How Truly Random is Random

[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

[1714049300]

1714049300

[1714049300]

1714049300

[1714049300]

1714049300

[1714049300]

1714049300

[1714049300]

1714049300

[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:)