QuoteMeaning that even a so called perfect random game could be beaten beacuse it will raise the equiprobability of the outcomes.

ABG

Random=Balance??
This is a common misconception which could lead to catastrophic results.
The very notion of HE is based on the assumption that everything will occur equally in some vague and distant future, this is quite an assumption to say the least...future is not set in stone, if you get my point.

Quote from: delectus on September 14, 2017, 07:47:21 AM
Please note the random numbers at random.org and say an actual roulette wheel produce completely
different results. I have worked on random numbers for a great many years and I am currently looking
at the results for sets, when using random.org random numbers. It is interesting to discover the differences
and try to discover why there should be such a difference.

Very good point, an RNG, no matter if true or pseudo, will never be a wheel or a deck.
There is subtle difference which is difficult to prove and even if someone would step forward to do so without any motivation for personal gain, he/she could face the disbelief of others.
Just a hint, if you look into results separately in small chunks such as 1 or 2 at a time you would realize no difference, but when the total grows the subtle difference becomes observable when you know what to look for.
RNG's are just softwares, they don't confine to physical conditions and attributes which a wheel and a ball do.

Anyone who has bet on sleepers ( 3 x 37 = 111 spins is "officially" a sleeper), will be often aware
that irritatingly, the ball will land often either side of a sleeping number, say 1 & 16 the sleeper being 33.

A possible interesting research may be to examine random.org sleepers, this may point to some
differences, such as the above and when a sleeper appears.

Quotewill be often aware
that irritatingly, the ball will land often either side of a sleeping number

I've experienced this and also numbers to come 1 spin after you stop betting them.

I guess this is what we call bad luck! 

Quote from: Blue_Angel on September 15, 2017, 08:42:13 PM
ABG

Random=Balance??
This is a common misconception which could lead to catastrophic results.
The very notion of HE is based on the assumption that everything will occur equally in some vague and distant future, this is quite an assumption to say the least...future is not set in stone, if you get my point.

Very good point, an RNG, no matter if true or pseudo, will never be a wheel or a deck.
There is subtle difference which is difficult to prove and even if someone would step forward to do so without any motivation for personal gain, he/she could face the disbelief of others.
Just a hint, if you look into results separately in small chunks such as 1 or 2 at a time you would realize no difference, but when the total grows the subtle difference becomes observable when you know what to look for.
RNG's are just softwares, they don't confine to physical conditions and attributes which a wheel and a ball do.

Hi BA.

Nope. The supposedly raised equiprobability, imo, doesn't fit to the "random balance" concept you've mentioned.
The random world remains a random world, thus the long term balance effect cannot be exploited in practice. We must work on short term results.

The problem is we don't have any valid tool to ascertain whether the roulette results are really random or not. Again, imo unpredictability doesn't mean perfect randomness and vice versa.


RNG's are just softwares, they don't confine to physical conditions and attributes which a wheel and a ball do.

Exactly. Therefore whenever a fair software is going to act we should assign to the whole picture a higher randomizing effect than what humans might do.
From one part a higher random effect should guarantee the house the best value of the mathematical edge.
On the other end, the randomizing effect may present some "flaws" just because it wants to be and to appear as really random.

Depending on which events you want to register, the best way to assess what is going to happen is putting a relationship between what really happens and what the probability expected values dictate.

As Gizmotron brilliantly stated many times here, there are many different kind of transitory states.
Imo some states perfectly correspond of even collide with the expected probability values and of course they are the predominant part. Other states more or less strongly diverge from them, but we know they will happen. When? We cannot know the exact shifting points when such different states will mix and it would be a great mistake trying "to force" to get a "due" state.
Nonetheless the random flow of the game must shift from one state to another at some point.

Computers are stu.pids by definition, so imo they are programmed to get more uniform states, at least at the eyes of an alert player.
Of course there are always the physical features to overcome, but in many wheels those problems are quite limited.

as.










 









 
   



   

 





 

I guess you wouldn't (or couldn't) want to put your theory in practical terms.

Don't get it the wrong way but when theories and claims expressed in vague manner then nobody could prove or disprove anything, maybe intentionally maybe not, but the result remains the same.

Take me for example, someone who read your post and decided to reply, but why I've took such decision (?), it's not because I'm curious, not because I want to discredit you, but because I was wondering how such information could be applied in order to generate positive results.

People (not only online) often get me wrong because I speak my mind openly and it's much easier to observe on others flaws instead of positive facets, perhaps because the negative outbalance the positive, just a general sidenote.

I really want to believe that there is something afterall but I cannot see it, I don't want to fool myself either, but if someone like you would put forth what he knows that works in such a way which nothing would be unclear, then I would be the first person to congratulate him!
Unfortunately I've no valid reason to congratulate anyone, but reasons for the opposite...
Assuming that this forum is a medium for communication and each post seeks interaction then what's the purpose of the interaction?
I guess noone wants to speak with himself, so for me is 2 things;

1) to learn something useful = main gain
2) to laugh = secondary gain

If a topic fails to be ascribed under either of the above categories it's being considered as junk, by me at least.
Of course I'm not the only one who thinks like this...

To me, that is a brilliant post, that encapsulates what this forum is basically all about.

I congratulate you on your careful choice of words, and the care with which you constructed that post.

Very impressed...

All am asking is to show us how and reveal more details than just hints.

Is it so strange to you?

Nobody should ever really expect to read about a sure-fire winning method on a forum....just isn't happening, period! My conclusion is that you slowly learn what doesn't / can't work despite all the hype and even good intentions from the author. I must have given loads of bad advice down the years. It wasn't intentional, it was based on my thoughts / experiences at that particular moment in time. So the reality for any reader is that forums are a minefield if you aren't personally prepared to do a lot of hard work and think for yourself with a critical mind.

Quote from: Bally6354 on September 21, 2017, 04:20:47 PM
Nobody should ever really expect to read about a sure-fire winning method on a forum....just isn't happening, period! My conclusion is that you slowly learn what doesn't / can't work despite all the hype and even good intentions from the author. I must have given loads of bad advice down the years. It wasn't intentional, it was based on my thoughts / experiences at that particular moment in time. So the reality for any reader is that forums are a minefield if you aren't personally prepared to do a lot of hard work and think for yourself with a critical mind.

I like that statment so much so i will quote you at another forum ...

Cheers

Quote from: Bally6354 on September 21, 2017, 04:20:47 PM
Nobody should ever really expect to read about a sure-fire winning method on a forum....just isn't happening, period! My conclusion is that you slowly learn what doesn't / can't work despite all the hype and even good intentions from the author. I must have given loads of bad advice down the years. It wasn't intentional, it was based on my thoughts / experiences at that particular moment in time. So the reality for any reader is that forums are a minefield if you aren't personally prepared to do a lot of hard work and think for yourself with a critical mind.

We all do mistakes and we learn from them, sometimes we don't.
There is a Greek adagio which goes like this:

"Fools don't learn from their mistakes, clever individuals do learn in time and the wise learn from others mistakes".

Sometimes we have to learn living with our mistakes and their consequences.
The fear of mistakes doesn't have to prevent us trying do our best and share/help others.

If nobody would ever share publicly an advantageous strategy then what are we doing here?
Providing teasers which might lead to pitch sales?
Making new online friends?

When people strive together to bring out their positive sides then a progress is being achieved for a mutual benefit.

And last but not least: "The real failure is when you quit trying" J. Baptiste

Hi Blue!

Thanks for your sincere reply.

Imo the main mistake about roulette is trying to build a strategy working on every wheel.
It's true that itlr every fair wheel of the world will produce real or apparent random results according to the probability values. Nobody could argue this.
And of course nobody could say that the long term random world might be limited by our actions, no matter how are sophisticated.

Imo the key words to partially take hints from the above statements are "itlr" and "long term".

And of course there's always the "random" concept to deal with.

We might conclusively say that every wheel of the universe is unbeatable on long term, providing every single spin is really random. That is perfectlky independent from the previous one/s.

Therefore the confusing parameters are two: the long term and the perfect independence of every spin.

Besides their average profits, casinos feel safe when long term outcomes are deeply studied by chi square tests, sd values, etc.
They really don't give a s.hit about the perfect random nature of every single spin.

Actually no one single spin is really random, think about the employee who launches the ball in proximity of the last number occurred or the probability a given software would release the ball at a given spot and at a given velocity.

Unpredictability doesn't necessarily mean a total randomness of the process and more importantly a total unpredictability can only spring up from a perfect randomness.

Hence it's not a blasphemy to state that every roulette player is used to deal with a biased randomness in a way or another.

More practically speaking, a possible winning strategy may only derive from a careful observation of the limited  supposedly unrandom short term values acting in a specific wheel.

The ball may land here or there, after a given amount of spins may land here or there once or more times, after another given amount of times MUST land there.
Not everytime but more often than not. That's what we should take care of, imo.
Always depending aboput the actual wheel we are taking care of.

as.