Author Topic: Different types of randomness?  (Read 43917 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

sqzbox

Different types of randomness?
« on: August 18, 2015, 04:07:29 AM »

Just thought I would open a thread on this - because I find it interesting. There are no magic solutions in here folks, so if that is what you are looking for - move along!

Furthermore, I am no maths master such as Bayes and one or two others here, but I like to think that I have a healthy open mind and can reason to some degree, so feel free to challenge my thoughts, to offer alternatives perhaps, or even opinions so long as they are reasoned and polite.

Final caveat - this is likely to be somewhat lengthy and perhaps even a little rambling. Again, if you aren't interested then feel free to go on your merry way without comment.  Thanks.

As the title suggests - are there different types of randomness?  More specifically - are there different types of genuine randomness produced by the universe under different conditions or circumstances; and can these be analysed, categorized, etc. in such a way that is useful, even beneficial perhaps, to the systematic roulette player?

I happened to be gazing out of my lounge window recently at the rain on the water (I am fortunate enough to be living in a quiet spot near the city yet peaceful and close to the water - a marina actually). Watching the rain on the water I find to be peaceful and quite relaxing to be honest. Anyway, as I was watching the patterns of the raindrops I recalled that many years ago at university we had a programming assignment to write a "raindrop" simulator. All it did was run in real time and produce patterns that looked like raindrops falling on the pavement. I don't recall the algorithm or formula we used but it doesn't matter - my point is this - after all the years that I have been studying the game of roulette something in my bones told me that the randomness of falling rain is NOT like the randomness we see in roulette!

It seems reasonably easy to see - for anybody.  Look at the patterns formed on the pavement by falling rain. Yes, it is definitely random - but you don't see the same extremes that you see in games like roulette. That is, you don't see large (or even small) sections of pavement that are dry for a noticeable length of time. Nor do you see sections that are "overly wet" if you get my drift. The rain is random - yet fairly evenly dispersed!  How on earth can that be?

Could it be that there are actually different types of true randomness (by "true" I mean produced by the universe and manifesting without interference by external forces such as man)? Examples of these are everywhere of course. Raindrop patterns on the ground/water, static noise in the atmosphere (as used by random.org), roulette outcomes from a fair wheel, and so on. All random but seemingly, somehow, manifesting and appearing quite different, one to the other.

Or is it perhaps a matter of degree? Is it all just the same "random" but with some sort of internal "control knob" which determines how far the boundaries of extremity can go for different generation methods?

(As an aside, I have been, and still am ATM, of the opinion that the random numbers produced by sites such as random.org are actually of limited value. This is nothing more than a gut feeling really, based on the observation above of the apparent difference between raindrops and roulette outcomes - they are both random but they are also "just different" somehow. Random.org numbers just aren't random enough, somehow. They are more like the raindrops.)

So - opinions? Observations? Discuss.

The following users thanked this post: kav

Reyth

Re: Different types of randomness?
« Reply #1 on: August 18, 2015, 04:37:27 AM »
My point is this - after all the years that I have been studying the game of roulette something in my bones told me that the randomness of falling rain is NOT like the randomness we see in roulette!

Rain isn't limited to only 37 possible individual outcomes.

Quote
The rain is random - yet fairly evenly dispersed!  How on earth can that be?

I don't think its a 1:1 comparison and if you change the perspective to match each other I think you will see that roulette covers the entire felt equally within time (at least 455 spins) and it is only a certain delay which might be milliseconds for rain but over 400 spins for roulette.

Nobody here will agree with me but I see B&M spins as a flawed version of random number generation.  I think the flaws are small enough that there is no necessary discernible difference but I can't prove that.  B&M spins are a physical & mechanical means to do what a computer does electronically.  The computer is more perfect but I tend to believe Dobble when he says there is no way to tell the difference.

:shrug:

weird

Re: Different types of randomness?
« Reply #2 on: August 18, 2015, 04:50:18 AM »
Random mean , just unpredictable...and will happen as it want to happen.

In math, possible for only 6red in 200 spins
But it never happen!

The worst ever recorded , officially, and published,
was, and is 69red, in 200spins.
[there may less hit, but some casino never publish their result]

Now , the million dollars QUESTION?

Why it never less than 69red in 200spins?

understand this, and u never bother by random AGAIN!!!

Reyth

Re: Different types of randomness?
« Reply #3 on: August 18, 2015, 05:37:11 AM »

Now , the million dollars QUESTION?

Why it never less than 69red in 200spins?

understand this, and u never bother by random AGAIN!!!

That is an AWESOME question.  It seems so easy to understand and to think in terms of "how many in a row" but so difficult to understand and think in terms of aggregate groupings of spins and how randomness applies there.  Its like the force of equal distribution squeezes out results based on the entire aggregate of outcomes -- gosh its seems so hard to grasp this!

I seriously need to learn to think in this manner to do analysis of aggregate groupings of spins.

kav

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2350
• Thanked: 1320 times
• Gender:
Re: Different types of randomness?
« Reply #4 on: August 18, 2015, 03:42:35 PM »
Sqzbox,
Both new threads you opened and Reyth and others replied are very interesting.
I hope to get the time to hop in :-)

scepticus

Re: Different types of randomness?
« Reply #5 on: August 18, 2015, 05:39:17 PM »
I think Random only means that there is no way of knowing what any  future uncertain event will be. We can only wonder - we cannot " KNOW ".
Random itself sometimes has " patterns ". Raindrops , cloud formations, roulette numbers.
Ain't Random wonderful  and  interesting. Thanks Sqzbox !

Mike

Re: Different types of randomness?
« Reply #6 on: August 18, 2015, 07:45:22 PM »
For once I agree with scepticus; randomness is just a reflection of our lack of knowledge. I don't think there's any thing out there which can be described as TRUE randomness because that suggests some kind of "gold standard" against which other "randomnesses" are judged. But who is to decide what the gold standard is?

And paradoxically, randomness seems to be characterized by sequences which don't appear random at all, and if these sequences were entirely absent, the outcomes would fail a statistical test of randomness. I guess that's just more evidence that we can't pigeonhole randomness.

sqzbox

Re: Different types of randomness?
« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2015, 11:52:48 AM »
True - but wouldn't it be great if we could pigeon-hole randomness?

Perhaps it is true that randomness is just a reflection of our lack of knowledge, but I don't accept that as a reason to not attempt to figure it out. I am convinced that randomness is just another phenomenon of our universe that is studyable. This is what we humans do - try to figure out how stuff works.  Why should we only wonder? Who said we cannot "KNOW"? As Weird asked, why never less than 69 reds in 200 spins? I can accept that - but I want to UNDERSTAND it.

Maybe quantum mechanics contains some answers. Quantum processes are truly random; for example, when a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino, the precise energy that the electron and antineutrino will split between them is known, but the amount that each will get is random. Since only the electron is easily detectable, what you see if you observe many such events is that the electrons have random energy, with a maximum that no electron ever surpasses. Notice the similarity to the 69 reds case?

As regards the original question, something that is probabilistic may be more random than something deterministic even though both may be best described by a probability measure. For example, the decay of an atom may be considered more random than a coin flip. Alternatively, a probability measure that propagates deterministically may be less random than one that propagates probabilistically.

Food for thought.

Mike

Re: Different types of randomness?
« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2015, 04:48:24 PM »
Perhaps it is true that randomness is just a reflection of our lack of knowledge, but I don't accept that as a reason to not attempt to figure it out. I am convinced that randomness is just another phenomenon of our universe that is studyable.

If you accept that randomness is only a statement of our lack of knowledge then of course we should try to get more knowledge regarding a particular phenomenon, but maybe sometimes it's not worth the effort if more promising alternatives exist?

I think there's a good argument to be made for randomness being nothing but our lack of knowledge, in which case, does it make sense to study it? We can only study the phenomena and event to which we attach "random", not "randomness" itself.

Quote
Who said we cannot "KNOW"?

scepticus, for one. I wonder how he KNOWS that we cannot know? LOL.

Quote
As Weird asked, why never less than 69 reds in 200 spins? I can accept that - but I want to UNDERSTAND it.

I don't know where that figure came from, but I've seen less than 69 in 200 spins. If you're asking why is there a limit at all, you may as well ask why does anything have the particular shape or form it does actually have? Why don't humans grow to 12 ft tall? why don't things fall up instead of down? Personally I don't think there's much profit in asking such questions.

Quote
Maybe quantum mechanics contains some answers. Quantum processes are truly random

Are they?  Again, maybe we just don't know enough about them yet. Maybe we never will.

scepticus

Re: Different types of randomness?
« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2015, 10:18:23 PM »
Mike
Nice to see that you have a sense of humour.
sqbox
Why do we KNOW that randomness is random ? Or not Random ? What do we understand Random  to mean ?
Random, to me , means that things don't occur in a particular manner .From this I deduce that we cannot know WHEN  things WILL occur because if we did  they would not be Random . Does that make sense to you ?
To my mind Random exists in roulette because we cannot KNOW when a particular number or particular numbers will occur . All gambling involves uncertainty .If we KNEW how to solve random there would be no uncertainty and so no gambling. Do you really want to  abolish gambling ? Shame on you !

palestis

Re: Different types of randomness?
« Reply #10 on: August 20, 2015, 12:42:14 AM »
There is nothing scary about randomness in roulette.
I have done extensive research on systems that involve totally "random betting".
To my surprise random bets come a lot closer to their probability expectations than other systems that depend on previous results.
For example when I bet 3 random quads (each in its own dozen),  on the spur of the moment (and changing them in every spin), I have a very difficult time to pick the wrong ones, for more than 6 spins. (That is if it gets there).
When I follow 3 missing quads it's not unusual to reach to 20 or more spins where they haven't appeared. And rarely even 30 spins.
But NEVER with  random picks.
But that requires some experience in randomizing, so that you don't overuse some QUADS and underuse some others.
Some of my best systems involve totally random betting. In every spin.
I allow a few virtual losses, and bet the range from there to the point where  the actual loss starts to become very rare. Always guided by empirical research results.
So you can use the same weapon the roulette uses (randomness), to fight back.
You will be very surprised with the results.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2015, 01:05:15 AM by palestis »

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

scepticus

Re: Different types of randomness?
« Reply #11 on: August 20, 2015, 01:16:02 AM »
There is nothing scary about randomness in roulette.
I have done extensive research on systems that involve totally "random betting".
To my surprise random bets come a lot closer to their probability expectations than other systems that depend on previous results.
For example when I bet 3 random quads (each in its own dozen),  on the spur of the moment (and changing them in every spin), I have a very difficult time to pick the wrong ones, for more than 6 spins. (That is if it gets there).
When I follow 3 missing quads it's not unusual to reach to 20 or more spins where they haven't appeared. And rarely even 30 spins.
But NEVER with  random picks.
But that requires some experience in randomizing, so that you don't overuse some QUADS and underuse some others.
Some of my best systems involve totally random betting. In every spin.
I allow a few virtual losses, and bet the range from there to the point where  the actual loss starts to become very rare. Always guided by empirical research results.
So you can use the same weapon the roulette uses (randomness), to fight back.
You will be very surprised with the results.

I am not clear on what you mean here, Palestis.
How can you make a "totally random bet " which is guided by "empirical research results " ?

palestis

Re: Different types of randomness?
« Reply #12 on: August 20, 2015, 12:38:55 PM »
There is nothing scary about randomness in roulette.
I have done extensive research on systems that involve totally "random betting".
To my surprise random bets come a lot closer to their probability expectations than other systems that depend on previous results.
For example when I bet 3 random quads (each in its own dozen),  on the spur of the moment (and changing them in every spin), I have a very difficult time to pick the wrong ones, for more than 6 spins. (That is if it gets there).
When I follow 3 missing quads it's not unusual to reach to 20 or more spins where they haven't appeared. And rarely even 30 spins.
But NEVER with  random picks.
But that requires some experience in randomizing, so that you don't overuse some QUADS and underuse some others.
Some of my best systems involve totally random betting. In every spin.
I allow a few virtual losses, and bet the range from there to the point where  the actual loss starts to become very rare. Always guided by empirical research results.
So you can use the same weapon the roulette uses (randomness), to fight back.
You will be very surprised with the results.

I am not clear on what you mean here, Palestis.
How can you make a "totally random bet " which is guided by "empirical research results " ?
Ok. What I mean is this.
By empirical test results in general I mean testing a system (any system), to find out how often I expect to hit the desired target. (after a predetermined trigger). And not only that, empirical research determines the  most frequent range of a series of bets that will find its target.
The same goes with random betting.
I make a totally random bet (which changes after every spin), then observe how many spins it takes to find the target. And I do that for thousands of spins, just as we do with every system.
After a lengthy testing period, you come up with an average number of spins that it takes to hit the target. (No different than the method of testing any system). On top of that you determine the most
"frequent range" of bets that finds the target. So you bet that range only, instead of betting the entire range from the beginning to the end. (and hopefully the bank roll will survive the entire series of bets).
For example I make a random bet like R then see what happens. If lost, then I make another random bet like H then see what happens. Then E etc. Until my random selection wins.
In this particular case ( EC bets), I have found that you rarely exceed 5 bets before your random EC selection hits the target. With the most frequent range of hits in spin 2, 3 and 4.
A different random selection (like 3 quads or 3 DS's or 2 DS's) may have a different range of bets where a hit is most likely to occur.
I personally prefer 3 random QUADS, (each in its own dozen). and found that after long empirical research one of them will hit within 7 bets after the random betting starts. with the most frequent winning  range that wins is in spin 3,4, 5 and 6 . So I only bets those 4 spins. The first 2 I lose virtually, (I wait till that happens), and then stop after the 6th bet.
If it exceeds the empirical results (which is on the rare side), I don't lose more than I should, because I will have stopped the betting by then.
So basically whatever empirical test results you get form testing a traditional system, you get the same from testing a system that uses random bet selections.
However it seems that random bet selections are less vulnerable to VARIANCE.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2015, 12:43:05 PM by palestis »

Reyth

Re: Different types of randomness?
« Reply #13 on: August 20, 2015, 01:06:48 PM »
I have shown that random selections DO improve statistical results over leaving your bet in one place.

palestis

Re: Different types of randomness?
« Reply #14 on: August 20, 2015, 01:17:19 PM »
I have shown that random selections DO improve statistical results over leaving your bet in one place.
I have found too that random selections are closer to statistical expectations. However I only tested random betting with constantly changing selections. The reason being to avoid possible selections that coincide with a group deciding to sleep for a long time. It's hard for roulette results to zig zag  their way out of zig zagging bet selections.

« Last Edit: August 20, 2015, 01:19:44 PM by palestis »