Roulette has no memory, it has no eyes, brain or calculator. I heard it, read it, debated it and agree too. Further, this universal rule says that previous spins have absolutely no impact on spins to come. If it is true, why in the entire history of roulette, worldwide, there has not been any successive hit of an EC even 36 times. With 18 different pockets for every EC bet, innumerable permutations and combinations are possible that can do so. Why it did not happen ever?
Those who has any solid reasoning or reference are most welcome to comment. No jokes or chit chats here, please. I am missing Bayes here.
"Roulette has no memory, it has no eyes, brain or calculator."
If these claims were true, nobody would never play roulette.
Each spin is an event that is associated with both, past and future events.
All events in nature are connected, everything is cause and effect, action and reaction.
The only problem we have is time.
Time does not exist in nature in the way wich we perceive it.
That is why we can not accurately determine when something will happen.
Its just probability isn't it?
0.0000000005% chance of 36 reds in a row.
Once every 185 billion spins
Quote from: Turner on August 20, 2014, 02:20:08 PM
Its just probability isn't it?
0.0000000005% chance of 36 reds in a row.
Once every 185 billion spins
:thumbsup: Best answer possible without getting into the philosophies of cause and effect, memory etc etc
Quote from: Leapyfrog on August 20, 2014, 03:59:28 PM
:thumbsup: Best answer possible without getting into the philosophies of cause and effect, memory etc etc
well...if I pick a number from random.org (1 number pick) then another, and another writing them down, after 37, there will be around 24 hit and 13 not
it didn't have a memory did it?
It just followed the laws of normal distribution and will fit into the 68% +/- 1 Standard Deviation around the mean on the Belle Curve, or may be a bit rare and sit near the top of +/- 2 SD ....perhaps 17 hit, 20 didn't....something like that.Because a wheel is an open system for all to see, and all the number generation is in the same place, we imagine it has a past. Thinking the past moves to present and on to the future is a human illusion.....in life in general. Yesterday, tomorrow...planning for the future, I wish I was 21 again (I do actually lol)
Quote from: Turner on August 20, 2014, 02:20:08 PM
Its just probability isn't it?
0.0000000005% chance of 36 reds in a row.
Once every 185 billion spins
Why such minuscule chance to happen if it is no way connected to past spins and results? Are you trying to redefine probability? I have heard that if there are 10 reds in arrow, 11th is equally likely and roulette wheel or ball can't recall past happenings. There should even be 100s of hits in succession, this way. Is there a boundary that roulette looks at without eyes and mind? All past events are unconnected and every spin is having same chances to hit red or black. Are we missing something? Mathematically, I am hearing two things, first say even 100s in a row possible since we should not take past into account, other saying 36 in a row is once in billions. Which one is correct?
Quote from: Albalaha on August 20, 2014, 07:01:48 PM
Why such minuscule chance to happen if it is no way connected to past spins and results? Are you trying to redefine probability? I have heard that if there are 10 reds in arrow, 11th is equally likely and roulette wheel or ball can't recall past happenings. There should even be 100s of hits in succession, this way. Is there a boundary that roulette looks at without eyes and mind?
All past events are unconnected and every spin is having same chances to hit red or black. Are we missing something?
Mathematically, I am hearing two things, first say even 100s in a row possible since we should not take past into account, other saying 36 in a row is once in billions. Which one is correct?
Nice post subject by the way
Well, its hard to understand I know....and harder to explain.
Forgive me if you know this, but the probability of the next 2 coin flips being both heads is 1/2 x 1/2= 1/4 or 25%.....for a fair coin
Now more basically ...the probability of 1 coin flip is 1/2. One possible outcome = H or T (we are only interested in H, but there is T also)
But to predict 2 flips, there are 4 possibilities = HH, HT, TH, TT (we are only interested in HH, but there are 3 others also)
You have to account for those 4 possibilities, and the way to do that is multiply the 2 odds.
0.5 x 0,5 = 0.25, or....(speaking about my second flip) my 50% chance now has a 50% chance = 25%"
So imagine 36 heads in a row? what are the combinations? (remember HH, HT, TH, TT for 2 flips?)
well lets start, and I will be here until next year.
1. HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH (we are only interested in this...all Heads...but there are millions of others)
2. THHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
3. HTHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
and so on millions of times.
Now can you see how the chances of 36 blacks in a row is 0.0000000005%, but every spin is 18/37?
Any help?
The reason why a long run of reds is unlikely is because there are a large number of possible "paths" from spin 1 to say, spin 10 (there are 1024), but only one of them will result in 10 reds. Most of the paths have a mix of red and black, and fewer have mostly red or mostly black.
There is no memory because on each spin the conditions are the same: no bias and the same number of pockets available as there were on the last spin. This means that any of the possible paths from spin 1 to spin X is both theoretically and practically just as likely as any other. The only way the ball could fall into red 100 times in a row is if there IS some "memory" (such as the black pockets being removed).
Another way to think of it is by using the word AND. AND means more conditions need to be satisfied (OR is easier to achieve). In order to get a run of 10 reds, the first spin has to be red AND the second spin has to be red AND the third spin has to be red AND...
That's a lot of ANDs, and therefore a lot of constraints. But the ball is in no way constrained to do anything, because all paths are equally likely.
Slacker puts the same thing I said another way...and his right.
But....what does become easier to comprehend is the fact that a normal looking RRBRBRRRBBRBRBBBBBRRBBRRRBRRRBRRBRBB had a 0.0000000005% chance of showing.
Quote from: Albalaha on August 20, 2014, 07:01:48 PM
Mathematically, I am hearing two things, first say even 100s in a row possible since we should not take past into account, other saying 36 in a row is once in billions. Which one is correct?
Albalaha - The answer is partly hidden in your question.
Yes even 100s in a row is possible. Maths does not say that it is not possible. Maths says that it is possible. However the same maths says that it is once in a trillion trillion time. There is no contradiction. The chance of that happening is once in a trillion time.
Is a scoreline of 13-0 in football possible. Yes it is possible, but how many times does it happen as compared to a score line of 3-1. Is scoring 400 runs possible in a test innings. Yes it is possible, but how many times has it happened in history. Is an individual scoring 600 runs possible, yes possible, but the chance of that happening is greater than the life expectancy of an average human being.
The problem is we confuse the mathematical term independence with memory. To avoid confusion, we should look at what independence means in mathematical terms. We should understand the law of large numbers has nothing to do with memory.
Cause and effect is philosophical where as probability is mathematical.
Let me try explaining the question that you have asked in simple terms with a real world example as it is a difficult concept to explain as Turner rightly says.
I am sitting in London holding a coin. You are in India holding a coin. Esoito from the shores of pacific is holding a coin. Victor is holding a coin in Venezuela. Turner is coming out of Etihad stadium completing his dream ending to the derby at 8-1. He calls up each one of us and asks us to toss the coin.
The same day, China is holding a competition called who tosses the coins higher. There are 37 people in the finals. Every one tosses the coin at the same time.
All these are independent events. There is no question of memory as none of us know what every other person has tossed.
It is more likely in the first scenario to have all tosses as heads than the second scenario. The law of large numbers applies here in principle. The larger the sample size, the average of the outcomes gets closer to the expected value of the outcomes. In other words larger the sample size lesser the variance of the final result from the expected value. The larger the number of spins, more likely that it will have a mix of reds and blacks and less likely it is to deviate from the expected value.
Getting a grip of this concept, really has helped me in playing roulette. Ask yourselves three simple questions.
- Is 3 reds in a row more likely or 4 reds in a row more likely. The answer is 3 reds in a row.
- Is a black more likely after 3 reds or 4 reds. The answer is they are equally likely.
- Is a red more likely after 10 reds or a is black more likely after 10 reds. The answer is they are equally likely.
Put all the above three questions together and you have your answer on why no one has seen 36 reds.
Quote from: Turner on August 20, 2014, 08:18:17 PM
is the fact that a normal looking RRBRBRRRBBRBRBBBBBRRBBRRRBRRRBRRBRBB had a 0.0000000005% chance of showing.
Oh Turner, please don't start the discussion of every set of random outcome is rare :) It is an universal fact :)
Things in world work in certain order. There has never been in history of the world for example case that in 10 minutes temperature changed from +20 to -20 degrees. Roulette also behaves in certain order. it's not a matter of memory. It's not like any combination of numbers can hit. If this was a case we would see combinations of spins hit like 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 for hours or days. But it's simply impossible. Things just can not work this way as temperature can not change from + 20 to -20 in 10 minutes. Just nature won't allow it.
Quote from: iggiv on August 21, 2014, 01:59:35 AM
Things in world work in certain order. There has never been in history of the world for example case that in 10 minutes temperature changed from +20 to -20 degrees. Roulette also behaves in certain order. it's not a matter of memory. It's not like any combination of numbers can hit. If this was a case we would see combinations of spins hit like 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 for hours or days. But it's simply impossible. Things just can not work this way as temperature can not change from + 20 to -20 in 10 minutes. Just nature won't allow it.
@Iggiv,
Buddy, you are getting a bit philosophical here. All combinations that are of same length are equally likely and they almost happen equally too. For example, chance to get 1-2-3 and 26-0-32 are same, i.e. 1/37x1/37x1/37=1/50653.
If we look and believe in "sequential probability", we can not say the same time that, future has nothing to do with past. Every spin is a part of a sequential probability and future comes out of the womb of the past. It is the past so many reds that puts a virtual limit to a sequence going infinite, otherwise reverse martingale player will kill casinos every day.
Quote from: Albalaha on August 21, 2014, 03:07:01 AM
It is the past so many reds that puts a virtual limit to a sequence going infinite>>
No it isn't. It is the future and recurrent 48.6% chance of black appearing next that puts a virtual limit to a red sequence going infinite.
The fact is 48.6% is a significant force to be reckoned with.
So significant in fact, it's what makes this game beatable.
Quote from: Turner on August 20, 2014, 07:42:49 PM
Forgive me if you know this, but the probability of the next 2 coin flips being both heads is 1/2 x 1/2= 1/4 or 25%.....for a fair coin
much prefer "the chance of hitting one head in two coin flips is 75%"
:cheer:
@ leapy....I'll take 8-1
@ iggiv...your view is based on belief not maths. You wouldn't get numbers like that because of normal distibution....they are too high standard deviation from the mean to exist on the bell curve.
Quote from: Albalaha on August 21, 2014, 03:07:01 AM
All combinations that are of same length are equally likely and they almost happen equally too.
That's not correct. All permutations are equally likely in a string of outcomes of fixed length. So RRRRR is as likely as RBBRB, taking order into account. But RRRRR is not as likely as RBBRB ignoring the order and just looking at the number of R versus B. That's why a long run of one color is less likely than a run which contains a mixture of R/B.
A combination is not a permutation. Combinations don't take order into account, permutations do. So "all outcomes are equally rare" only applies to permutations, not combinations.
Probability of 0 reds in 5 spins = 3.1%
Probability of 1 red in 5 spins = 15.6%
Probability of 2 reds in 5 spins = 31.3 %
Probability of 3 reds in 5 spins = 31.3%
Probability of 4 reds in 5 spins = 15.6%
Probability of 5 reds in 5 spins = 3.1%
So where is the equality?
Take one sequence "at random", say RBRBB. Sequential probability says the chance of this arising is (1/2)
5 = 3.1% but this is the same as the probability of 0 reds or 5 reds in 5 spins. What's going on? is there a contradiction?
Nope. It's just that in one case you're looking at outcomes in terms of order and the other case you're not. So the "mystery" is solved. The reason why you think a 100 reds in a row is possible is because you're looking at each possible sequence as a permutation.
And as for memory, try the following little thought experiment. Suppose you work in a roulette wheel factory and it's your job to test each wheel as it comes off the production line. You spin the wheel only once for each wheel and record the outcome, then do the same for the next wheel. Now, clearly these wheels, being brand-spanking new, have no "memory" of any past spins: your spin is the first. Do you still think it's possible to get 100 wheels each generating red in that one spin? if you do, you have to admit it can't have anything to do with past results, because none exist.
I got some good, some average and some great answers. Let me simplify the answer of this query, in my own way to sum up.
Let's take a coin flipping game. I enter a game of coin flipping, not being aware that in past 15 flips they were all heads. Now, if I want to make one decision/ one bet, betting head or tail would be equally wise or unwise because both have 50-50% chance to appear in this flip but if I need to make 5 bets to get a net win, it will be wise to bet that a tail will come in next 5 trials, considering both the sequential probability of 20 hits of heads in succession and 5 consecutive failures of tails(after you start betting). Getting 5 consecutive failures of Tails is 1/32 and getting 20 wins of heads is one in a million probability. Now, if someone loses here, he is an unlucky gambler who just saw a one in a million probability working against him.
Say, I lost. Now, a guy looking at this, started a 10 step martingale that a tail will hit is next ten flips. Now, if we consider a sequential probability of 1 hit in 30 attempts of an EC bet, the last man doesn't only have a probability of 1 hit in 10 trials working for him but also 1 win in 30 trials sequential probability at run. If he loses his 10 bets, it would be an almost impossible 1 in a billion event but if he just tries to win in 1 single flip after even 20 losses, he is having only 50% chance to win then and there.
Just to clarifying, I am not advocating playing after so many losses, because:
1. Say, if you decide to bet after 20 runs of an EC, against that, u may need to wait one million spins to get an opportunity to bet once
2. Every limit of consecutive win or lose of any bet is a virtual limit, we can't guarantee that there will be no 31st consecutive win of an EC or loss of an EC bet.
To clarify further, I am not advocating playing Martingale either, in any form or condition because I consider it to be the most foolish approach to try to win the least (1 unit is the max we can earn) risking the max we can afford or that table allows.
We haven't seen 36 reds in a row ever or maybe we will never see this because it will be a once in many billions event. Every single spin is free to deliver anything but if we talk of succession, it is a very part of a running sequence and has a virtual limit. I think 1 in a billion event can be safely presumed to be the virtual limit of the bet.
Seeing that Albalaha in his wisdom deleted posts and locked this thread, I've set up a similar thread -- with the deleted posts restored -- so you can continue this interesting discussion.