How Truly Random is Random

[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.

[1714883246]

1714883246

[1714883246]

1714883246

[1714883246]

1714883246

[1714883246]

1714883246

[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