Forum

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

awesomex wrote:

By the way, the lack of true randomness is not there for the player, it’s there as a safeguard to the casino, so a slot doesn’t end up with a negative RTP of 5000%. On certain casinos you can see how novomatic slots have behaved, and you will never see them in a huge deficit.

Please stop posting things when you have no idea what you’re talking about. This is the equivalent of a bricklayer telling a surgeon you can repair a brain aneurysm by amputating a foot.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

awesomex wrote:

That’s why casinos have to contact the provider to verify huge wins, cus the slots can’t be manipulated. Right?

1. This isn’t even a real win, it’s demo mode.

2. You cannot play this game at £600 per spin in real mode. As I and several others have previously stated, casinos are protected by stake limits on the games and max payouts in their terms and conditions.

3. The feature win is 226x, hardly outlandish, I’ve hit wins around 10 times that in real play on Greentube games and some NetEnt games like DoA have paid out over 30,000x in real play. This one just looks huge because of the phony 600 unit stake.

4. Casinos contact the provider in the event of very rare, enormous wins just for confirmation the game result was not a technical error or software malfunction before they pay out. This is entirely right and normal; on what basis in your mind is this check evidence slots can be manipulated?

5. You do not have an IQ anywhere remotely approaching the 180 mark. I don’t even need to know you to be able to tell that with the utmost confidence purely off your post history. What’s hilarious about your claim is that the Mensa IQ test doesn’t even go above 162 on scoring, that’s the highest anyone can get.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

The thing that rustles my tits when people like awesomex bring up this “true random” thing is that it’s completely irrelevant. The claim being disputed is that slots are algorithmically programmed to give or withhold payouts on the basis of some kind of predictable formula, such as money taken in (note how awesomex erroneously refers to a “pot” of winnings) or how much profit a casino decided it wants that day. That’s not how they work and that’s simply a fact, so whether the result generator is “true random”, pseudo random or based off how many days since it last rained in my back garden is completely inconsequential.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

Haz40 wrote:

I have 5 GCSE’s C and above plus a GNVQ level 4 in business and finance. Does that qualify for joining this debate?

You can have failed kindergarten, going by thread precedent you need only claim to be a genius to take part. Pick an IQ; I don’t want to be outdone so I’m going with 3874 for mine, plus membership of NANSA, which is a super duper elite combination of Mensa and NASA so exclusive most people have never even heard of it. We’re the organisation that rigs slots, and invented memory foam.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

@TheReelStory indeed Mersenne-Twister would actually produce “acceptably random” results as far as the Gambling Commission is concerned, the reason it would never be used for a slot is precisely because any exploitability would, as you say, be in the player’s favour. As far as producing statistically random results over a large sample size goes, MT is a very good algorithm.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

awesomex wrote:

Let me just add that I’m a mensa member with a measured and verified IQ of 180. Only 1 in 3.5 million people understand logics as well as I do, so unless you’re one of them, you’re not even gonna be able to follow the argument on the level I’m presenting it.

I see patterns in everything, and everyone still stand on their claims that their man made products are random. It makes no sense at all.

? yeah that’s it buddy, you’re an unrivalled genius and none of us with our fancy-pants degrees in maths and computer science can possibly understand your superior “logics”. I mean, you’ve all but presented us with a PhD thesis in your comments so far. ???

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

awesomex wrote:

If there was such a thing as true randomness, you could end up winning the jackpot/highest payout 10 spins in a row at max stake, and if that was possible, a casino could go bankrupt over 10 spins on a slot machine. True randomness is the only thing that is random. “Random enough” means it’s not really random, which means there are certain parameters set that prevents payouts to be too big.

Example: BTG says their slots can have a set max payout on any given spin/sequence, and it’s different from casino to casino. How do you take this into randomness? The answer is: You can’t.

Slot code HAS to be programmed so you can only get certain combinations x amount of times over x amount of spins. Without it, there is no way to guarantee a profitable slot, or even guarantee the RTP.

You can end up winning the jackpot 10 spins in a row on max stake. It’s considerably less likely to happen that getting struck by a meteor and lightning in the same day, but it is theoretically possible. What prevents the casino going bankrupt in this highly unlikely situation is their terms and conditions, which will almost state a maximum win in a given time frame (for example, one of the casinos I used to regularly play at caps your winnings at £250k per day).

Some games also have win limits set in the game itself for any single spin / feature. This quite simply means if you hit that limit, the game round will end immediately. If I have a game where I toss a coin and for heads I pay £2, for two heads in a row I pay £5 and for three heads in a row, I pay £100 but also I have a win cap of £50…guess what happens if you hit three heads in a row? What happens is you got 3 random results and I pay you £50. What doesn’t happen is the coin flip magically becomes not random for the final toss.

Finally, long term RTP is essentially guaranteed by the mathematics of probability, as Biohazard has already pointed out. It is simply a mathematical fact that over millions of random spins, the results will statistically reflect the designed RTP.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

No, there is actually no such thing as true randomness in code. It’s impossible to achieve true randomness in something man made. So no, dumbass, you’re not getting to walk away with this bullshit.
I recommend people read this, so you get to understand that there is no such thing as true randomness in man made computer code.

I recommend people read the link you posted too, because it completely falsifies your claim that online gambling isn’t random.

Not all randomness is pseudo, however, says Ward. There are ways that machines can generate truly random numbers. And the importance of true randomness is not to be underestimated, he adds. “If you go to an online poker site, for example, and you know the algorithm and seed, you can write a program that will predict the cards that are going to be dealt.” Truly random numbers make such reverse engineering impossible, he adds. There are devices that generate numbers that claim to be truly random. They rely on unpredictable processes like thermal or atmospheric noise rather than human-defined patterns.

As I said in my previous post, that computers are not truly random in a Turing machine sense is irrelevant to this discussion. Hardware or software based cryptographically secure pseudo random number generators produce results which are statistically indistinguishable from true random and cannot be manipulated or predicted in advance, even with knowledge of the algorithm used. Thus any differentiation between a CSPRNG output and “true random” is purely academic and does not impact either probability or distribution of results, regardless of sample size.

So yeah, it is checkmate, you were just calling it for me.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

Haha @32red snap on our posts!

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

People can say what they want, but when it comes to computer code, there’s no such thing as randomness. There’s always a pre-programmed amount of winning combinations, and a set amount of times any X win will happen across X amount of spins. Just look at “The curious case of the Jammin Jars” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc53rrmxz34&t=483s
The explanation from the developers for this case is that there are 1.3 million different sequences on Jammin Jars etc.
Computer code and casinos never leave anything to chance – In the end it’s all controlled.

Sorry but this is plain wrong. The randomness employed by software may not be true random in a Turing machine sense, but it is secure random, giving results which are statistically random. In other words, it’s true random in every practical sense (and this is very easy to prove in simulation).

Jammin Jars is known to operate more like a virtual scratch card where there are set sequences and the result of your spin, although random, can therefore have a pre-determined visual playout, but this is actually very unusual for an online slot. Most of them work by having a reelset where on each spin, a random stop position is chosen for each reel and the RTP / result probabilities are determined solely by the layout of the reelset.

Believe me, this is a subject I know a lot about. It is emphatically not correct to say that on a game like Book of Dead, it is “programmed to bring in a jackpot screen once every X thousand spins”. The outcome is entirely random and the game has been designed so the probability of a jackpot screen occurring amounts to a statistical expectation it would only occur once every X thousand spins. But there is no “pot” that fake big wins from the likes of Roshtein are removing money from, that’s just not how it works.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

If he plays with real money and isn’t funded by the casinos he represents, why does he only ever play at the same small group of linked whitelabel casinos and none of the big reputable names like Casumo, Leovegas, Videoslots etc.?

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

Just Basics wrote:

Same again 50/50 reply’s.

Thanks for all of them, and its great to see healthy discussions again.

The cures don’t make money….billing peoples arses off for years on end for meds’ makes billions.

 

This is not true, at all. Any company which announced and could demonstrate it had developed an effective generic cancer cure without bad side effects would become one of the most highly valued firms in the world overnight. Investors would be all but murdering each other to get a piece of that pie. Further, we are sadly not short of human illnesses and conditions which need research and treatment. It’s not like anyone would be out of a job or see their share holdings drop in the event of cancer being removed from the equation.

But ah! the conspiracy theorist says, there are natural cures they can’t patent so they keep them under wraps!

Nonsense again. Both manufacturing processes and tweaks to molecular structure can be and are frequently patented by pharmaceuticals deriving medicines from natural sources.

If there’s a cure being held back, why do pharmaceutical firm executives, employees and researchers and their families and loved ones develop and die of cancer at the same statistical rate as the rest of the general population? The suppressed cure conspiracy is deeply insulting to the literally thousands of people working and researching on curing a range of cancers every hour of every day.

The reason there’s no generic cure for cancer is because cancer isn’t one disease, it’s an umbrella term for hundreds of different diseases which happen to have in common the characteristic of involving uncontrolled cell division and replication. It’s like going “why isn’t there a cure for infection?” – because it isn’t one thing, what we have instead is a lot of different ways of treating different infections.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

Malkychamp wrote:

argyl53 wrote:

I’m so glad my network (Virgin Mobile) never offered me this, I would undoubtedly have fucked myself like a bonobo on Viagra.

Completely irrelevant but do you watch nightblue?

Don’t even know what that is?

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

I’m so glad my network (Virgin Mobile) never offered me this, I would undoubtedly have fucked myself like a bonobo on Viagra.

[ar argyl53 WANTED $419 Outlaw]

I’d rather stake The Bandit’s annual income on BJ to win and lose the bet than actually see him as prime minister.

[Author]

Posts