+ Register

[Bayes]

BV uses a "True" random number generator, not software.

Quantis uses Quantum Physics to create  truly-random numbers
Existing randomness sources can be  grouped in two classes: software solutions, which can only generate  pseudo-random bit streams, and physical sources. In the latter, most  random generators rely on classical physics to produce what looks like a  random stream of bits. In reality, determinism is hidden behind  complexity.
Contrary to classical physics, quantum physics is  fundamentally random. It is the only theory within the fabric of modern  physics that integrates randomness. Quantis uses this property to  generate random numbers from quantum origin

Algorithm? Randomness Control? Who are they kidding. Everybody, obviously. Did you read their gobblygook explanation of how it works?

I beg to differ. In fact, "the little ball falling into the pocket" can be influenced by such things as magnets, so the casino can still cheat you by influencing the ball after you've placed your bet. Not so with the hash algorithm which is completely foolproof. 

[Gizmotron]

What physical source? I checked out BV. "In field 3, the player can see the checksum of sequence, computed according to the SHA-256 algorithm."

Algorithm? Randomness Control? Who are they kidding. Everybody, obviously. Did you read their gobblygook explanation of how it works? This is how you get sleeping dozens and massive black dominance. 'Randomness Control'.

I prefer the little ball falling into the pocket.

The hash function is for the purpose of validation that no manipulation is occurring where the casino is targeting or cheating any players. I know I could write a manipulation program for a live wheel.  One that would fool the very best players. But you can't cheat if people can actually see the live spins and compare the sessions. Well that's what the hash function is for. You can compare the sequences.

The hash has nothing to do with generating random spin results. Furthermore, There is nobody here that can tell the difference between spins from a modern RNG and the results from a live wheel. I dare anyone to prove they can. Spike says he can. I'm sure someone like Bayes could test him. Long streaks of even chance occurrences or sleeping dozens are not proof of anything more than what is a normal aspect of randomness. I think Spike has a case of magical thinking.

[Bayes]

But you can't cheat if people can actually see the live spins and compare the sessions. Well that's what the hash function is for. You can compare the sequences.

Gizmo, I would argue that the hash function is safer, because even though you can see the spins on a live wheel, they could in theory be fixing the outcomes. Suppose that they have a sophisticated system of magnets hooked up under the wheel which they're able to turn on and so attract the ball away from wherever most of the chips are placed. They would have to be selective in using this because in the long run (if they activated it every spin) things would even out and there would be just as many players who would gain as lose, and they would also be running the risk that someone might figure out what's going on and place their bets on a sector which has the least chips on it, but for the sake of argument let's say they they have this kind of setup.

If they were, how would you know it? comparing sessions wouldn't necessarily give you proof that they weren't, it might just mean that everyone was being cheated, in fact it's hard to see how it could be any other way.

[Gizmotron]

Bayes, I think you are ready to open your casino. There's nothing like the house edge.

[JohnLegend]

Gizmo, I would argue that the hash function is safer, because even though you can see the spins on a live wheel, they could in theory be fixing the outcomes. Suppose that they have a sophisticated system of magnets hooked up under the wheel which they're able to turn on and so attract the ball away from wherever most of the chips are placed. They would have to be selective in using this because in the long run (if they activated it every spin) things would even out and there would be just as many players who would gain as lose, and they would also be running the risk that someone might figure out what's going on and place their bets on a sector which has the least chips on it, but for the sake of argument let's say they they have this kind of setup.

If they were, how would you know it? comparing sessions wouldn't necessarily give you proof that they weren't, it might just mean that everyone was being cheated, in fact it's hard to see how it could be any other way.

This one made me laugh out loud Bayes. there's and old Abbott and Costello film where this happens. But its very obvious because of how the ball moves.

Im not saying it doesn't or couldnt happen. But it makes you think. IF, this game is supposed to be bullet proof. And all methods are rubbish waiting to be torn apart by random and the house edge. WHY DO THEY NEED TO CHEAT?

When I've played many times, and I know im at the wheel with another 150 or so players. You see the winners list after a spin. You often see players who have won big. What you don't know is how they played to win what they did. And how many people were playing on that spin.

The casinos rely on the long run to make their profit margin. Most players are foolish and greedy. They are destined to give the casinos their profits and gripe all night when they lose. Most winners are lucky. Or betting huge amounts and covering most of the layout. So when they win it might appear they won a small fortune.

But they had a small fortune at risk. Then there's the smart players. Picking of occasional small profits. Going unoticed. As all the attention is on the big spenders. If there's been any cheating going on in the time I've played online. It hasnt affected me.

[TwoCatSam]

Bayes

RE:  Magnets

Does the ball have a tiny piece of metal in it?

Sam

[Ralph]

Bayes

RE:  Magnets

Does the ball have a tiny piece of metal in it?

Sam

It was long time ago. It happens in movies like Casablanca and The Sting!


They sometimes check the ball in BM casino using a magnet!

[Bayes]

I'm not suggesting that this kind of thing goes on in B&M casinos any more. My point was that the hash function is the ONLY way you can guarantee you aren't being cheated by "past posting".

[Bally6354]

I was just playing at BV on the NZ wheel.

It went 25 spins without the 2nd dozen before I logged out.

Who knows how many it would have ended up going to! 

[Gizmotron]

I was just playing at BV on the NZ wheel.

It went 25 spins without the 2nd dozen before I logged out.

Who knows how many it would have ended up going to! 

I've seen 33 in a row for a sleeping column while playing. It was the highest paying sleeper that I ever took advantage of. Nobody else there bothered.

[Bayes]

How about 39 spins without any dozen repeating? superman will back me up on this, he was there when it happened.

[JohnLegend]

How about 39 spins without any dozen repeating? superman will back me up on this, he was there when it happened.

Yeah nothing special there Bayes. I have 19 recorded 30 plus sleepers for the dozens. I have seen a single dozen hit 11 or more times in a row, 22 times. And a dozen not repeat 30 plus many times.

I've never seen anything break the 40 barrier though. BUT WHO HAS THE PATIENCE? This is where a bot on an RNG holds value. Picking up on the bets no one could do on a live wheel.

[Gizmotron]

39 singles. That's huge. Sometimes roulette is like a free ATM machine.

[spike]

The hash has nothing to do with generating random spin results. Furthermore, There is nobody here that can tell the difference between spins from a modern RNG and the results from a live wheel. I dare anyone to prove they can. Spike says he can.

Yup. Whenever a casino goes out of its way to
use an algorithm to 'protect' its players and
invents carnival tricks like 'Random Control',
you just know they can be trusted. Reminds me
of when doctors were in cigarette ad's in the
40's certifying that smoking was actually healthy
and caused no harm whatsoever. Everybody
believed that was legit too..

When you come up with a method that wins more
than it loses in the short term, you'll be able to
tell the difference too. I'm not holding my breath
that will ever happen. I've been claiming this for
years and I see no difference in the 'modern' RNG
than the ones they used 5 years ago. Sometimes
when I see them in the casino on those giant
virtual roulette setup's, I marvel that I can't win
10 cents on them. Amazing works of modern tech.

[Ralph]

Yup. Whenever a casino goes out of its way to
use an algorithm to 'protect' its players and
invents carnival tricks like 'Random Control',
you just know they can be trusted. Reminds me
of when doctors were in cigarette ad's in the
40's certifying that smoking was actually healthy
and caused no harm whatsoever. Everybody
believed that was legit too..

When you come up with a method that wins more
than it loses in the short term, you'll be able to
tell the difference too. I'm not holding my breath
that will ever happen. I've been claiming this for
years and I see no difference in the 'modern' RNG
than the ones they used 5 years ago. Sometimes
when I see them in the casino on those giant
virtual roulette setup's, I marvel that I can't win
10 cents on them. Amazing works of modern tech.

You can trust the randomness control, they can not manipulate after the string is created. But it will not make it impossible to cheat in other ways. They record the play, they have to, to know the players balance. So it would be possible to send a string of numbers and assume the player will not change the play in the near future spins. I have not seen any which should make suspections. And some have for sure made trials playing opposite. You can change the random bits your self too.