm is not good (which technically is the case with almost any human-devised algorithm) or you're not actually seeing patterns.

Going forward you probably should establish if you're discussing a specific algorithm or the hypothetical ideal randomness. There is no doubt that most algorithms have flaws limiting their entropy (but nonetheless are good enough for many practical purposes like gambling). But that doesn't mean a contradiction the way you're presenting it.

[Darker45]

Try to double or triple or even x10 the number of dots on your piece of paper and you get "patterns" forming. Repeat the experiment 1 million times and you might find other patterns appearing.

I love thinking about the concept of randomness, too. Not so much from a mathematical perspective though.

When you flip a coin, the air, the way you flip, the way the coin is manufactured, all affect the outcome in ways we can't really calculate. When you roll a 10-sided die or 6-sided one, the manufacturing of it, the way some sides might have more density than others. The way a "10" is grooved means that side is ever so lighter than the side that has a "1". For sure all these affect the outcome, and, therefore, have a say in how random the coinflip or dice throw is. I've seen people manipulate dice throws, coin flips, measuring exactly how much strength to flip the coin, ensuring every throw has the same number of flips.

The way a dealer shuffles. The way a casino card stack is cut, the way the roulette wheels are oiled. The way the metal ball hits when it's thrown on the wheel.

How random is random? It's a lovely question!

And it is also lovely how a seemingly simple gambling question quickly escalated into a metaphysical one.

If we look for absolute randomness, I am afraid there is none. Not in a toss of a coin or a roll of a dice, not even in the movements of the atoms in a single object, and not in the workings of the universe. Everything factored in, there is no result which we can consider an absolute random one.   

Or perhaps, just like in freedom, justice, joy, and everything else, there are no absolutes. That applies to randomness as well.

[deisik]

Universe is expanding and has been doing so since the Big Bang. So it can't be in one big clump. It would probably be a very neatly organized sparse cloud of particles if not for randomness, which caused it to stick into various blobs

Should it be construed in the way you think that the distribution of galaxies in the Universe is not random?

That's literally the opposite of what I said. This discussion is going in circles now

That was and had been in fact intended as a question because you didn't say explicitly whether you consider the existing irregularities (I intentionally avoid the word patterns here) in the distribution of galaxies across the Universe as random. Truth be told, you are quite vague and ambiguous on this, deliberately or otherwise. In simple terms, make yourself clear on the matter

That's all I ask (note, not claim, assert, or challenge)

There's not only one pattern in a random distribution as there are many, and their very existence makes a random distribution somewhat less random, from a practical point of view (superstitions or otherwise)

Again, that doesn't fit the basic dictionary definition of random. By definition random doesn't have patterns. If you're seeing patterns then your randomization algorithm is not good (which technically is the case with almost any human-devised algorithm) or you're not actually seeing patterns

What dictionary definition of random do you refer to?

[IadixDev]

Im not sure if randomness is really absence of pattern. Randomness as in chaotic system can have pattern like fractals, but a small change in starting condition will have unpredictible effect on the outcome. In this view randomness is a product of complexity, as number of input factors and relationship between them. Which is why thermodynamics doesnt work in open systems because entropy dominate.

But even for gambling if the game is fair there should be a know distribution of events, its less and less random on longer period, the problem is having limited supply and not being able to play long enough to win the jackpot before you go bankrupt depending on the odds you take on a limited sequence.

[GSpgh]

What dictionary definition of random do you refer to?

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/random
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/random
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/random

[deisik]

I disagree. Uniform distribution doesn't violates the assumption of randomness, besides, it is still random, for example, if a certain program will distribute 0-9 integers with the same interval (uniform distribution) the numbers that will be distributed will still random, and it will not stop being random, in my opinion

The numbers on their own (i.e. their particular values) will remain random (i.e. the distribution of their values). But since you distribute them evenly across or along something, that distribution will not

Im not sure if randomness is really absence of pattern. Randomness as in chaotic system can have pattern like fractals, but a small change in starting condition will have unpredictible effect on the outcome. In this view randomness is a product of complexity, as number of input factors and relationship between them. Which is why thermodynamics doesnt work in open systems because entropy dominate.

People seem to be confusing two entirely different things

That is, random patterns with repetitive patterns. The former are the characteristic of a random distribution, while the latter of a distribution which is not random. To make things easier to understand and probably to accept, it can be advised to think about the random patterns as irregularities (or grouping). However, if we consider these irregularities at a higher level, their emergence is not random at all

What dictionary definition of random do you refer to?

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/random
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/random
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/random

Which of these definitions says about the lack of random patterns?

[IadixDev]

Im not sure if randomness is really absence of pattern. Randomness as in chaotic system can have pattern like fractals, but a small change in starting condition will have unpredictible effect on the outcome. In this view randomness is a product of complexity, as number of input factors and relationship between them. Which is why thermodynamics doesnt work in open systems because entropy dominate.

People seem to be confusing two entirely different things

That is, random patterns with repetitive patterns. The former are the characteristic of a random distribution, while the latter of a distribution which is not random. To make things easier to understand and probably to accept, it can be advised to think about the random patterns as irregularities (or grouping). However, if we consider these irregularities at a higher level, their emergence is not random at all

What dictionary definition of random do you refer to?

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/random
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/random
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/random

Which of these definitions says about the lack of random patterns?

Its a different definition than chaos theory then.

Unpredictability: Because we can never know all the initial conditions of a complex system in sufficient (i.e. perfect) detail, we cannot hope to predict the ultimate fate of a complex system. Even slight errors in measuring the state of a system will be amplified dramatically, rendering any prediction useless. Since it is impossible to measure the effects of all the butterflies (etc) in the World, accurate long-range weather prediction will always remain impossible.

Fractals are infinitely complex patterns that are self-similar across different scales. They are created by repeating a simple process over and over in an ongoing feedback loop. Driven by recursion, fractals are images of dynamic systems – the pictures of Chaos. Geometrically, they exist in between our familiar dimensions. Fractal patterns are extremely familiar, since nature is full of fractals. For instance: trees, rivers, coastlines, mountains, clouds, seashells, hurricanes, etc.


https://fractalfoundation.org/resources/what-is-chaos-theory/

[Ucy]

Im not sure if randomness is really absence of pattern. Randomness as in chaotic system can have pattern like fractals, but a small change in starting condition will have unpredictible effect on the outcome. In this view randomness is a product of complexity, as number of input factors and relationship between them. Which is why thermodynamics doesnt work in open systems because entropy dominate.

People seem to be confusing two entirely different things

That is, random patterns with repetitive patterns. The former are the characteristic of a random distribution, while the latter of a distribution which is not random. To make things easier to understand and probably to accept, it can be advised to think about the random patterns as irregularities (or grouping). However, if we consider these irregularities at a higher level, their emergence is not random at all

What dictionary definition of random do you refer to?

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/random
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/random
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/random

Which of these definitions says about the lack of random patterns?

Its a different definition than chaos theory then.

Unpredictability: Because we can never know all the initial conditions of a complex system in sufficient (i.e. perfect) detail, we cannot hope to predict the ultimate fate of a complex system. Even slight errors in measuring the state of a system will be amplified dramatically, rendering any prediction useless. Since it is impossible to measure the effects of all the butterflies (etc) in the World, accurate long-range weather prediction will always remain impossible.

Fractals are infinitely complex patterns that are self-similar across different scales. They are created by repeating a simple process over and over in an ongoing feedback loop. Driven by recursion, fractals are images of dynamic systems – the pictures of Chaos. Geometrically, they exist in between our familiar dimensions. Fractal patterns are extremely familiar, since nature is full of fractals. For instance: trees, rivers, coastlines, mountains, clouds, seashells, hurricanes, etc.


https://fractalfoundation.org/resources/what-is-chaos-theory/

Note that snowflakes (as part of fractal patterns) aren't really random. The assumption is that they are simply following their pre-designed or preexisting microscopic structures.   I remember they were thought to develop randomly.
Assuming you pour sticky substance on an invisible ball,  the substance will sticks on the invisible ball and take its shape. The new shape of the substance could blow the mind of an observe who may even consider it as random.

[IadixDev]

Im not sure if randomness is really absence of pattern. Randomness as in chaotic system can have pattern like fractals, but a small change in starting condition will have unpredictible effect on the outcome. In this view randomness is a product of complexity, as number of input factors and relationship between them. Which is why thermodynamics doesnt work in open systems because entropy dominate.

People seem to be confusing two entirely different things

That is, random patterns with repetitive patterns. The former are the characteristic of a random distribution, while the latter of a distribution which is not random. To make things easier to understand and probably to accept, it can be advised to think about the random patterns as irregularities (or grouping). However, if we consider these irregularities at a higher level, their emergence is not random at all

What dictionary definition of random do you refer to?

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/random
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/random
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/random

Which of these definitions says about the lack of random patterns?

Its a different definition than chaos theory then.

Unpredictability: Because we can never know all the initial conditions of a complex system in sufficient (i.e. perfect) detail, we cannot hope to predict the ultimate fate of a complex system. Even slight errors in measuring the state of a system will be amplified dramatically, rendering any prediction useless. Since it is impossible to measure the effects of all the butterflies (etc) in the World, accurate long-range weather prediction will always remain impossible.

Fractals are infinitely complex patterns that are self-similar across different scales. They are created by repeating a simple process over and over in an ongoing feedback loop. Driven by recursion, fractals are images of dynamic systems – the pictures of Chaos. Geometrically, they exist in between our familiar dimensions. Fractal patterns are extremely familiar, since nature is full of fractals. For instance: trees, rivers, coastlines, mountains, clouds, seashells, hurricanes, etc.


https://fractalfoundation.org/resources/what-is-chaos-theory/

Note that snowflakes (as part of fractal patterns) aren't really random. The assumption is that they are simply following their pre-designed or preexisting microscopic structures.   I remember they were thought to develop randomly.
Assuming you pour sticky substance on an invisible ball,  the substance sticks on the invisible ball and takes its shape. The new shape of the substance could blow the mind of an observe who may even consider it as random.

What make fractal random is that small change in initial condition can lead to a completely different result after a certain number of iterations, so it make them hard to predict.

If you pour the substance many times it will still take the same shape, and the sequence of outcome is still predictible, even if there is no explanation for it, statstics dont require To understand the phenomena to find regularities.

Its interesting to see also why they came up with perlin noise algorithm to give computer generated graphics a more natural look, fractal can be used to generate trees, and adding some perlin noise can change a straight line adding slight twist to it, and can be used to generate 1000 trees that will all look slightly different but still using same core fractal pattern. Even in hair animation they probably use some kind of noise to make it more "realistic".

I Guess its same with Snow flakes that They all Have same core pattern but not two are identical, even if they form in very similar conditions.

Noise is often used to increase the complexity of computer algorithm in a cheap manner, and can end up with result that are statistically close To natural occurrence, even with simple repetitive/ iterative algorithm and very simple primitive patterns.

[Bitcoinislife09]

A computer code of random was so complex and I think there is it already consider random since there is no pattern,
like for example generating a random int number or making a for loop in the system to create a random number picker. You are just coding random.int and it was already coded in the language.
For me, it was already considered random but we don't know if the algorithms of the gambling sites were different because it code be altered by the programmer.

[MWesterweele]

I think this is a tricky question.I think that slot machine software can be manipulated and not be truly random however provably fair when is implemented like it should moves away this doubt from my head and I believe random is truly random.

Truly random I think is only where the casino house has its cut always provided like in poker when multiple random people are playing.

Ramdoness in a game is very unpredictable, there is a possibility and a probabilty im each set of number. As long as it has too huge, multiple chances are being created it is too hard to predict whether that  could be chosen or what. I believe that randomness and probability and statistics are both in line and  both use in dice and betting game.

[GSpgh]

Which of these definitions says about the lack of random patterns?

"Random pattern" is a misnomer, or an oxymoron. You may mean a randomly repeated pattern, or some pattern algorithm with random "mutations", like IadixDev's example with fractals. If it follows a pattern then it's not random.

dictionary.com: "proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern"
Merriam-Webster: "lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern"
Cambridge Dictionary: "happening, done, or chosen by chance rather than according to a plan or pattern"

[Zicadis]

Also, I think you may find that 'random' is defined differently by different people depending on their agenda, especially when tied in with affiliations etc. But random in principle should be as the term implies.

[deisik]

Which of these definitions says about the lack of random patterns?

"Random pattern" is a misnomer, or an oxymoron. You may mean a randomly repeated pattern, or some pattern algorithm with random "mutations", like IadixDev's example with fractals. If it follows a pattern then it's not random

I would say that depends

That depends on one's frame of reference. You disagree with me because we are looking at the same thing from different levels. On your level, random patterns are a misnomer (which I basically agree with) but I only use this term to better get across my point. What I mean by random patterns should probably be properly called irregularities on their own. But these irregularities could be considered a pattern of randomness at the next logical level (see theory of logical types to better understand my idea)

[IadixDev]

For me a random process is when it starts with very similar initial condition and end with very different result. In mathematics maybe non linear is a better definition. Linear system have for characteristic that they can be reversed, and you can deduce initial conditions from the end result. With non linear process they cant be reversed. But there can still be a pattern to it, even if the pattern is too complex to have a clear relation between initial condition and result.

As far as i know hash fonctions in cryptography have non linear components to make them non reversible using linear functions. Doesnt mean there is not a pattern to it.

[Betwrong]

~ you noticed a pattern, and had been exploiting it for some time. But since bets are random (allegedly), the patterns are random too (necessarily), so it shouldn't in fact have surprised you (had you been aware of this intrinsic property of genuine randomness at the time) that your "strategy" stopped working after some time as another pattern had most certainly revealed itself (which you failed to discover and take advantage of). Patterns are random, but their existence itself is not random at all. It is a feature of a truly random distribution

But the discovery of such patterns can happen only by chance, right? And we have no way of knowing how long they are going to last, right? Or, are we just in the early stage of understanding how it really works? What if the ancient philosopher Democritus, who formulated an atomic theory of the universe around 400 BC, was right saying that randomness is a subjective concept that originated from the inability of humans to understand the nature of events?

[deisik]

~ you noticed a pattern, and had been exploiting it for some time. But since bets are random (allegedly), the patterns are random too (necessarily), so it shouldn't in fact have surprised you (had you been aware of this intrinsic property of genuine randomness at the time) that your "strategy" stopped working after some time as another pattern had most certainly revealed itself (which you failed to discover and take advantage of). Patterns are random, but their existence itself is not random at all. It is a feature of a truly random distribution

But the discovery of such patterns can happen only by chance, right? And we have no way of knowing how long they are going to last, right? Or, are we just in the early stage of understanding how it really works? What if the ancient philosopher Democritus, who formulated an atomic theory of the universe around 400 BC, was right saying that randomness is a subjective concept that originated from the inability of humans to understand the nature of events?

I've been thinking about that too

That randomness only exists in our heads partly as an answer to our inability to explain certain events (that we conveniently consider random) but even more so because our reasoning powers in general may be limited. I mean we can't "understand the nature of events" because of the limits of our potential for understanding itself. In other words, we can't explain randomness as it lies beyond our understanding in principle

For example, we can't understand what self-awareness and consciousness as one's mind and thoughts are because we simply don't have such an ability in us. Simply put, it is not so much for the lack of knowledge as for the lack of required capacity to process and interpret this knowledge. The same may be equally true for randomness (and probably a host of other phenomena). We are like ants trying to figure out things outside an anthill

[Betwrong]

~ you noticed a pattern, and had been exploiting it for some time. But since bets are random (allegedly), the patterns are random too (necessarily), so it shouldn't in fact have surprised you (had you been aware of this intrinsic property of genuine randomness at the time) that your "strategy" stopped working after some time as another pattern had most certainly revealed itself (which you failed to discover and take advantage of). Patterns are random, but their existence itself is not random at all. It is a feature of a truly random distribution

But the discovery of such patterns can happen only by chance, right? And we have no way of knowing how long they are going to last, right? Or, are we just in the early stage of understanding how it really works? What if the ancient philosopher Democritus, who formulated an atomic theory of the universe around 400 BC, was right saying that randomness is a subjective concept that originated from the inability of humans to understand the nature of events?

I've been thinking about that too

That randomness only exists in our heads partly as an answer to our inability to explain certain events (that we conveniently consider random) but even more so because our reasoning powers in general may be limited. I mean we can't "understand the nature of events" because of the limits of our potential for understanding itself. In other words, we can't explain randomness as it lies beyond our understanding in principle

For example, we can't understand what self-awareness and consciousness as one's mind and thoughts are because we simply don't have such an ability in us. Simply put, it is not so much for the lack of knowledge as for the lack of required capacity to process and interpret this knowledge. The same may be equally true for randomness (and probably a host of other phenomena). We are like ants trying to figure out things outside an anthill

So, is there a hope? I mean, currently, it is considered that with any truly random processes absolutely anything can happen next. If you just hit 99.99 on dice it doesn't mean you won't hit the same number again in the very next roll. They say, random processes "do not have memory", and thus it is impossible for past outcomes to affect future ones. So, while certain patterns are undoubtedly being formed, we can see them only post factum?

[deisik]

For example, we can't understand what self-awareness and consciousness as one's mind and thoughts are because we simply don't have such an ability in us. Simply put, it is not so much for the lack of knowledge as for the lack of required capacity to process and interpret this knowledge. The same may be equally true for randomness (and probably a host of other phenomena). We are like ants trying to figure out things outside an anthill

So, is there a hope? I mean, currently, it is considered that with any truly random processes absolutely anything can happen next. If you just hit 99.99 on dice it doesn't mean you won't hit the same number again in the very next roll

You likely won't hit the same number again

But given that there is in fact a certain form of "memory" (I actually like how you came up with this term), the chances of hitting the next number close to that first roll seem to be higher. Speaking generally, "not having memory" should be equally applicable to both ends of the rolling spectrum, i.e. to the roll before and the roll after (i.e. hitting 0.02 is as likely, or unlikely, as hitting 99.98 after that first roll). However, if there weren't some "short-range" memory (not speaking about dice here), you would inevitably face a uniform distribution, which is not random (read, you can in fact use these irregularities to your advantage, though not sure about dice)

They say, random processes "do not have memory", and thus it is impossible for past outcomes to affect future ones. So, while certain patterns are undoubtedly being formed, we can see them only post factum?

"Post factum" here starts right after you see the first outcome (which your betting example proves). In other words, if you rolled high, bet on high next time (and vice versa). However, keep in mind that the house edge may still offset the tiny skew you are trying to exploit with this approach. Moreover, the outcomes in dice might in fact be pretty close to uniform after all (read, they are not truly random)

And it is also lovely how a seemingly simple gambling question quickly escalated into a metaphysical one

Strictly speaking, I started this thread specifically with "metaphysical" in mind. Gambling just happens to be the closest to it, apart from being the right place where to discuss these questions

If we look for absolute randomness, I am afraid there is none. Not in a toss of a coin or a roll of a dice, not even in the movements of the atoms in a single object, and not in the workings of the universe. Everything factored in, there is no result which we can consider an absolute random one

If we are really like ants from the post above, the problem goes far beyond that

[wozzek23]

My guess is all or most of the factors responsible for the distribution have to be known and understood else it's considered random distribution.
I believe nothing is really random. We humans are limited in our understanding of what creates the so called randomness, so we use the word random.
There are probably unknown reasons why the points at the right are distributed that way. You can easily understand why if you have sufficient understanding of how it's generated

The pattern has been applied on most casino distributed lucky picks, and I guess analysis couldn't be relied with it. You must understand that having random chances depends on how the computer generated a lucky choices, and human isn't capable to do it in his own. Indeed, limitations follows so we can't further instigate most probable move towards guessing the possible outcome.

Well, it's quite a interesting thread first of all and nice comparison and theory.

I think if you ask me randomness depends on the method being used, I mean if humans are randomly asked to pick numbers from 1 to 100 you will notice the the majority of the numbers will be between 30-80 because we tend to choose mid numbers while if you pick numbers generated by some script that is computerized then I believe it will be almost even for all the numbers.

[Betwrong]

For example, we can't understand what self-awareness and consciousness as one's mind and thoughts are because we simply don't have such an ability in us. Simply put, it is not so much for the lack of knowledge as for the lack of required capacity to process and interpret this knowledge. The same may be equally true for randomness (and probably a host of other phenomena). We are like ants trying to figure out things outside an anthill

So, is there a hope? I mean, currently, it is considered that with any truly random processes absolutely anything can happen next. If you just hit 99.99 on dice it doesn't mean you won't hit the same number again in the very next roll

You likely won't hit the same number again

But why? Is it because we are likely to not roll any two numbers in a row, or is there any other reason? What, in your opinion, makes the appearance of a certain number less likely? The fact that this number was just rolled? There are various ways of generating a random number: measuring the radioactive decay of an atom; measuring the atmospheric noise; measuring other processes which can create sufficient entropy needed to generate a random number. Can you imagine a process(among those used for RNG) where the appearance of a certain number becomes less likely for the reason of its recent appearance?

[IadixDev]

For example, we can't understand what self-awareness and consciousness as one's mind and thoughts are because we simply don't have such an ability in us. Simply put, it is not so much for the lack of knowledge as for the lack of required capacity to process and interpret this knowledge. The same may be equally true for randomness (and probably a host of other phenomena). We are like ants trying to figure out things outside an anthill

So, is there a hope? I mean, currently, it is considered that with any truly random processes absolutely anything can happen next. If you just hit 99.99 on dice it doesn't mean you won't hit the same number again in the very next roll

You likely won't hit the same number again

But why? Is it because we are likely to not roll any two numbers in a row, or is there any other reason? What, in your opinion, makes the appearance of a certain number less likely? The fact that this number was just rolled? There are various ways of generating a random number: measuring the radioactive decay of an atom; measuring the atmospheric noise; measuring other processes which can create sufficient entropy needed to generate a random number. Can you imagine a process(among those used for RNG) where the appearance of a certain number becomes less likely for the reason of its recent appearance?

Its the poisson distribution Who works this way, and its supposed to model well occurance of natural phenomena either its shooting star or number of cars passing in a street. As long as there is a meaningfull "mean" of occurrence its supposed to fit, for gambling game like dice or coins its supposed to fit, not sure if there is a Real démonstration of why it so.

There are algorithm to generate poisson distribution from uniform RNG.

https://wiki.q-researchsoftware.com/wiki/How_to_Generate_Random_Numbers:_Poisson_Distribution

Which correspond to ideal distribution you want in a fair gambling game.

[deisik]

You likely won't hit the same number again

But why? Is it because we are likely to not roll any two numbers in a row, or is there any other reason? What, in your opinion, makes the appearance of a certain number less likely? The fact that this number was just rolled? There are various ways of generating a random number: measuring the radioactive decay of an atom; measuring the atmospheric noise; measuring other processes which can create sufficient entropy needed to generate a random number. Can you imagine a process(among those used for RNG) where the appearance of a certain number becomes less likely for the reason of its recent appearance?

You actually raise valid concerns

Unsurprisingly, I've been thinking about that too (I guess we, the gambling folks, all have been thinking or feeling something to that tune at some point). The existential question is, well, how random is random? I mean if you see two allegedly random distributions but they are distinctively different from each other, can we actually consider them truly random, or at least one of them as not random?

And that gives you an answer to your questions. If two genuinely random distributions are defiantly different in certain ways, we could in fact draw a valid conclusion that there is some form of "memory" involved in the process, which makes it look like certain numbers are more probable after you roll (e.g. grouping). That's why the casinos should actually be looking for a random distribution that behaves more like a uniform one

[IadixDev]

You likely won't hit the same number again

But why? Is it because we are likely to not roll any two numbers in a row, or is there any other reason? What, in your opinion, makes the appearance of a certain number less likely? The fact that this number was just rolled? There are various ways of generating a random number: measuring the radioactive decay of an atom; measuring the atmospheric noise; measuring other processes which can create sufficient entropy needed to generate a random number. Can you imagine a process(among those used for RNG) where the appearance of a certain number becomes less likely for the reason of its recent appearance?

You actually raise valid concerns

Unsurprisingly, I've been thinking about that too (I guess we, the gambling folks, all have been thinking or feeling something to that tune at some point). The existential question is, well, how random is random? I mean if you see two allegedly random distributions but they are distinctively different from each other, can we actually consider them truly random, or at least one of them as not random?

And that gives you an answer to your questions. If two genuinely random distributions are defiantly different in certain ways , we could in fact draw a valid conclusion that there is some form of "memory" involved in the process, which makes it look like certain numbers are more probable after you hit a certain number (e.g. grouping). That's why the casinos should actually be looking for a random distribution that behaves more like a uniform one

For gambling what matter is that you know the odds of winning to establish strategy against other player on a fair game.

If the distribution is biased then the game is about knowing the bias and the distribution to make more profitable bets, a game like this cannot last long for gambling.

But actually its exactly the core principle of poisson distribution that the chances of seing a number depend on the previous sequence, because there is always a constant mean in the result on the long term, so the more it go away from the mean, the more chance it has To  rebalance in the next number.

Essentially you have exponentially more chance to see a number at each roll since its last occurrence, the exponential base being the mean, and short for coin tossing ( small amount of potential values), and longer for dice or roulette.

[GSpgh]

I would say that depends

That depends on one's frame of reference.

Dictionary and math would be quite basic prerequisites in a discussion like this.

You likely won't hit the same number again

But given that there is in fact a certain form of "memory" (I actually like how you came up with this term), the chances of hitting the next number close to that first roll seem to be higher. Speaking generally, "not having memory" should be equally applicable to both ends of the rolling spectrum, i.e. to the roll before and the roll after (i.e. hitting 0.02 is as likely, or unlikely, as hitting 99.98 after that first roll). However, if there weren't some "short-range" memory (not speaking about dice here), you would inevitably face a uniform distribution, which is not random (read, you can in fact use these irregularities to your advantage, though not sure about dice)

You state this as a fact but it's backwards. If there was any kind of "memory" in a dice game it could be exploited by the casino or by the player, who could keep betting on numbers "far away" from the previous number to increase their chances. It would be over very quickly, most likely due to the casino going bankrupt. But fortunately it doesn't work like that.

Do you think the roulette wheel has memory too?

There are algorithm to generate poisson distribution from uniform RNG.

https://wiki.q-researchsoftware.com/wiki/How_to_Generate_Random_Numbers:_Poisson_Distribution

Which correspond to ideal distribution you want in a fair gambling game.

I hope you're not saying that casinos should use something like this. In the long run a good PRNG should approximate Poisson distribution and I believe certified RNGs are tested against it as well as many other statistical tests. But the RNG algorithm itself should not be based on it.

[IadixDev]

You state this as a fact but it's backwards. If there was any kind of "memory" in a dice game it could be exploited by the casino or by the player, who could keep betting on numbers "far away" from the previous number to increase their chances. It would be over very quickly, most likely due to the casino going bankrupt. But fortunately it doesn't work like that.

Do you think the roulette wheel has memory too?

 Its not about being far away from previous number, but the number of roll since the last occurrence of the number.

 If there is 50 rolls without a one, you can still have more chance winning playing one in the next rolls.

But it will rarely reach even 50 rolls, and on the large number of roll you will still come back to average.


It cannot be exploited by casino because it will stay constant over long period of time for any number.

I hope you're not saying that casinos should use something like this. In the long run a good PRNG should approximate Poisson distribution and I believe certified RNGs are tested against it as well as many other statistical tests. But the RNG algorithm itself should not be based on it.

Online casino should use better algorithm, not sure what is the regulation or when an algorithm should be considered fair. The standard RNG will not necessarily have a poisson distribution, maybe it does maybe not.

[GSpgh]

Its not about being far away from previous number, but the number of roll since the last occurrence of the number.

If there is 50 rolls without a one, you can still have more chance winning playing one in the next rolls.

But it will rarely reach even 50 rolls, and on the large number of roll you will still come back to average.

That's incorrect. You have the same chance to roll a 1 at any point during the game regardless of what (or how often) was rolled or not rolled before, otherwise the RNG would be flawed. There is no purposeful coming back to average. The average is the consequence of a good RNG, not something the RNG tries to simulate.

In other words, if you hit an "unusual" streak of below-expected-average numbers the RNG will not generate above-expected-average numbers to compensate. The actual average will get closer to the expected average in a (very) long run as your "unusual" streak will have less and less weight in the total.

[deisik]

But given that there is in fact a certain form of "memory" (I actually like how you came up with this term), the chances of hitting the next number close to that first roll seem to be higher. Speaking generally, "not having memory" should be equally applicable to both ends of the rolling spectrum, i.e. to the roll before and the roll after (i.e. hitting 0.02 is as likely, or unlikely, as hitting 99.98 after that first roll). However, if there weren't some "short-range" memory (not speaking about dice here), you would inevitably face a uniform distribution, which is not random (read, you can in fact use these irregularities to your advantage, though not sure about dice)

You state this as a fact but it's backwards. If there was any kind of "memory" in a dice game it could be exploited by the casino or by the player, who could keep betting on numbers "far away" from the previous number to increase their chances. It would be over very quickly, most likely due to the casino going bankrupt. But fortunately it doesn't work like that

It's actually quite fascinating

It is fascinating that I specifically mentioned that the said may not be applicable to dice ("not speaking about dice here", "not sure about dice"). And here we are with you trying to challenge my point where I made it explicitly clear (and twice at that) it can't be challenged since there is nothing to challenge. Moreover, I explained it further in my post that even if there were some form of "memory" in dice, the house edge would most certainly beat it into the ground making it completely irrelevant and inconsequential in the long run

[GSpgh]

It's fascinating that I specifically mentioned that the said may not be applicable to dice ("not speaking about dice here", "not sure about dice"). And here we are with you trying to challenge my point where I made it explicitly clear (and twice at that) it can't be challenged since there is nothing to challenge. Moreover, I even explained it further that if there were some form of "memory", the house edge would most certainly beat it into the ground making it completely irrelevant and inconsequential

Why would a dice game be different? It's a very simple purely random game so if there is memory in randomness (which you stated multiple times) then for sure dice would have it. So please make it clear if you still think there is memory in randomness, and if dice is not subject to it - how and why that is, so that we can discuss this properly.

[IadixDev]

Its not about being far away from previous number, but the number of roll since the last occurrence of the number.

If there is 50 rolls without a one, you can still have more chance winning playing one in the next rolls.

But it will rarely reach even 50 rolls, and on the large number of roll you will still come back to average.

That's incorrect. You have the same chance to roll a 1 at any point during the game regardless of what (or how often) was rolled or not rolled before, otherwise the RNG would be flawed. There is no purposeful coming back to average. The average is the consequence of a good RNG, not something the RNG tries to simulate.

In other words, if you hit an "unusual" streak of below-expected-average numbers the RNG will not generate above-expected-average numbers to compensate. The actual average will get closer to the expected average in a (very) long run as your "unusual" streak will have less and less weight in the total.

If its a computer RNG yes, if Its about statstics on random occurrence of an event in nature, and fair gambling game then no. Depend what is the purpose of the RNG its not the same if Its To generate secure password/key, for simulating natural pattern like fractal or perlin, if Its for gambling etc

But its the purpose of the algorithm that i posted before to make sure it tends toward a mean in the long run. How long is the run being dependant of the number of possibles values.

[Ahimoth]

Randomly gambling has no assurance as we move forward with our bets, that's only a lucky pick for everybody who expects better outcome. That depends on how we observe the walkthrough of bitcoin towards gambling, and we saw many people goes attracted with lots of factors that affects our decision. More often, we experienced losses but if eventually we'll survive in the end.

[akirasendo17]

random is a chain of event that will occur once a certain time or target is reached or achieved giving a reward to a specific accomplishment, in gambling random I think is not really valid or applicable, there is no such thing as random.since its being control
so that chances is you will not be able to do randomization
but if you are trying to say bet randomly its okay,

[deisik]

But its the purpose of the algorithm that i posted before to make sure it tends toward a mean in the long run. How long is the run being dependant of the number of possibles values

In fact, it can be further generalized for any random (allegedly) distribution

For example, we may assume that the rolls (if we are talking about dice here) are independent of each other. So far, so good. But if we apply this presumably flawless logic, we necessarily arrive at an impossible inference that there should be endless losing or winning streaks. And this is where things get complicated

Since we can safely assume as well that at some point in the future our repetitive streak is going to end, we can also claim that with each roll this point comes closer and closer. But by deduction, we can then easily reach a conclusion that rolls are not really as independent as they seem to be, or future is not as unpredictable as it appears, either

[GSpgh]

If its a computer RNG yes, if Its about statstics on random occurrence of an event in nature, and fair gambling game then no. Depend what is the purpose of the RNG its not the same if Its To generate secure password/key, for simulating natural pattern like fractal or perlin, if Its for gambling etc

But its the purpose of the algorithm that i posted before to make sure it tends toward a mean in the long run. How long is the run being dependant of the number of possibles values.

If you're saying that a gambling RNG (e.g. in an online dice casino) is purposefully biased towards the expected average then I again have to disagree.

Since we can safely assume as well that at some point in the future our repetitive streak is going to end, we can also claim that with each roll this point comes closer and closer. But by deduction, we can then easily reach a conclusion that rolls are not really as independent as they seem to be, or future is not as unpredictable as it appears, either

There is a difference between a probability of a single roll and a probability of streak. The probability of a single roll is what matters for the player. The probability of a streak is just a statistical curiosity. The probability of a long streak is lower than the probability of short streak and that's just simple math - multiplying the probability of each roll. However that doesn't mean you can predict when the streak ends any more accurately than you can predict a single roll.

In other words, if after 10 losses you decide to make a large bet expecting a win (the streak must end at some point, right?) you still have the same probability of losing or winning that roll as you had at the first roll of the game.

[IadixDev]

If its a computer RNG yes, if Its about statstics on random occurrence of an event in nature, and fair gambling game then no. Depend what is the purpose of the RNG its not the same if Its To generate secure password/key, for simulating natural pattern like fractal or perlin, if Its for gambling etc

But its the purpose of the algorithm that i posted before to make sure it tends toward a mean in the long run. How long is the run being dependant of the number of possibles values.

If you're saying that a gambling RNG (e.g. in an online dice casino) is purposefully biased towards the expected average then I again have to disagree.

Since we can safely assume as well that at some point in the future our repetitive streak is going to end, we can also claim that with each roll this point comes closer and closer. But by deduction, we can then easily reach a conclusion that rolls are not really as independent as they seem to be, or future is not as unpredictable as it appears, either

There is a difference between a probability of a single roll and a probability of streak. The probability of a single roll is what matters for the player. The probability of a streak is just a statistical curiosity. The probability of a long streak is lower than the probability of short streak and that's just simple math - multiplying the probability of each roll. However that doesn't mean you can predict when the streak ends any more accurately than you can predict a single roll.

In other words, if after 10 losses you decide to make a large bet expecting a win (the streak must end at some point, right?) you still have the same probability of losing or winning that roll as you had at the first roll of the game.

The idea for betting is you need to play a certain number of rolls to be closer to the mean, the number of time depend on the number of possible values like 2 for coin 6 for dice, 36 for roulette, on a certain number of rolls you can expect a number to come up.

But if you play always the same number, the win/loss should average every certain number of rolls, so you dont win anything in the long run.

You need to know how many rolls you want to play, and when you get above the statistical average you can expect for a number of roll you stop.

If you can play only 10 Times forget roulette, even dice it not enough to be on the safe side.

If you play only one roll, no statstics can really help.

You are always going to end up with gains at some point if you play long enough, all is to know when you are on a "lucky streak" and you have more chances to loose than win in the number of rolls you can play compared to what you gained so far.

[peter0425]

Randomly gambling has no assurance as we move forward with our bets, that's only a lucky pick for everybody who expects better outcome. That depends on how we observe the walkthrough of bitcoin towards gambling, and we saw many people goes attracted with lots of factors that affects our decision. More often, we experienced losses but if eventually we'll survive in the end.

lol majority of gamblers didn't survive mate but they are still struggling to win(with a lot of hopes) yet failure is what they got,there are very few who is successful in this area but if they don't changed their mindset for sure they will end loser all their life.

[Betwrong]

~ The existential question is, well, how random is random? I mean if you see two allegedly random distributions but they are distinctively different from each other, can we actually consider them truly random, or at least one of them as not random?
~

I think it shouldn't be a surprise when you see distinctively different distributions which are considered truly random. I mean, they perfectly can be truly random and different at the same time. I would even say that if the distributions were similar in some ways, that, with the exception of an extremely improbable event, would mean that there were some influencing factors, which would mean that the distributions were not random.

[deisik]

~ The existential question is, well, how random is random? I mean if you see two allegedly random distributions but they are distinctively different from each other, can we actually consider them truly random, or at least one of them as not random?
~

I think it shouldn't be a surprise when you see distinctively different distributions which are considered truly random. I mean, they perfectly can be truly random and different at the same time

That instantly questions their randomness, and more importantly, of either

How come? Quite simple really. Since they are different, and distinctively different at that, you could say that the distinction between them is not random at all. But if it is not random, how can the distributions themselves be random then if they are supposed to be random?

I would say that with random distributions there should be no apparent distinction as this is what you could rightfully expect from two identical distributions, where any random distribution should truly belong to, i.e. all random distributions should be alike (well, as I see it)

[BitcoinTurk]

Although coincidence is about luck, I believe that there are no coincidences in gambling services. For example, a machine does not randomly rotate each time in slots or other games. The machine will cycle as it is set and, in some cases, will give you big gain possibilities depending on the gain ratio. For example, if a machine is programmed to earn 5,000 USD for every 10,000 USD bet, that machine will not be surprised by that rate, but it will not give that 5,000 USD to a single person or at one time. For this reason, I think that there is never a coincidence in gambling either in casinos or in online gambling services. All machines, all programs and all games are actually pre-planned. Of course, luck is also important here because someone else stops playing at that machine's $ 9,999 game, and if you play it, the $ 5,000 prize can be yours at one time or in several different games. Luck is important, but there is no random situation in casinos or gambling services.

[KnightElite]

Although coincidence is about luck, I believe that there are no coincidences in gambling services. For example, a machine does not randomly rotate each time in slots or other games. The machine will cycle as it is set and, in some cases, will give you big gain possibilities depending on the gain ratio. For example, if a machine is programmed to earn 5,000 USD for every 10,000 USD bet, that machine will not be surprised by that rate, but it will not give that 5,000 USD to a single person or at one time. For this reason, I think that there is never a coincidence in gambling either in casinos or in online gambling services. All machines, all programs and all games are actually pre-planned. Of course, luck is also important here because someone else stops playing at that machine's $ 9,999 game, and if you play it, the $ 5,000 prize can be yours at one time or in several different games. Luck is important, but there is no random situation in casinos or gambling services.

Luck is not something that will pop up,  luck is also created. There are a lot of things that should be consider when doing gambling, you should have enoung skills to gamble your money and avoid losses. Proper risk management can help us to avoid losses, most of my wins in gambling is because of my luck and also enough skills and knowledge.

[Debonaire217]

Luck is not something that will pop up,  luck is also created. There are a lot of things that should be consider when doing gambling, you should have enoung skills to gamble your money and avoid losses. Proper risk management can help us to avoid losses, most of my wins in gambling is because of my luck and also enough skills and knowledge.

I wonder how the skills and knowledge could contribute greatly to your earnings and winnings because for me, the only way I think I could win when betting is based on pure luck. As we are to inspect the gambling platforms, it is not merely possible to spot any software issues where we could take advantage to win (Maybe that is based on my skill because I am in to computers). Most of the time, they are generating truly random figures that is impossible for us to predict.

[IadixDev]

Luck is not something that will pop up,  luck is also created. There are a lot of things that should be consider when doing gambling, you should have enoung skills to gamble your money and avoid losses. Proper risk management can help us to avoid losses, most of my wins in gambling is because of my luck and also enough skills and knowledge.

I wonder how the skills and knowledge could contribute greatly to your earnings and winnings because for me, the only way I think I could win when betting is based on pure luck. As we are to inspect the gambling platforms, it is not merely possible to spot any software issues where we could take advantage to win (Maybe that is based on my skill because I am in to computers). Most of the time, they are generating truly random figures that is impossible for us to predict.

Not sure if this is a really good idea casino its like the insurances when you start to win too much they kick you out:)

[Betwrong]

~ The existential question is, well, how random is random? I mean if you see two allegedly random distributions but they are distinctively different from each other, can we actually consider them truly random, or at least one of them as not random?
~

I think it shouldn't be a surprise when you see distinctively different distributions which are considered truly random. I mean, they perfectly can be truly random and different at the same time

That instantly questions their randomness, and more importantly, of either

How come? Quite simple really. Since they are different, and distinctively different at that, you could say that the distinction between them is not random at all. But if it is not random, how can the distributions themselves be random then if they are supposed to be random?

I would say that with random distributions there should be no apparent distinction as this is what you could rightfully expect from two identical distributions, where any random distribution should truly belong to, i.e. all random distributions should be alike (well, as I see it)

I may be wrong, but I see it differently. I think if we have two(or more) distributions which are alike, it means that the processes were influenced by the same factors. And if we knew the factors, those distributions would not appear random to us.

I think, if we are getting similar patterns as the result of a process, it implies that there is some order in that process. But there is no order in randomness, and exactly for this reason all gambling strategies fail in the long run.

[Harvin]

I'll tell u what's random the judges not scoring in favour of aldo in ufc245 that's fucking randomness at it's best that's some blind folded necks ripping off a chickens head and letting it run on colours to make the decision that's what that is

[crwth]

I’ll view this as a shot towards what truly random is and I would define what I think towards the figures that you put out.

So I would start with the Uniform Distribution, you could see that the distribution of the dots or pixels has never touched each other. So we know that the environment of that has been controlled in which when one coordinate has been reached, there would be nothing else that would occupy next with that same coordinates.

When it comes to the next figure, in real life, understandably, there would be repeatable coordinates because of the possibility, and statistics can support it. That's the difference between them.

I think what boggles your mind is that you cannot verify the randomness of the results because it's random. I don't think there's a way to verify randomness because you can't predict the future but from a mathematical standpoint, it can be supported.

[deisik]

I would say that with random distributions there should be no apparent distinction as this is what you could rightfully expect from two identical distributions, where any random distribution should truly belong to, i.e. all random distributions should be alike (well, as I see it)

I may be wrong, but I see it differently. I think if we have two(or more) distributions which are alike, it means that the processes were influenced by the same factors. And if we knew the factors, those distributions would not appear random to us

You apparently make an obvious logical fallacy here

I don't remember how it is called (anyone welcome to chime in on this). What you say is true, i.e. if two distributions look alike, it may in fact mean they are the outcome of the same forces or processes running. However, this doesn't exclude random distributions as the latter are also an outcome of a random process. And they would be the same specifically because they are random. In other words, you can't have random in two distinctively different ways (with respect to resulting distributions, i.e. not how you technically produce them)

I think, if we are getting similar patterns as the result of a process, it implies that there is some order in that process. But there is no order in randomness, and exactly for this reason all gambling strategies fail in the long run

And that's exactly the reason why the distinction between the two truly random distributions should be as random. You simply can't have it any other way

[GSpgh]

You are always going to end up with gains at some point if you play long enough, all is to know when you are on a "lucky streak" and you have more chances to loose than win in the number of rolls you can play compared to what you gained so far.

Simply "quit while you're ahead"? Yes. That would be a smart move for any gambler. However it's incorrect that you will always end up with gains. Due to house edge and not having unlimited funds it's more likely that you will end up with losses.

[IadixDev]

You are always going to end up with gains at some point if you play long enough, all is to know when you are on a "lucky streak" and you have more chances to loose than win in the number of rolls you can play compared to what you gained so far.

Simply "quit while you're ahead"? Yes. That would be a smart move for any gambler. However it's incorrect that you will always end up with gains. Due to house edge and not having unlimited funds it's more likely that you will end up with losses.

If you want to play 1000 times and you're just ahead of 2% you can still have chances to do better, if you just did x3 after 2 rolls, it's very unlikely you're going to beat that unless you want to play a very long time

[Betwrong]

I would say that with random distributions there should be no apparent distinction as this is what you could rightfully expect from two identical distributions, where any random distribution should truly belong to, i.e. all random distributions should be alike (well, as I see it)

I may be wrong, but I see it differently. I think if we have two(or more) distributions which are alike, it means that the processes were influenced by the same factors. And if we knew the factors, those distributions would not appear random to us

You apparently make an obvious logical fallacy here

I don't remember how it is called (anyone welcome to chime in on this). What you say is true, i.e. if two distributions look alike, it may in fact mean they are the outcome of the same forces or processes running. However, this doesn't exclude random distributions as the latter are also an outcome of a random process. And they would be the same specifically because they are random. In other words, you can't have random in two distinctively different ways (with respect to resulting distributions, i.e. not how you technically produce them)

I think that random process is the one and only for which it's impossible to predict the outcome. I mean, if random distributions were alike, we could analyse it just once, and then we would be able to predict with a high likelihood the outcome of any random process. But the thing is that "randomness isn't uniform", as it is said in the great article by Wired from the link below

https://www.wired.com/2012/12/what-does-randomness-look-like/

So, in short, no, two distributions will not be the same "specifically because they are random". They can be, though, but that would be despite they are random, and that would be an extremely unlikely event.

I think, if we are getting similar patterns as the result of a process, it implies that there is some order in that process. But there is no order in randomness, and exactly for this reason all gambling strategies fail in the long run

And that's exactly the reason why the distinction between the two truly random distributions should be as random. You simply can't have it any other way

I agree with this, but I don't see how can two truly random distributions be alike as a result.

[michellee]

You are always going to end up with gains at some point if you play long enough, all is to know when you are on a "lucky streak" and you have more chances to loose than win in the number of rolls you can play compared to what you gained so far.

Simply "quit while you're ahead"? Yes. That would be a smart move for any gambler. However it's incorrect that you will always end up with gains. Due to house edge and not having unlimited funds it's more likely that you will end up with losses.

If you want to play 1000 times and you're just ahead of 2% you can still have chances to do better, if you just did x3 after 2 rolls, it's very unlikely you're going to beat that unless you want to play a very long time

When you pay 1000 times, you need to consider how much money you will use, and I am not sure that you can win the games even if you use big money as the bet. About the chances, I don't think that the opportunity to win will bigger too because no matter what strategy you use, you need a lucky streak to win. I agree that we need to quit while we can, so we don't risk more money in gambling.

[IadixDev]

You are always going to end up with gains at some point if you play long enough, all is to know when you are on a "lucky streak" and you have more chances to loose than win in the number of rolls you can play compared to what you gained so far.

Simply "quit while you're ahead"? Yes. That would be a smart move for any gambler. However it's incorrect that you will always end up with gains. Due to house edge and not having unlimited funds it's more likely that you will end up with losses.

If you want to play 1000 times and you're just ahead of 2% you can still have chances to do better, if you just did x3 after 2 rolls, it's very unlikely you're going to beat that unless you want to play a very long time

When you pay 1000 times, you need to consider how much money you will use, and I am not sure that you can win the games even if you use big money as the bet. About the chances, I don't think that the opportunity to win will bigger too because no matter what strategy you use, you need a lucky streak to win. I agree that we need to quit while we can, so we don't risk more money in gambling.

The more monney you can bet, the higher are the chances to win.

If you play 1000 times 1 on the dice, you are still going to win a certain number of times, there are statistically good chances that you will be above at some point, all is too see how much can reasonably expect to gain with the 1000 rolls and stopping when it get close to that.

[GSpgh]

The more monney you can bet, the higher are the chances to win.

If you play 1000 times 1 on the dice, you are still going to win a certain number of times, there are statistically good chances that you will be above at some point, all is too see how much can reasonably expect to gain with the 1000 rolls and stopping when it get close to that.

How much money do you have and how much are you betting on each roll? Let's say you have $1000 and bet $1 at a time, to make sure that you can last at least 1000 rolls. Statistically you will have lost $10 by the end of this game, assuming a typical 1% house edge - that's what you can reasonably expect.

Your chances to be "up" at any point during this game are not higher than the chances of winning any single bet, in fact they're getting lower because of the house edge slowly decreasing your bankroll.

If you bet more than $1 you'll be losing even more and increase your chances to go bankrupt before you reach 1000 rolls.

[IadixDev]

The more monney you can bet, the higher are the chances to win.

If you play 1000 times 1 on the dice, you are still going to win a certain number of times, there are statistically good chances that you will be above at some point, all is too see how much can reasonably expect to gain with the 1000 rolls and stopping when it get close to that.

How much money do you have and how much are you betting on each roll? Let's say you have $1000 and bet $1 at a time, to make sure that you can last at least 1000 rolls. Statistically you will have lost $10 by the end of this game, assuming a typical 1% house edge - that's what you can reasonably expect.

Your chances to be "up" at any point during this game are not higher than the chances of winning any single bet, in fact they're getting lower because of the house edge slowly decreasing your bankroll.

If you bet more than $1 you'll be losing even more and increase your chances to go bankrupt before you reach 1000 rolls.

If you keep playing until you don't have any money then yes, it needs to stop playing when you have been more on a lucky streak than what can be expected, and there will still be certain chances to have 3 time a 1 in 6 rolls which will make you on a luck streak, and there are still probability that certain sequences will keep you above, but the chances of the same number happening again decrease exponentially after each time, but there will be always more 1 every 6 rolls at some point than others, and on the average it's the house edge.

If you consider that playing 1000 times will always cost you money with the house edge then why do you even play ?

[michellee]

When you pay 1000 times, you need to consider how much money you will use, and I am not sure that you can win the games even if you use big money as the bet. About the chances, I don't think that the opportunity to win will bigger too because no matter what strategy you use, you need a lucky streak to win. I agree that we need to quit while we can, so we don't risk more money in gambling.

The more monney you can bet, the higher are the chances to win.

If you play 1000 times 1 on the dice, you are still going to win a certain number of times, there are statistically good chances that you will be above at some point, all is too see how much can reasonably expect to gain with the 1000 rolls and stopping when it get close to that.

Not really, the more money you can bet, the higher the chances for you to get lost in a long time. Yes, you can win a certain number of times, but you don't know how much the winning and how much money you can get in gambling. But for the losses, I think the loss will be bigger than your winning, so I think you need to think twice to bet for more money. But if you can accept the risk and the consequences, then you can go in that way.

[IadixDev]

When you pay 1000 times, you need to consider how much money you will use, and I am not sure that you can win the games even if you use big money as the bet. About the chances, I don't think that the opportunity to win will bigger too because no matter what strategy you use, you need a lucky streak to win. I agree that we need to quit while we can, so we don't risk more money in gambling.

The more monney you can bet, the higher are the chances to win.

If you play 1000 times 1 on the dice, you are still going to win a certain number of times, there are statistically good chances that you will be above at some point, all is too see how much can reasonably expect to gain with the 1000 rolls and stopping when it get close to that.

Not really, the more money you can bet, the higher the chances for you to get lost in a long time. Yes, you can win a certain number of times, but you don't know how much the winning and how much money you can get in gambling. But for the losses, I think the loss will be bigger than your winning, so I think you need to think twice to bet for more money. But if you can accept the risk and the consequences, then you can go in that way.

Im also more talking in the view of statistics, for a fair game where there is no house edge, and the distribution you cant expect from a fair gambling game, if the game is rigged you shouldnt be playing it (unless you can exploit the trick at your advantage ).

[deisik]

So, in short, no, two distributions will not be the same "specifically because they are random". They can be, though, but that would be despite they are random, and that would be an extremely unlikely event

Okay, let me try to explain it

It is not like you will have the same outcomes, and the distributions thus obtained won't be the same like two exact copies of something. Think of it as metrics that allow you to determine and establish with a certain degree of certainty that you are dealing with a random distribution and which should remain the same within a specified range

If these metrics do not follow a set of those describing a random distribution, the distribution you are analyzing is not random. It is like an accounting identity or an equation. If you know one part or side of it, it is irrelevant what makes up the other as its result will still be the same, no matter how many elements it may contain or what functions it may have

[Debonaire217]

Not really, the more money you can bet, the higher the chances for you to get lost in a long time. Yes, you can win a certain number of times, but you don't know how much the winning and how much money you can get in gambling. But for the losses, I think the loss will be bigger than your winning, so I think you need to think twice to bet for more money. But if you can accept the risk and the consequences, then you can go in that way.

That is quite correct, but are we really allow ourselves to lose too much? Absolutely not right? And we also know that the chances of winning is low, and the reason why we still play is because of the prize not the chance. So, if you already got the chance to win then that is the right time you stop playing a while and do something productive to the prize you've received. Maybe to hodl the profits and test the luck with a small percentage of your salary.

[GSpgh]

If you keep playing until you don't have any money then yes, it needs to stop playing when you have been more on a lucky streak than what can be expected, and there will still be certain chances to have 3 time a 1 in 6 rolls which will make you on a luck streak, and there are still probability that certain sequences will keep you above, but the chances of the same number happening again decrease exponentially after each time, but there will be always more 1 every 6 rolls at some point than others, and on the average it's the house edge.

My point is that you're not guaranteed to have a lucky streak. And if you do - then what? Do you stop playing for the rest of your life or do you still play later hoping for another lucky streak? The probabilities are against the player regardless of any strategies. That's how gambling works and randomness is a powerful tool for casinos to stay profitable while keeping the game reasonably fair (meaning a fairly consistent chance of losing) for the players.

If you consider that playing 1000 times will always cost you money with the house edge then why do you even play ?

Gambling is entertainment and a win is a bonus.

[deisik]

randomness is a powerful tool for casinos to stay profitable while keeping the game reasonably fair (meaning a fairly consistent chance of losing) for the players

Well, in fact randomness cuts both ways

And it is randomness that gives gamblers hopes to win. Casinos stay profitable not because of randomness but rather in spite of it. When you bet long enough, randomness gets removed from the equation entirely. And what remains, as you might have already guessed, is called house edge. Randomness can override the house edge but not for long, so technically it is against the casino. The latter just uses it to lure gamblers into believing that they can win, and they can in fact if they are lucky to conquer the odds and wise to keep their wins

[GSpgh]

And it is randomness that gives gamblers hopes to win. Casinos stay profitable not because of randomness but rather in spite of it. When you bet long enough, randomness gets removed from the equation entirely. And what remains, as you might have already guessed, is called house edge. Randomness can override the house edge but not for long, so technically it is against the casino. The latter just uses it to lure gamblers into believing that they can win, and they can in fact if they are lucky to conquer the odds and wise to keep their wins

Randomness is what protects a casino against a smart player. Something that is not random, i.e. predictable with even the slightest chance of sustainable success, will be eventually exploited (think blackjack card counters).

There is no way to override the house edge. It's built into the game mechanics (number of roulette pockets, the 49.5% win chance on a 50:50 dice roll, etc).

[deisik]

And it is randomness that gives gamblers hopes to win. Casinos stay profitable not because of randomness but rather in spite of it. When you bet long enough, randomness gets removed from the equation entirely. And what remains, as you might have already guessed, is called house edge. Randomness can override the house edge but not for long, so technically it is against the casino. The latter just uses it to lure gamblers into believing that they can win, and they can in fact if they are lucky to conquer the odds and wise to keep their wins

Randomness is what protects a casino against a smart player. Something that is not random, i.e. predictable with even the slightest chance of sustainable success, will be eventually exploited (think blackjack card counters)

Randomness doesn't protect the casino

On the contrary, it is randomness in and by itself that allows a smart player to override the house edge and win more or less consistently (as first explained and then proved in this thread). If it were not for randomness, which is the opposite of the house edge in a sense, you couldn't exploit the variance in bet outcomes (which is how randomness reveals itself in real life) and ultimately beat the house

And that's also the reason why so many casinos are limiting betting speeds as well as minimum bets (more specifically, with doges). A smart and experienced player knows how to use the power of randomness against the house. It is through statistical outliers, which are possible only because the bets (rolls in case of dice) are random. If they were not random, there couldn't be outliers, and thus there'd be no chance to overcome the house edge