How Truly Random is Random

[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.