RNGs & Randomness - Food for Thought

[OTABILL]

I found another document published in the The John Marshall Law Review that, while dated (2002), is fascinating. It discusses gaming regulations and mathematics. I thought the chapter on near miss and ghost programs of particular interest. It would be really be nice if there was a more recent article on this subject. I will keep searching.



Gaming Regulation and Mathematics

[Vman96]

I found another document published in the The John Marshall Law Review that, while dated (2002), is fascinating. It discusses gaming regulations and mathematics. I thought the chapter on near miss and ghost programs of particular interest. It would be really be nice if there was a more recent article on this subject. I will keep searching.



Gaming Regulation and Mathematics

Good read...may be helpful if some other forum members read this.

And not surprisingly, one the biggest footnotes in the article discusses NJ's law regarding "games of skill".

[notes1]

OTABILL, great article, thanks. i keep learning more about casinos and the games they offer. 

[BillyJoe]

I love a couple of these quotes from that article...
The concept of random is elusive and its precise meaning has long been debated among experts in probability, statistics, and the philosophy of science.
That, of course, would include this Forum.
Two points are important. First, random does not necessarily mean equally likely (although in some situations it does). Second, what really matters with respect to the honesty of a game is that the outcomes conform to the prescribed probabilities in a long
sequence-randomness is a function of long-run frequency-and the inability to predict where in a sequence a particular outcome will occur.

Controversy still exists as to whether it is the outcome or the process which should determine randomness, that is, whether randomness is a characteristic of the arrangement itself or the process by which the arrangement was created, or both.

Disproving randomness can be easy. Proving randomness is not so easy. This is because tests designed to assess randomness assume the phenomenon being tested is random the null hypothesis), and reject this presumption only if the observed data provides compelling evidence against randomness. The reasoning is similar to the justice system in the U.S., where a criminal defendant is presumed innocent and declared guilty only when there is convincing evidence to the contrary.

Of course, we never would disagree here in the Forum - right ?

[Vman96]

Yeah, the whole "randomness can't be proven thing" should keep this forum very happy. But I will take 99.9999% confidence or whatever it is. Just because Nevada only requires 95% confidence (very antiquated law) doesn't mean that modern machines barely reach that threshold.

[shadowman]

People often get worried when the term PRNG is used because "pseudo" pretty much means it's not real. This is true internally to the RNG program, however, when this is combined with the continuously running aspect of current RNGs, the actual timing of pressing a button adds more randomness to the process. The result is the PRNG is just as effective as a real RNG.

[OTABILL]

Yeah, the whole "randomness can't be proven thing" should keep this forum very happy. But I will take 99.9999% confidence or whatever it is. Just because Nevada only requires 95% confidence (very antiquated law) doesn't mean that modern machines barely reach that threshold.

For the record, the following is the Nevada definition for an RNG: "“Random Number Generator” is a hardware, software, or combination hardware and software device for generating number values that exhibit characteristics of randomness." The interesting words are "exhibit characteristics."

Let me reiterate, I firmly believe that casinos do not engage in illegal shenanigans, only that it is possible, though not probable, that there could be wiggle room withing the regulations.

Technical Standards for Gaming Devices and On-Line Slot Systems

[notes1]

OTABILL, agree, interesting definition of RNG. While you believe the casinos would not engage in illegal acts,  would you concede that A casino might take advantage of any new technology or some area that is not covered by existing law, to their advantage?

[Tedlark]

Notes1 the manufacturers of the game cannot go outside the regulations of whatever gaming jurisdiction they are building the game for. This would not just allow the introduction of any new technology unless the new technology passed gaming regulations muster.

[notes1]

Tedlark, how do you address the 'near miss' situation? There were no regs/laws that dealt with this. This feature WAS installed in machines and those machines were in casinos. There was a reason that the casinos/manufactures added this feature and it was not for the benefit of the player. They did not break any laws, they took advantage of the gambling public's misbelief that a 'near miss' was an indicator of winning sometime soon. They knew the psychology of the player, they knew current law, they purposely added a feature to make additional money for the casino. and, according to the piece that was posted, NO action, or than removing this feature was from the machines was mandated. I/M/O, this cannot be disputed.