There is always going to be some unconscious bias that will affect the results of your method.

Some examples:

1. You will start at some slots more often than others.
2. Some knight moves will be more common than others (you might move clockwise with the knight slightly more often than counter-clockwise).

This means that there is an outcome that is statistically going to happen the most often (the most common starting slot + the most common knight movement).

3. You are also avoiding starting from the same spot multiple times in a row (and doing the same knight movements), which decreases the chance of the same result happening multiple times in a row. Your process would therefore make strings of results like: "444" slightly less likely to happen.

4. With the board being this small, the knight is also mathematically more likely to end up on certain numbers than others. You might be able to fix this by alowing the knight to move through walls, in other words, creating an infinite board.

Is this really more interesting than the pure strategy thing thread?

Using the deck of cards, but without using the information printed on it for 100% random results:

1. Take the deck of 52 cards.
2. Hold it in your hand in front of you (cards face down).
3. Point your eyesight perfectly horizontal and centered - so that the deck will be in your field of vision, but you won't be looking at it.
4. Flip the top card and try to guess if it's RED or BLACK.
5. Repeat this as many times as you want to get truly random results.

NOTE: You have to find the right spot (height and distance) for the deck within your field of vision. If you do, you'll notice that sometimes you will be able to guess the color of the card and sometimes not.

The string will be a completely random sequence. And since you're not using the information printed on the cards, that's fair, right ? The string will be based on fake data, so it won't be coming from your head or the cards neither. And what's funny, sometimes you'll be 100% sure you can see the color of certain cards.

Mission complete.

You are trolling

The price hike between Holo-Dice Roller ver 1 and Holo-Dice Roller ver 2 is totally unjustifiable :(

I'm just a brave thinker.

You created a 5 step randomizer process with a deck of cards.

Here's my version: draw a card and look at it

I truly apologize to anyone who has already read this thread for bumping it but my god was this a hilarious read

anero is the biggest troll on here. most of his advice is fishy or just copy paste off the internet.

I think that he just uses ChatGPT to generate most of his answers tbh.

Unless you're in a game where they're baned like a stream game just use an app on your phone.

This sounds like it would take up more brain power than playing poker

I just wanted to prove that human brain is able to touch true randomness. It's not practical, but it definitely proves something.

It doesn't. You will always have a bias towards something over another thing, whether it's a number, a color, a chessmove, or anything else. These experiments won't converge to a true 50 50 over large samples

Just because you think about something doesn't mean you've proved it.

Oh look, my useless library of chess theory is coming in handy again! Knights move according to parity - light, dark, light, dark and so on. So if you make three knight moves, you will always end up on the opposite color square.



This means if you start on a dark square (1, 2, 4), you will always end up on a light square (3, 5, 6) or vice versa.

If you want to roll high, start on a dark square. If you want to roll low, start on a light square.

^ lmaooooooooooooooo this thread just gets better and better

OP you need to update us with a new version

The results will be based on optical illusion, so it will be none of the following:
- reading cards (100% random)
- guessing cards (not random)
So the source of the string will be illusive data (light will come into play as a factor). This must be random in my opinion. I think you're thinking it will be the same as guessing cards - it won't be.

We can "touch" real randomness as humans and I believe we're doing this more often than we think. For example, when we have to make a choice between 2 options and we can't make our mind.

The fact that you're imagining the color of the card doesn't mean it's random. If it comes from your perception it will be subject to bias.

Prove me wrong, follow this process for 1000 repetitions without trying to control the outcome and let's see if it's anwyhere close to 50 50%

The deck of 52 cards is a pocket computer:

Thanks to real randomness the deck of cards can store data. We can't read it, but we can look at it. The data can tell how many times the deck has been shuffled and what kind of hand moves were precisely made by the person who shuffled it. All thanks to the fact that there are no 2 identical shuffles, every shuffle is unique and unrepeatable. If it could be repeated it would certainly give exactly the same result.

Saved file - deck of cards that has been shuffled one or multiple times and no other things have been done to it.

Reset - putting all the cards in the same alignment as they were when taken out of a new box of cards.

Corrupted data - it's created when we do anything to the deck other than shuffling. It's corrupted because it's not random.

Copy file - user can create a copy by aligning the cards in the second deck the same way as they are in the original deck.

Critical error - when shuffled cards align in the reset position. Not possible in real life.

Programming language - it's the thing we call "true randomness".