Read the previous posts and you'd realise I was talking about betfairs NON ZERO roulette, ie. there is no 0 or 00, thats why its 100% payback!Mattb wrote:You couldn't do that red/black thingy....if a 0 or 00 comes in, then you are stuffed :P
Russian Roulette........
Oh ok.....have to say i didn't read all of it! There's been so many roulette discussions on here i get tired of them :P
I did find an independent report into FOBT roulette a while back though, and its findings were that they weren't totally satisfied with its outcomes. Interesting
I did find an independent report into FOBT roulette a while back though, and its findings were that they weren't totally satisfied with its outcomes. Interesting
"Sixty percent of the time, it works, every time!"
-
toothless11
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1718
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 7:38 pm
- Location: Down south where the girls don't wear them
In portsmouth, you used to be able to go to the local bowling alley and change up 100 quids worth of tokens (Which were 50p per token), and then put them in the ladbrokes roulette. They were register as 2 pound instead of 50p. For every 100 quids worth of tokens you put in, you would just collect the 400 quid.
Me and my mate done a few but it went on critical so quickly. Anyone ever done this?
Me and my mate done a few but it went on critical so quickly. Anyone ever done this?
The only thing i wonder is, whilst i am with the opinion that they are random, how come people in the know seem to make money from FOBT's if they are totally random.
A few chinese blokes(not being racist it's just no one else plays them with any sense of skill) in whitby always make huge amounts of money off them.
Not that i'm trying to get in to a debate here, i just thought i'd spill my brains.
A few chinese blokes(not being racist it's just no one else plays them with any sense of skill) in whitby always make huge amounts of money off them.
Not that i'm trying to get in to a debate here, i just thought i'd spill my brains.
lol I used to love listening to the f'ing and blinding of frustrated fobt players in bookies - kind of laughing at myself as I've been there too ;-)
If the majority of views says they are random then I'll go along with it. Probably a mind game thing as I was sure that most of the time the machine would take your 1st bet - hardly ever pay out on the 1st one. I used to first put a tenner on red every visit regardless of what had gone before - hardly ever won. Also big bets hardly ever came up. But maybe the mind only remembers failure!
If the majority of views says they are random then I'll go along with it. Probably a mind game thing as I was sure that most of the time the machine would take your 1st bet - hardly ever pay out on the 1st one. I used to first put a tenner on red every visit regardless of what had gone before - hardly ever won. Also big bets hardly ever came up. But maybe the mind only remembers failure!
Ok; the fact that two machines pressed at identical times will give the same number (try it); must surely suggest it is 'random' or at least not rigged to win lose. This could even be proved by betting opposite numbers on adjacent machines and bet simultaneously each time.
If this works, the only way it could be rigged is if the central RNG looks at ALL bets being places at each precise mili-second and works out which number is most beneficial to the bookies on the whole?
If this works, the only way it could be rigged is if the central RNG looks at ALL bets being places at each precise mili-second and works out which number is most beneficial to the bookies on the whole?
yes, long ago I tested this with a mate in a bookies in manchester when I was in London, when u press spin at the same time, the same number comes up... as you say, theoak, the only way it could be rigged is if it chose the number that was best overall for the bookies based on the level of betting on each number - I highly doubt this is the case!! And besides which in terms of you playing it, it is random from your perspective, as any one of the 37 numbers could be the one that is least played!
I think one thing being overlooked when 'assuming' how these machines work is the random number generator. People assume that it generates a random number between 1-37..... but i seriously doubt it. more than likely a larger number, say, between 1-3700 is generated - each one giving a result of 1-37. this would result in a very different profile of sequencies because different results would equal, say, 20 black etc etc. So, when people see the same number coming up a few times, what thre really seeing would be different numbers coming up - but each one 'representing' the same result.
The machine would still acheive % over time but it would behave very differently from a 1-37 RNG.
Those of you who know how to use exel - try it and see what you find. I got 10 reds in a row within 10 minutes of play in a little program I created in Exel. Maybe Bill Gates is trying to screw me over??? Haha!
The machine would still acheive % over time but it would behave very differently from a 1-37 RNG.
Those of you who know how to use exel - try it and see what you find. I got 10 reds in a row within 10 minutes of play in a little program I created in Exel. Maybe Bill Gates is trying to screw me over??? Haha!
you want the truth?? you cant handle the truth!
-
TheMission
- Senior Member
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 2:42 pm
That's because the Excel random number generator is shit. We've already done this theory in other threads.chav666 wrote:I think one thing being overlooked when 'assuming' how these machines work is the random number generator. People assume that it generates a random number between 1-37..... but i seriously doubt it. more than likely a larger number, say, between 1-3700 is generated - each one giving a result of 1-37. this would result in a very different profile of sequencies because different results would equal, say, 20 black etc etc. So, when people see the same number coming up a few times, what thre really seeing would be different numbers coming up - but each one 'representing' the same result.
The machine would still acheive % over time but it would behave very differently from a 1-37 RNG.
Those of you who know how to use exel - try it and see what you find. I got 10 reds in a row within 10 minutes of play in a little program I created in Exel. Maybe Bill Gates is trying to screw me over??? Haha!
kind of missing my point though mission. My point is that a RNG based roulette game will behave differently to a R/T wheel based on how the RNG is designed.
Your statement 'Thats because the exel RNG is shit' Kind of backs me up as your are agreeing that it does give strange results, not often seen in the real world. SO, RNG's are flawed - not rigged
It doesnt matter to a bookie how the RNG is designed, as long as the machine acheives it's %. It could be the 'worst' in the world - that really isnt the point is it! I dont see it being in the bookies interests to spend 'hard cash' trying to emulate as closely as possible a real roulette wheel, when people are willing to tip their cash into these poorly designed electric dustbins???
Your statement 'Thats because the exel RNG is shit' Kind of backs me up as your are agreeing that it does give strange results, not often seen in the real world. SO, RNG's are flawed - not rigged
It doesnt matter to a bookie how the RNG is designed, as long as the machine acheives it's %. It could be the 'worst' in the world - that really isnt the point is it! I dont see it being in the bookies interests to spend 'hard cash' trying to emulate as closely as possible a real roulette wheel, when people are willing to tip their cash into these poorly designed electric dustbins???
you want the truth?? you cant handle the truth!
-
Mystery_Plum
[quote="theoak"]Sorry, but why would a range of 1-37trillion then converted into 1-37 make ANY difference to the random numbers given out compared to a 1-37]
Agreed.
Seeing as there are only 37 different outcomes on a European roulette wheel, why use a greater number range to determine the result?
The only reason I can think of is to try to allow greater variation in the outcomes somehow, but what's the point in that, even if it works? You're not trying to get a true reflection of roulette any more.
At the end of the day, as long as the chance of hitting a number is 1 in 37 and you only get paid 35 to 1, you're always going to lose your money eventually. The RNG doesn't need to be rigged. All the operator has to do is attract players onto the machine. Once that is achieved, probability and the law of averages take care of everything from there...
Agreed.
Seeing as there are only 37 different outcomes on a European roulette wheel, why use a greater number range to determine the result?
The only reason I can think of is to try to allow greater variation in the outcomes somehow, but what's the point in that, even if it works? You're not trying to get a true reflection of roulette any more.
At the end of the day, as long as the chance of hitting a number is 1 in 37 and you only get paid 35 to 1, you're always going to lose your money eventually. The RNG doesn't need to be rigged. All the operator has to do is attract players onto the machine. Once that is achieved, probability and the law of averages take care of everything from there...