Mission Impossible

[BlueAngel]

@ Bayes, do you keep up the score?

[Bayes]

Yes, do you want to know what it is? 

BTW, the dealers at that casino alternate the direction between spins.

[BlueAngel]

Yes, do you want to know what it is? 

BTW, the dealers at that casino alternate the direction between spins.

Yes

I was 99% sure about it

[BlueAngel]

Sequence number 6 is from Skycity casino (live spins)

I'm holding my breath...!

[BlueAngel]

Sequence number 7 is from Random.org (RNG)

[BlueAngel]

Sequence number 8 is from Random.org (RNG)

By the way, I'd like to suggest just a few alternative titles about this topic;

"Reading Random''
''Different types of randomness (and strokes)''
''Cracking Roulette's Hard Nuts''

Definition of impossible is something which can never been done.
English language lacks a word;
Unpossible is something which by definition cannot been done yet.

[Shadowman]

You may be holding your breath blue Angel , I am on the edge of my seat, you sound so confident. If you are right.........well that changes everything.

Mike

[BlueAngel]

You may be holding your breath blue Angel , I am on the edge of my seat, you sound so confident. If you are right.........well that changes everything.

Mike

Well what can I say...I just like to shock people (in a positive way) 

Sequence number 9 is from Random.org (RNG)

[BlueAngel]

Sequence number 10 is from Random.org (RNG)

[Bayes]

Here are the first 10, your guesses are in brackets:

1  RNG    (A) 
2  Actuals (A) 
3  Actuals (R) 
4  RNG (R) 
5  Actuals (R) 
6  RNG (A) 
7  Actuals (R) 
8  Actuals (R) 
9  RNG (R) 
10  Actuals (R) 

Score so far, 3/10. Unfortunately there's no way you can get 15 out of 20 now, even if you get all the remaining sequences correct, but feel free to carry on if you like.

[BlueAngel]

Here are the first 10, your guesses are in brackets:

1  RNG    (A) 
2  Actuals (A) 
3  Actuals (R) 
4  RNG (R) 
5  Actuals (R) 
6  RNG (A) 
7  Actuals (R) 
8  Actuals (R) 
9  RNG (R) 
10  Actuals (R) 

Score so far, 3/10. Unfortunately there's no way you can get 15 out of 20 now, even if you get all the remaining sequences correct, but feel free to carry on if you like.

Yesterday I said 1st sequence from Skycity and you replied that's correct, so why now you are showing 1st sequence as RNG?

[Bayes]

I said ONE of you is correct (Trilo said SkyCity). It was a joke. 

You said you were going to explain the criteria you use for deciding? Thinking about it, maybe you should carry on using the same criteria, and if you get 5 or less CORRECT you should swap the criteria, because it's just as unlikely you will get only 5 (or less) correct as 15 (or more) correct. 

[BlueAngel]

@ Bayes,

No, I said for the 1st sequence to be from Skycity.

Yes, you replied that 1 of you is correct but I didn't remember what was your exact reply, that's why the confusion.

Since my choices were not better than selecting on random and below average, perhaps it's better not to go on with the rest in order another person be able to attempt find them out.

I was reading 1 of your posts and I've a question;

You said by choosing to stay with the same EC ALL time, you didn't find big difference than by changing the target, although you did mention that the same EC had extended loses, I assume more than changing EC target, right?

I'm of the opinion that adjusting the target could be better than staying all the time on the same, do you agree?

When something has to change, the next reasonable question is what criterion are you going to use.
For example, we could agree that changing target is optimal, but we could not agree with what criterion should determine the change.

A test can prove that a bet which stays always in the same position, with the same amount it is destined to lose.
So this means that by alternating our bets in terms of amounts and where to place them could make us winners.

The next reasonable question is not if I'm going to use criteria, but WHAT criteria.

[BlueAngel]

What I was trying to prove (but failed) is that maybe both of devices (RNG's & wheels)  are producing random outcomes but RNG's don't have the physical attributes which a roulette wheel has, therefore my opinion is that there are different types of randomness.

A wheel has to obey to the laws of physics, RNG's on the other hand have not such "obligation".
So the method which I used to check those sequences takes under consideration some typical wheels' behaviours...

I'm not suggesting that physical wheels are not random and unpredictable up to a certain degree, but their random behaviour is different...
One has to focus at the physical attributes of  wheel in order to realise the difference, if you count the  actual numbers (how many times this, how many times that...) makes no difference.

RNG's trying to imitate roulette  (wheel), but there are cheap and better imitations like in every other product.
Both are reaching the same destination from different paths...

[kav]

After all is said and done the conclusion is that you can not notice any difference or discern between RNG and physical wheel results. So it may be futile to "focus at the physical attributes of wheel" - whatever that means...

----

I do believe there are differences (not necessarily identifiable) between RNG and real wheels, but I find very vague and empty all this talk about the "physical attributes". What makes physical wheels "different" is the numbers layout. In that sense I also find difference between real wheels and a numerical order layout.

I think this has more to do with experience and intuition. For example if a regular player played always doublestreet bets, then after years of experience he would (think to ?) be able to understand the development of the outcomes better regarding doublestreets.

Since I look at the wheel when I play, I have a better feeling how the outcomes develop on the wheel. This is not something very solid or clear, its more like an "acquired intuition". And it has to do with how one "reads" the results, the mental layout of roulette one has in mind, be it the wheel, the dozens, the streets etc. Nothing to do with "physical attributes" per se.