Hello.
Firstly I'd like to state that you please excuse my terminology's as they may not be up to your own levels due to my english.
I have a question based on using an RNG which I have tried to find an answer for based on the concept that will be discribed below and have found nothing close although there is plenty of information on RNG's being used in slot machines and casinos, clubs etc which shows stats on the percentages of playing (winning and lossing) within the gambling world there is nothing that explains anything about the type of RNG I am trying to find details about so I thought that by coming to a mathematics firum I might hopefully find someone which may be able to help answer my question.
All the infomation I have found on RNG and their stats are calculated using a (for example) slot machine which involves a single player playing a machine which is programmed using an RNG format (I am at this point going to call this play a 1on1 format where 1 is the player and the other 1 is the RNG of that machine) why will make sense further on in my discussion.
This 1on1 format is the most commonly used in the gambling world and is commonly known as a game of chance or luck.
My Question is based on a new RNG format which has been quitely introduced into our gaming world without much question as to how this new concept works but yet when asked it still uses the old 1on1 matrix of explinations which I have come to beleave to be incorrect.
Why is that you ask?
Lets take a game that requires you to press a button and your result is a varity of targets in which you are bound without fail to receive one of but yet each target has a different low percentage value (say something like 1.3%, 2.7%, 4% etc) . So no matter what happens you will get something with each spin, there is no probability or chance/luck in that result as it is a 100% guarantee.
Where the RNG comes into play is in deciding which target will drop.
The other difference with this new type of RNG and this is where I have question is (unlike) the standard 1on1 RNG as we all know it this uses a single RNG for hundreds to thousands even 10's of thousands of players at any one time (I am going to call this method 2on1 where 2 stands for multiple players and 1 single RNG)
What is so different?
Lets say for the purposes if this expliantion there are 5.5 million combinations that the total amount of targets can deliver.
In a 1on1 RNG the number of combinations per spin that can be delivered on any single RNG (slot machine) is 1 and only spin (also known as per second) so if a target has a 1.3% chance of dropping then that single spin made on that single RNG mechanism only has 1 chance in coming round which means the probability if you getting that 1.3% target compared to the amount of spins made to get that target are basically one of the same thing because each attempt brings each probability back to 0 (Zero) being a whole new attempt so your percentages of getting that 1.3% target never change on a per spin bases which only leaves the percentage result based on hiw many attempts you make to get your target.
NOW THIS PART IS WHERE I AM ASKING YOU MATHAMATIC GENESIS's help with.
Now lets look at this newly upcoming RNG concept which has millions of users all spinning against a single RNG
If a single RNG which has say 100,000 spins per second (100,000 players pressing a button on the same RNG all at the same time) wouldn't the percentage target if 1.3% have a greater chance of coming round more often during that second (spin) increasing your odds vastly of you hitting your targeted goal.
Now the other side of that question is which also forms part of the question is, based on my theory it would also mean that your chances increase with the bigger numbers spinning at once.
"Remember I am using a single target for my example but the same is obviously so for all the targets involved."
This would also mean it removes the old 1on1 factor that the percentage of the target and the percentage of spins are also no longer one and the same it would change the chances of hitting thatv1.3% target which was increased compared to the percentage based on the number of attempts.
HAS this difference ever been made or considered to be a possibility within these newly created RNG systems or have they ever been tested in any way shape or form by anyone.
Your thoughts please.
Cheers
Firstly I'd like to state that you please excuse my terminology's as they may not be up to your own levels due to my english.
I have a question based on using an RNG which I have tried to find an answer for based on the concept that will be discribed below and have found nothing close although there is plenty of information on RNG's being used in slot machines and casinos, clubs etc which shows stats on the percentages of playing (winning and lossing) within the gambling world there is nothing that explains anything about the type of RNG I am trying to find details about so I thought that by coming to a mathematics firum I might hopefully find someone which may be able to help answer my question.
All the infomation I have found on RNG and their stats are calculated using a (for example) slot machine which involves a single player playing a machine which is programmed using an RNG format (I am at this point going to call this play a 1on1 format where 1 is the player and the other 1 is the RNG of that machine) why will make sense further on in my discussion.
This 1on1 format is the most commonly used in the gambling world and is commonly known as a game of chance or luck.
My Question is based on a new RNG format which has been quitely introduced into our gaming world without much question as to how this new concept works but yet when asked it still uses the old 1on1 matrix of explinations which I have come to beleave to be incorrect.
Why is that you ask?
Lets take a game that requires you to press a button and your result is a varity of targets in which you are bound without fail to receive one of but yet each target has a different low percentage value (say something like 1.3%, 2.7%, 4% etc) . So no matter what happens you will get something with each spin, there is no probability or chance/luck in that result as it is a 100% guarantee.
Where the RNG comes into play is in deciding which target will drop.
The other difference with this new type of RNG and this is where I have question is (unlike) the standard 1on1 RNG as we all know it this uses a single RNG for hundreds to thousands even 10's of thousands of players at any one time (I am going to call this method 2on1 where 2 stands for multiple players and 1 single RNG)
What is so different?
Lets say for the purposes if this expliantion there are 5.5 million combinations that the total amount of targets can deliver.
In a 1on1 RNG the number of combinations per spin that can be delivered on any single RNG (slot machine) is 1 and only spin (also known as per second) so if a target has a 1.3% chance of dropping then that single spin made on that single RNG mechanism only has 1 chance in coming round which means the probability if you getting that 1.3% target compared to the amount of spins made to get that target are basically one of the same thing because each attempt brings each probability back to 0 (Zero) being a whole new attempt so your percentages of getting that 1.3% target never change on a per spin bases which only leaves the percentage result based on hiw many attempts you make to get your target.
NOW THIS PART IS WHERE I AM ASKING YOU MATHAMATIC GENESIS's help with.
Now lets look at this newly upcoming RNG concept which has millions of users all spinning against a single RNG
If a single RNG which has say 100,000 spins per second (100,000 players pressing a button on the same RNG all at the same time) wouldn't the percentage target if 1.3% have a greater chance of coming round more often during that second (spin) increasing your odds vastly of you hitting your targeted goal.
Now the other side of that question is which also forms part of the question is, based on my theory it would also mean that your chances increase with the bigger numbers spinning at once.
"Remember I am using a single target for my example but the same is obviously so for all the targets involved."
This would also mean it removes the old 1on1 factor that the percentage of the target and the percentage of spins are also no longer one and the same it would change the chances of hitting thatv1.3% target which was increased compared to the percentage based on the number of attempts.
HAS this difference ever been made or considered to be a possibility within these newly created RNG systems or have they ever been tested in any way shape or form by anyone.
Your thoughts please.
Cheers