How can you possibly know that? why doesnt everyone here get off their high horse and stop pretending to know how bookies terminals work? Like I've said before, its like debating religion - it's something you'll very likely NEVER prove...Firefox wrote:no they don't, the central server (PC) in the bookies draws the random number(Agreed, this is how it is done up and down the country). The Terminals talk to the server and decide which "randomly drawn" number to project onto their terminal.(Hence the pauses, speeding up etc.)
Online Roulette Program
Ok so we have established that its nigh on impossible to prove or disprove that the bookies or online casino for that matter use truely random numbers or not.theoak wrote:How can you possibly know that? why doesnt everyone here get off their high horse and stop pretending to know how bookies terminals work? Like I've said before, its like debating religion - it's something you'll very likely NEVER prove...Firefox wrote:no they don't, the central server (PC) in the bookies draws the random number(Agreed, this is how it is done up and down the country). The Terminals talk to the server and decide which "randomly drawn" number to project onto their terminal.(Hence the pauses, speeding up etc.)
If thats the case then why dismiss a betting system with the reason it cant predict random numbers? when you just admitted yourself that they may or may not actually be random.
BECAUSE THE SYSTEM IS DOING NOTHING OTHER THAN TELLING YOU TO BET ON THE THIRD OF NUMBERS THAT HAVENT COME UP FOR LONGEST.
ITS NOT SECOND GUESSING A VERY COMPLEX NUMBER GENERATOR ON THE INTERNET, be it random or otherwise.
your excuse of 'not having enough time to do it yourself'... at a consistant £40-80 an hour, youd MAKE time for it, thats equivalent to about £175,000 job every year; I'm guessing you don't have a job like that or you wouldnt be selling faulty software at £9 a pop to gullible teenagers on the internet.
ITS NOT SECOND GUESSING A VERY COMPLEX NUMBER GENERATOR ON THE INTERNET, be it random or otherwise.
your excuse of 'not having enough time to do it yourself'... at a consistant £40-80 an hour, youd MAKE time for it, thats equivalent to about £175,000 job every year; I'm guessing you don't have a job like that or you wouldnt be selling faulty software at £9 a pop to gullible teenagers on the internet.
theoak wrote:How can you possibly know that? why doesnt everyone here get off their high horse and stop pretending to know how bookies terminals work? Like I've said before, its like debating religion - it's something you'll very likely NEVER prove...Firefox wrote:no they don't, the central server (PC) in the bookies draws the random number(Agreed, this is how it is done up and down the country). The Terminals talk to the server and decide which "randomly drawn" number to project onto their terminal.(Hence the pauses, speeding up etc.)
quite enjoying this debate!Is it beyond the realms of doubt to consider I may/may not know?
Is my reasoning flawed in anyway that you can prove? Perhaps begin by asking just why bookies have a centralisied computer these days when they were not necessary when FOBT's first came out?
Anyway, all differences aside, i agree with your final statement. It would be a hard task unless we could reverse engineer the software on the centralised PC! MPU9 perhaps
Always nice to hear other peoples views on these things, after all, that's precisely what the forum is for!
since I am an IT consultant, and this sort of thing falls within my realm of expertise, I can offer my qualified opinion.
1. Due to several security concerns, it would be more than foolish to have locally generated random numbers. It would also add an unnecessary extra layer for statistic collation, as each and every FOBT would need to be analysed to ensure regulatory compliance. Cost wise, it would be hugely cheaper for the companies involved to have a client-server set up, since this removes the need for engineers visiting on-site for every minor upgrade you need/wish to make. "One change to fix them all."
We get an idea that this is the rig they use when every terminal goes down at the same time/same numbers come in when buttons pressed simultaneously etc. By observing this behaviour, you can answer the following:-
1. Do the FOBTs request a 'block' or random numbers, and feed out whichever one is advantageous to the bet weight at the time ?
If this were the case, then you could discount it by weighting two seperate terminals in mutually exclusive areas and pressing spin simultaneously. If the random numbers are not applied in a random fashion, then they will differ.
Consider this: The game roullette is statistically weighted in favour of the house by roughly 5%. This is due to the effect of 0 on outside bets, and the 1-36 payment ratio when there are 37 numbers. By doing nothing more than just implementing this in a fair manner, they will win every time. Just like the casino. Why would they risk fiddling terminals to get the same money quicker ? They can wait a few days, the average time of a punter to do his sack if he had a winning streak. They'll be back. It's a no-brainer. If they got caught fiddling them, they'd be sued out of existence, and likely lose their license for good. And it's not too hard to catch bent activity like that.
Instead of cursing each other because someone has an opinion, think about the situation logically for a moment. It really is quite obvious.
1. Due to several security concerns, it would be more than foolish to have locally generated random numbers. It would also add an unnecessary extra layer for statistic collation, as each and every FOBT would need to be analysed to ensure regulatory compliance. Cost wise, it would be hugely cheaper for the companies involved to have a client-server set up, since this removes the need for engineers visiting on-site for every minor upgrade you need/wish to make. "One change to fix them all."
We get an idea that this is the rig they use when every terminal goes down at the same time/same numbers come in when buttons pressed simultaneously etc. By observing this behaviour, you can answer the following:-
1. Do the FOBTs request a 'block' or random numbers, and feed out whichever one is advantageous to the bet weight at the time ?
If this were the case, then you could discount it by weighting two seperate terminals in mutually exclusive areas and pressing spin simultaneously. If the random numbers are not applied in a random fashion, then they will differ.
Consider this: The game roullette is statistically weighted in favour of the house by roughly 5%. This is due to the effect of 0 on outside bets, and the 1-36 payment ratio when there are 37 numbers. By doing nothing more than just implementing this in a fair manner, they will win every time. Just like the casino. Why would they risk fiddling terminals to get the same money quicker ? They can wait a few days, the average time of a punter to do his sack if he had a winning streak. They'll be back. It's a no-brainer. If they got caught fiddling them, they'd be sued out of existence, and likely lose their license for good. And it's not too hard to catch bent activity like that.
Instead of cursing each other because someone has an opinion, think about the situation logically for a moment. It really is quite obvious.
-
Cardinal Sin
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4166
- Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:33 pm
This is the same argument we've been having here...
http://www.fruitchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=974
The most telling part for me is that not ONE person has ever come up with proof - except stories about an unbelievable series of numbers - that these devices are rigged. You'd think with the number of these machines, and the number of different companies operating them, that you would have one disgruntled employee blowing the whistle.
Now why hasn't that happened?
http://www.fruitchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=974
The most telling part for me is that not ONE person has ever come up with proof - except stories about an unbelievable series of numbers - that these devices are rigged. You'd think with the number of these machines, and the number of different companies operating them, that you would have one disgruntled employee blowing the whistle.
Now why hasn't that happened?
True, but equally there is also no conclusive proof the other way as far as i know. I still remember reading that paper inquiry report which wasn't happy with th way FOBTs ar run and that they are all fair etc.
Anyway, i won't be drawn into this discussion again as i've had it numerous times on this board over the last couple of years. As Toyah once sang, It's a Mystery....
Anyway, i won't be drawn into this discussion again as i've had it numerous times on this board over the last couple of years. As Toyah once sang, It's a Mystery....
"Sixty percent of the time, it works, every time!"
The argument from the quoted post is flawed on many levels.Cardinal Richelieu wrote:This is the same argument we've been having here...
http://www.fruitchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=974
Note, not on every occasion. Just more than one. So, on other occasions, he drew even, lost etc. As you would expect...1. On more than one occasion, i've watched some city gents pile their money in, and walk away a few hundred down, only for me to nip on and turn £20 into £100 or so. Whether I was just lucky or not, who knows.
Yes, it can easily be made quite impossible. A random number generator, from which random numbers are created from a hardware source, that only has to supply said number to a client, can be made bug-free. It's trivial. The client software might have glitches in it, e.g crashes but the randomness cannot be affected. You could even use some method of cryptographic signature to ensure that the result the terminal received was the one that was sent.2. The old debate of what is a random number. Someone, somewhere must have wrote the program for it, so it's not impossible that there are a few bugs in there
Meaningless. Impossible to verify company wide by one employee. And do they remember all the cases when they weren't up (statistical outliers)? Also this 'statistic' is dependent upon how much the terminal has taken. 200% of nothing is still nothing ! Assume that it is true anyway, you'd expect them to be up, since the game is weighted in the houses favour !!3. Previous posts from people who work in bookmakers have stated that the FOBT are generally 2-300% up on the day, so I find it hard to believe that it's as random as it claims to be.
Why do people put so much faith in word-of-mouth ? Think about things rationally.
Operating casino games is a license to print money. You will _not_ lose. There is _no_ need for it to be fixed !!
Why don't you argue that Ladbrokes' Roulette games, for example, aren't random with their auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers?
I struggle to comprehend how people can actually believe they're rigged.
I further struggle to understand how anybody would ever believe this £9 software is ever going to gain you any advantage.
I struggle to comprehend how people can actually believe they're rigged.
I further struggle to understand how anybody would ever believe this £9 software is ever going to gain you any advantage.
Not everybody has a critical mind when it comes to people offering you the earth for mere peanuts as a favour, because they are so magnamious.Nero wrote:I further struggle to understand how anybody would ever believe this £9 software is ever going to gain you any advantage.
People for some reason are far too trusting when it comes to money.