(12-07-2018 11:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just because it is unlikely does not mean it is artificial. Statistically, some are natural.

Aside: several years ago I had an interesting patent case dealing with random number generators, and one of the issues was how to measure the randomness of the resulting number set.

I learned that one of the characteristics that distinguishes a set of truly randomly-generated numbers from a set produced by a pseudorandom generator is that a truly random set will almost always have more clusters that look unlikely -- e.g. streaks of repeated numbers (like 4444444), streaks of sequential numbers (like 345678), and so on -- than the pseudorandom sets will. Because my client's product was designed to generate sets that did NOT have such streaks, we argued that those were sets were not "true random numbers" as defined by the patent.

(12-07-2018 03:39 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 11:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just because it is unlikely does not mean it is artificial. Statistically, some are natural.

Aside: several years ago I had an interesting patent case dealing with random number generators, and one of the issues was how to measure the randomness of the resulting number set.

I learned that one of the characteristics that distinguishes a set of truly randomly-generated numbers from a set produced by a pseudorandom generator is that a truly random set will almost always have more clusters that look unlikely -- e.g. streaks of repeated numbers (like 4444444), streaks of sequential numbers (like 345678), and so on -- than the pseudorandom sets will. Because my client's product was designed to generate sets that did NOT have such streaks, we argued that those were sets were not "true random numbers" as defined by the patent.

That's really interesting, but makes a lot of sense.

That's pretty much how casinos make money on roulette. The law of large numbers says that in the end, the number of reds and blacks will be equal, but people try to apply that to a smaller set, and think that because 4 reds have come up in a row, the fifth must be black.

(12-07-2018 04:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 03:39 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 11:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just because it is unlikely does not mean it is artificial. Statistically, some are natural.

Aside: several years ago I had an interesting patent case dealing with random number generators, and one of the issues was how to measure the randomness of the resulting number set.

I learned that one of the characteristics that distinguishes a set of truly randomly-generated numbers from a set produced by a pseudorandom generator is that a truly random set will almost always have more clusters that look unlikely -- e.g. streaks of repeated numbers (like 4444444), streaks of sequential numbers (like 345678), and so on -- than the pseudorandom sets will. Because my client's product was designed to generate sets that did NOT have such streaks, we argued that those were sets were not "true random numbers" as defined by the patent.

That's really interesting, but makes a lot of sense.

That's pretty much how casinos make money on roulette. The law of large numbers says that in the end, the number of reds and blacks will be equal, but people try to apply that to a smaller set, and think that because 4 reds have come up in a row, the fifth must be black.

You neglect the big glaring money maker of the green 0 on the wheel. It accounts for almost all the 5.2 per cent statistical house edge on US wheels.

(12-07-2018 03:39 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 11:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just because it is unlikely does not mean it is artificial. Statistically, some are natural.

Aside: several years ago I had an interesting patent case dealing with random number generators, and one of the issues was how to measure the randomness of the resulting number set.

I learned that one of the characteristics that distinguishes a set of truly randomly-generated numbers from a set produced by a pseudorandom generator is that a truly random set will almost always have more clusters that look unlikely -- e.g. streaks of repeated numbers (like 4444444), streaks of sequential numbers (like 345678), and so on -- than the pseudorandom sets will. Because my client's product was designed to generate sets that did NOT have such streaks, we argued that those were sets were not "true random numbers" as defined by the patent.

Interesting! I have been using the random number generator at random.org for many years; this is the explanation on their front page:

Quote:Perhaps you have wondered how predictable machines like computers can generate randomness. In reality, most random numbers used in computer programs are pseudo-random, which means they are generated in a predictable fashion using a mathematical formula. This is fine for many purposes, but it may not be random in the way you expect if you're used to dice rolls and lottery drawings.

RANDOM.ORG offers true random numbers to anyone on the Internet. The randomness comes from atmospheric noise, which for many purposes is better than the pseudo-random number algorithms typically used in computer programs. People use RANDOM.ORG for holding drawings, lotteries and sweepstakes, to drive online games, for scientific applications and for art and music. The service has existed since 1998 and was built by Dr Mads Haahr of the School of Computer Science and Statistics at Trinity College, Dublin in Ireland. Today, RANDOM.ORG is operated by Randomness and Integrity Services Ltd.

(12-07-2018 04:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 04:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 03:39 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 11:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just because it is unlikely does not mean it is artificial. Statistically, some are natural.

Aside: several years ago I had an interesting patent case dealing with random number generators, and one of the issues was how to measure the randomness of the resulting number set.

I learned that one of the characteristics that distinguishes a set of truly randomly-generated numbers from a set produced by a pseudorandom generator is that a truly random set will almost always have more clusters that look unlikely -- e.g. streaks of repeated numbers (like 4444444), streaks of sequential numbers (like 345678), and so on -- than the pseudorandom sets will. Because my client's product was designed to generate sets that did NOT have such streaks, we argued that those were sets were not "true random numbers" as defined by the patent.

That's really interesting, but makes a lot of sense.

That's pretty much how casinos make money on roulette. The law of large numbers says that in the end, the number of reds and blacks will be equal, but people try to apply that to a smaller set, and think that because 4 reds have come up in a row, the fifth must be black.

You neglect the big glaring money maker of the green 0 on the wheel. It accounts for almost all the 5.2 per cent statistical house edge on US wheels.

0 AND 00 (that's NOT the same as OO)

I see this belief in streaks at the poker table all the time. Maybe a board comes up 6-6-4, and the next board is 6-6-K. Players start saying "sixes are hot" and holding any hand with a six.

I have seen people get A-A several times in a row. The odds of getting AA once are 221-1.

Last night I got Ks-9s in back to back hands. The same two cards. I was the only person at the table able to accurately give the odds of that happening. (Probably russians meddling with the deck and the dealer.)

(12-07-2018 05:34 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 03:39 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 11:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just because it is unlikely does not mean it is artificial. Statistically, some are natural.

Aside: several years ago I had an interesting patent case dealing with random number generators, and one of the issues was how to measure the randomness of the resulting number set.

I learned that one of the characteristics that distinguishes a set of truly randomly-generated numbers from a set produced by a pseudorandom generator is that a truly random set will almost always have more clusters that look unlikely -- e.g. streaks of repeated numbers (like 4444444), streaks of sequential numbers (like 345678), and so on -- than the pseudorandom sets will. Because my client's product was designed to generate sets that did NOT have such streaks, we argued that those were sets were not "true random numbers" as defined by the patent.

Interesting! I have been using the random number generator at random.org for many years; this is the explanation on their front page:

Quote:Perhaps you have wondered how predictable machines like computers can generate randomness. In reality, most random numbers used in computer programs are pseudo-random, which means they are generated in a predictable fashion using a mathematical formula. This is fine for many purposes, but it may not be random in the way you expect if you're used to dice rolls and lottery drawings.

RANDOM.ORG offers true random numbers to anyone on the Internet. The randomness comes from atmospheric noise, which for many purposes is better than the pseudo-random number algorithms typically used in computer programs. People use RANDOM.ORG for holding drawings, lotteries and sweepstakes, to drive online games, for scientific applications and for art and music. The service has existed since 1998 and was built by Dr Mads Haahr of the School of Computer Science and Statistics at Trinity College, Dublin in Ireland. Today, RANDOM.ORG is operated by Randomness and Integrity Services Ltd.

Mads Haahr was frequently cited by the parties in my case.

(12-07-2018 05:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 04:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 04:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 03:39 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 11:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just because it is unlikely does not mean it is artificial. Statistically, some are natural.

Aside: several years ago I had an interesting patent case dealing with random number generators, and one of the issues was how to measure the randomness of the resulting number set.

I learned that one of the characteristics that distinguishes a set of truly randomly-generated numbers from a set produced by a pseudorandom generator is that a truly random set will almost always have more clusters that look unlikely -- e.g. streaks of repeated numbers (like 4444444), streaks of sequential numbers (like 345678), and so on -- than the pseudorandom sets will. Because my client's product was designed to generate sets that did NOT have such streaks, we argued that those were sets were not "true random numbers" as defined by the patent.

That's really interesting, but makes a lot of sense.

That's pretty much how casinos make money on roulette. The law of large numbers says that in the end, the number of reds and blacks will be equal, but people try to apply that to a smaller set, and think that because 4 reds have come up in a row, the fifth must be black.

You neglect the big glaring money maker of the green 0 on the wheel. It accounts for almost all the 5.2 per cent statistical house edge on US wheels.

0 AND 00 (that's NOT the same as OO)

I see this belief in streaks at the poker table all the time. Maybe a board comes up 6-6-4, and the next board is 6-6-K. Players start saying "sixes are hot" and holding any hand with a six.

I have seen people get A-A several times in a row. The odds of getting AA once are 221-1.

Last night I got Ks-9s in back to back hands. The same two cards. I was the only person at the table able to accurately give the odds of that happening. (Probably russians meddling with the deck and the dealer.)

Sorry for the mistake--

you are correct for US wheels and the quoted 5.2 per cent applies to them. European style wheels only have the single 0 and the associated 2.7 per cent advantage.

I can't tell you what the 'psychological' effect of streak betting that Lad champions above is; but I do know the absolute lion's share of the house advantage is built into the 0 and 00.

That is why the 'big area' bets of Even/Odd and Black/Red only have 47.something per cent win rates. The only typical way to do an 'area' bet for the greens is to cover them with individual bets. And I have seen subjective numbers that indicate that area bets overall form about 90 per cent of the bets in roulette. The green (greens in the US wheels) give the house an absolutely grotesque edge.

(12-07-2018 04:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 04:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 03:39 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 11:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just because it is unlikely does not mean it is artificial. Statistically, some are natural.

Aside: several years ago I had an interesting patent case dealing with random number generators, and one of the issues was how to measure the randomness of the resulting number set.

I learned that one of the characteristics that distinguishes a set of truly randomly-generated numbers from a set produced by a pseudorandom generator is that a truly random set will almost always have more clusters that look unlikely -- e.g. streaks of repeated numbers (like 4444444), streaks of sequential numbers (like 345678), and so on -- than the pseudorandom sets will. Because my client's product was designed to generate sets that did NOT have such streaks, we argued that those were sets were not "true random numbers" as defined by the patent.

That's really interesting, but makes a lot of sense.

That's pretty much how casinos make money on roulette. The law of large numbers says that in the end, the number of reds and blacks will be equal, but people try to apply that to a smaller set, and think that because 4 reds have come up in a row, the fifth must be black.

You neglect the big glaring money maker of the green 0 on the wheel. It accounts for almost all the 5.2 per cent statistical house edge on US wheels.

I didn’t neglect it - just didn’t want to get that far into the weeds about how important the green 0’s was to casinos. I was trying to comment on the human urge to bet in a way that fits with a return to the norm, when no spin of the wheel is dependent on the former or latter.

(12-07-2018 06:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 05:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 04:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 04:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 03:39 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Aside: several years ago I had an interesting patent case dealing with random number generators, and one of the issues was how to measure the randomness of the resulting number set.

I learned that one of the characteristics that distinguishes a set of truly randomly-generated numbers from a set produced by a pseudorandom generator is that a truly random set will almost always have more clusters that look unlikely -- e.g. streaks of repeated numbers (like 4444444), streaks of sequential numbers (like 345678), and so on -- than the pseudorandom sets will. Because my client's product was designed to generate sets that did NOT have such streaks, we argued that those were sets were not "true random numbers" as defined by the patent.

That's really interesting, but makes a lot of sense.

That's pretty much how casinos make money on roulette. The law of large numbers says that in the end, the number of reds and blacks will be equal, but people try to apply that to a smaller set, and think that because 4 reds have come up in a row, the fifth must be black.

You neglect the big glaring money maker of the green 0 on the wheel. It accounts for almost all the 5.2 per cent statistical house edge on US wheels.

0 AND 00 (that's NOT the same as OO)

I see this belief in streaks at the poker table all the time. Maybe a board comes up 6-6-4, and the next board is 6-6-K. Players start saying "sixes are hot" and holding any hand with a six.

I have seen people get A-A several times in a row. The odds of getting AA once are 221-1.

Last night I got Ks-9s in back to back hands. The same two cards. I was the only person at the table able to accurately give the odds of that happening. (Probably russians meddling with the deck and the dealer.)

Sorry for the mistake--

you are correct for US wheels and the quoted 5.2 per cent applies to them. European style wheels only have the single 0 and the associated 2.7 per cent advantage.

I can't tell you what the 'psychological' effect of streak betting that Lad champions above is; but I do know the absolute lion's share of the house advantage is built into the 0 and 00.

That is why the 'big area' bets of Even/Odd and Black/Red only have 47.something per cent win rates. The only typical way to do an 'area' bet for the greens is to cover them with individual bets. And I have seen subjective numbers that indicate that area bets overall form about 90 per cent of the bets in roulette. The green (greens in the US wheels) give the house an absolutely grotesque edge.

You can put chips on the line between 0 and 00 and effectively bet "green". It pays the same as any other two number bet.

When I just want to relax my mind, I find the roulette wheel an entertaining place to while away time and money.

A few years back, though, I had a weird experience while playing roulette. I was down to my last chip, when I heard a little voice say "Put it on 22". I did, and 22 won. Then I heard the voice again, saying "Let it ride". I did and 22 hit again. By now I had a mountain of chips, and was about to rake them in when I heard the little voice once more, saying again, "let it ride". So I did. The ball bounced out of 22 and settled in the 7. The little voice said, "damn!!!"

Just 'damn'?

(12-08-2018 02:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 06:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 05:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 04:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 04:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That's really interesting, but makes a lot of sense.

That's pretty much how casinos make money on roulette. The law of large numbers says that in the end, the number of reds and blacks will be equal, but people try to apply that to a smaller set, and think that because 4 reds have come up in a row, the fifth must be black.

You neglect the big glaring money maker of the green 0 on the wheel. It accounts for almost all the 5.2 per cent statistical house edge on US wheels.

0 AND 00 (that's NOT the same as OO)

I see this belief in streaks at the poker table all the time. Maybe a board comes up 6-6-4, and the next board is 6-6-K. Players start saying "sixes are hot" and holding any hand with a six.

I have seen people get A-A several times in a row. The odds of getting AA once are 221-1.

Last night I got Ks-9s in back to back hands. The same two cards. I was the only person at the table able to accurately give the odds of that happening. (Probably russians meddling with the deck and the dealer.)

Sorry for the mistake--

you are correct for US wheels and the quoted 5.2 per cent applies to them. European style wheels only have the single 0 and the associated 2.7 per cent advantage.

I can't tell you what the 'psychological' effect of streak betting that Lad champions above is; but I do know the absolute lion's share of the house advantage is built into the 0 and 00.

That is why the 'big area' bets of Even/Odd and Black/Red only have 47.something per cent win rates. The only typical way to do an 'area' bet for the greens is to cover them with individual bets. And I have seen subjective numbers that indicate that area bets overall form about 90 per cent of the bets in roulette. The green (greens in the US wheels) give the house an absolutely grotesque edge.

You can put chips on the line between 0 and 00 and effectively bet "green". It pays the same as any other two number bet.

When I just want to relax my mind, I find the roulette wheel an entertaining place to while away time and money.

A few years back, though, I had a weird experience while playing roulette. I was down to my last chip, when I heard a little voice say "Put it on 22". I did, and 22 won. Then I heard the voice again, saying "Let it ride". I did and 22 hit again. By now I had a mountain of chips, and was about to rake them in when I heard the little voice once more, saying again, "let it ride". So I did. The ball bounced out of 22 and settled in the 7. The little voice said, "damn!!!"

Sounds like you were playing out the roulette scene from Casablanca — in which case, instead of heeding the voice in your head, you would have been wise to listen to the casino owner, who after the second hit told you in no uncertain terms to “Cash your chips and don’t come back.”

(12-08-2018 08:50 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-08-2018 02:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 06:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 05:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 04:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You neglect the big glaring money maker of the green 0 on the wheel. It accounts for almost all the 5.2 per cent statistical house edge on US wheels.

0 AND 00 (that's NOT the same as OO)

I see this belief in streaks at the poker table all the time. Maybe a board comes up 6-6-4, and the next board is 6-6-K. Players start saying "sixes are hot" and holding any hand with a six.

I have seen people get A-A several times in a row. The odds of getting AA once are 221-1.

Last night I got Ks-9s in back to back hands. The same two cards. I was the only person at the table able to accurately give the odds of that happening. (Probably russians meddling with the deck and the dealer.)

Sorry for the mistake--

you are correct for US wheels and the quoted 5.2 per cent applies to them. European style wheels only have the single 0 and the associated 2.7 per cent advantage.

I can't tell you what the 'psychological' effect of streak betting that Lad champions above is; but I do know the absolute lion's share of the house advantage is built into the 0 and 00.

That is why the 'big area' bets of Even/Odd and Black/Red only have 47.something per cent win rates. The only typical way to do an 'area' bet for the greens is to cover them with individual bets. And I have seen subjective numbers that indicate that area bets overall form about 90 per cent of the bets in roulette. The green (greens in the US wheels) give the house an absolutely grotesque edge.

You can put chips on the line between 0 and 00 and effectively bet "green". It pays the same as any other two number bet.

When I just want to relax my mind, I find the roulette wheel an entertaining place to while away time and money.

A few years back, though, I had a weird experience while playing roulette. I was down to my last chip, when I heard a little voice say "Put it on 22". I did, and 22 won. Then I heard the voice again, saying "Let it ride". I did and 22 hit again. By now I had a mountain of chips, and was about to rake them in when I heard the little voice once more, saying again, "let it ride". So I did. The ball bounced out of 22 and settled in the 7. The little voice said, "damn!!!"

Sounds like you were playing out the roulette scene from Casablanca — in which case, instead of heeding the voice in your head, you would have been wise to listen to the casino owner, who after the second hit told you in no uncertain terms to “Cash your chips and don’t come back.”

When you are in Vegas and down to your last chip, you listen to anybody. Anyway, i could not play blackjack with it. My lucky number is 22.

Didnt know where to post this, but Scott Walker proved to the world that he is an idiot who doesnt understand how Venn diagrams work.

https://mobile.twitter.com/GovWalker/sta...gr%5Etweet

Watching State of the Union with Jake Tapper on CNN

The topic is the problem of having three white men leading the polls for the 2020 Demnomination. Interviewed Gillibrand about this. When asked if she saw this as a problem, she answered with one word -yes.

Somebody tell me again how the Dems are not about identity politics

(12-16-2018 10:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Watching State of the Union with Jake Tapper on CNN
The topic is the problem of having three white men leading the polls for the 2020 Demnomination. Interviewed Gillibrand about this. When asked if she saw this as a problem, she answered with one word -yes.
Somebody tell me again how the Dems are not about identity politics

Democrats are totally about issue politics. Karl Rove's approach is for republicans to try to play identity politics. That has been good enough for some razor-thin victories, but the demographics are against that in the long term.

Republicans need to be about issue politics. The courts have just handed them back one--health care. Do Bismarck, which actually works, and be done and dusted.