Sonny said:Norm, don't feel obligated to respond to posts like these. If Jim thinks you're a liar, let him. It's not going to ruin Qfit's reputation. Getting into personal fights like this is just a waste of your time.
-Sonny-
sagefr0g said:perhaps i'm off base here. seems i recollect from the days back when i was attempting some programing that about the best one can do when attempting to program something as random is what was then called psuedo random. and rng's as i understood them were actually psuedo random number generators.
best regards,
mr fr0g
FunkyChicken said:I always thought RNG's were based on some other event. As an extremely simply example, to get a random number between 1 and 10, the computer could simply give you the number that corresponds to the millisecond at which the deal starts. Thus, it wouldn't be really random, but to us it is random enough as we can't gage milliseconds. From your post, it sounds like RNG's basically have a strong of tons of numbers that they go through. Is that right?
Ray said:......
In the short term, I don't believe anyone can prove that cards are random or not. .....
Ray said:"Randomly non-random"- That may be the crux of the matter. If I were to get a blackjack every 21 rounds, that would be a non-random event. But, we know that things just don't work that way. Exactly when I get a bj and how it relates to the last one is a very random event in the short term, but close to non-random fact as measured for the long term.
Question: I've got to ask....How do you assign a degree of goodness based on the thumb angle of the dealer? Isn't that a high degee of arbitrariness on your part or have you studied individual dealers?
QFIT said:The problem is somewhat related to Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle. You must be careful about your assumptions and measurements in any experiment to avoid affecting the experiment by watching, or engaging in it. ................
And this is why it took me five years before I released the shuffling features in my software.
QFIT said:...........This is particularly true in card counting simulation as CC affects other players. Simple measurements like hand frequency cannot be used as an indication of randomness as such stats can be affected by the use of strategies. An obvious example is back-counting. Any method of back-counting harms other players. That is, it changes the randomness of their hands. I did a study on this years ago sorry cant find a link. .....
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!