+ Register

[Johno-Egalite]

Nicely stated Luigi. I sincerely enjoyed your post and respect your approach.

Thank you.

Very welk stated, thanks

I know you have decades of table experience and are not stupid, if I tried to kid you or lie, you would spot it a mile away.

Permutations with repetition (n=2, r=4)
Using Items: X,o

List has 16 entries.
{X,X,X,X} {X,X,X,o} {X,X,o,X} {X,X,o,o} {X,o,X,X} {X,o,X,o} {X,o,o,X} {X,o,o,o} {o,X,X,X} {o,X,X,o} {o,X,o,X} {o,X,o,o} {o,o,X,X} {o,o,X,o} {o,o,o,X} {o,o,o,o}

Yes you are correct, however "pattern~wise, there is no difference between XXXX and OOOO, or XOXO and OXOX, or XOOX and OXXO and XOOO and OXXX and so on.

So you only have to contend with 8 patterns, not 16.  Same applies to your other posts. 

[alrelax]

On a side note:

I need to visit the town where my grandmother and great grandparents were born and raised there in Bay of Naples region, something about the racks of pasta they used to set outside because of the salt air from the bay, made it the best or something.  I have to get to Italy, I want to show my little boy his ancestry. 

[Johno-Egalite]

You have proven this HOW?  Please submit the valid formulae, or mathematical theorem, that proves your claim.

Yes you were correct 2^70 is not the same as 70^2.   I do hold up my hand, I should have checked Excel for the exact syntax of the formula, I didn't expect to come under such banal scrutiny over the format, next time, I'll make allowances for the habitual casino nit-picker losers that live with chips on their shoulders.

You can apply any bet selection you desire, any methodology, one-side only, betting or not betting every hand, trending, coin tossing any other form of tossing if feel the urge.  You can apply any form of bamboozlement, include any sales pitch mumbo-jumbo, heck you don't even have to apply it to any 4 hand sequence, however I choose 4 hands for simplicity. 

1   B   B   B   B
2   B   B   B   P
3   B   B   P   B
4   B   B   P   P
5   B   P   B   B
6   B   P   B   P
7   B   P   P   B
8   B   P   P   P
9   P   B   B   B
10   P   B   B   P
11   P   B   P   B
12   P   B   P   P
13   P   P   B   B
14   P   P   B   P
15   P   P   P   B
16   P   P   P   P


Winning v's Losing bets will always resolve to a 50-50 state, period, no matter what.  No other possible exception exists (even worst for roulette EC bets, as there is a zero to contend with). Doesn't matter how many hands you use as your sample, 5, 6, 10, 12, 20!!   Even if you apply mathematical based bet options such as Imbalance v's Equilibrium, Birthday Paradox, Bet Banker only, WD, everything and anything without exception resolves to a 50-50 state, PERIOD

Which is why testing is in reality a complete waste of time, because if your test sample is big enough, it will always resolve to a 50-50 state.  System sellers and other attention seeking posters (pay for view forums?), will skirt around, ignoring  difficult and probing questions, avoiding the undeniable, resorting to ridicule, abuse to mask the obvious.


However in my opinion there exists small sliver lining and certain aspects you can control. 

Firstly money management.  You can control all aspects of this, whether you decide to bet positive or negative, as well as controlling the amount you bet.

Secondly, you can control what sequence \ pattern will result in you losing consecutive hands, therefore applying some expected frequency against whatever your decision is.  Or you could simply decided to bet according to what you see on the score board, if you lose too many hands, then I guess you didn't choose correctly, which can become mentally draining very quickly.


Let me present an example using the 4 hand combination table above.

Take the sequence XOXO or OXOX v's XXXX or OOOO (basically 4 chops v's streak of 4).

Despite the maths of winning v's losing bets resolving to a 50/50 state as well as the odds of losing 4 bets in a row being the exact same.  If you had to make a choice of which sequence was to be your nemesis pattern, I personally would choose a streak of 4 over 4 chops, based purely on chops consist of 50% of all results, a 4 streak should occur 6.25% of the time.  My decision takes nothing away from the fact the odds of losing 4 bets in a row is 0.5^4 = 1/16  (I'm treating B and P bets equally, before anybody nit-picks).   

[Johno-Egalite]

On a side note:

I need to visit the town where my grandmother and great grandparents were born and raised there in Bay of Naples region, something about the racks of pasta they used to set outside because of the salt air from the bay, made it the best or something.  I have to get to Italy, I want to show my little boy his ancestry.

Children, teenagers, young adults don't appreciate ancestry or heritage until much much later in life, late 30's, 40's if your lucky.   

[Nickmsi]

Hello Lugi  . . .

"everything and anything without exception resolves to a 50-50 state, PERIOD"

Yes, this is true when you are playing the Casino's game of each single spin/hand.  They are indeed independent.

But if you play your own game of playing every 3 Spins/hands rather than each one, then you can change the 50% to 42%.

Spin # 1:  NO BET
Spin # 2:  FTL (Follow The Last)
Spin # 3:  FTL
End of Game

Spin # 4:  NO BET
Spin # 5:  FTL
Spin # 6:  FTL
End of Game
Etc.

Both Lisa Goldberg, PHD UC  Berkeley and Joshua Miller and Adam Sanjurjo in their dissertation  "Surprised by the Gambler's and Hot Hand Fallacies? A Truth in the Law of Small Numbers"  have concluded

"We prove that in a finite sequence of data that is generated by repeated realizations of a binary i.i.d. random variable, the expected proportion of successes, on those realizations that immediately follow a streak of successes, is strictly less than the underlying probability of success."

I concur ancestry and heritage not appreciated until later in life.  I am off next week to appreciate my grandsons in Colorado.

Ciao

Nick

[alrelax]

I concur ancestry and heritage not appreciated until later in life.  I am off next week to appreciate my grandsons in Colorado.

Ciao

Nick
[/cequote]

No argument.  I was the same, could not give a rat's behind about who was who when i was growing up or even in my 20's.  Probably first thought and questions had to be in my 30's.

However, I have an extremely small family, as both my parents past away and I have a bother far away from where my son is and he sees him once every couple years.  His half sister from my first marriage is now in Vegas so he might see her once in awhile.  But he is around his mom and his half brother/sister and her extended huge family all the time.  Hence, everyone teases him that he is 'the white boy' of the family.  He has actually recently asked me about my side of the family and I am serious about the trip to Italy within another year or so.  I won't be around when he is in his 40's. 

[Johno-Egalite]

Yes, this is true when you are playing the Casino�s game of each single spin/hand.  They are indeed independent.

But if you play your own game of playing every 3 Spins/hands rather than each one, then you can change the 50% to 42%.

Spin # 1:  NO BET
Spin # 2:  FTL (Follow The Last)
Spin # 3:  FTL
End of Game

Spin # 4:  NO BET
Spin # 5:  FTL
Spin # 6:  FTL
End of Game
Etc.

Hi Nick, I did mention the player can stop and start whenever they wish, for example, once a win is achieved, stop and wait for the commencement of the next round of betting.  FYI I never view or bet independently, every bet I place , I view as a series of bets, even if I win my first placed bet, then I will no-bet until the start of the next sequence.  Those that like to read the score-board, trend the shoe, IMO are playing a single hand type of game, which personally I loathe.

I'm trying to figure out how to apply the example you have shown, i'm assuming using columns of 3's and betting FTL for two bets?

Please feel free to correct me if i'm wrong, but this is how I see it.

XXX = NB WW
XXO = NB WL
XOX = NB LL
XOO = NB LW

(a reverse of the above)
OOO = NB WW
OOX = NB WL
OXO = NB LL
OXX = NB LW

8W's and 8L's, if the player stopped after hitting their first win, the result would be 6W's v's 6L's

Both Lisa Goldberg, PHD UC  Berkeley and Joshua Miller and Adam Sanjurjo in their dissertation  �Surprised by the Gambler's and Hot Hand Fallacies? A Truth in the Law of Small Numbers�  have concluded

�We prove that in a finite sequence of data that is generated by repeated realizations of a binary i.i.d. random variable, the expected proportion of successes, on those realizations that immediately follow a streak of successes, is strictly less than the underlying probability of success.�

I have just found the paper you refer to http://www.thebigquestions.com/hothand2.pdf
I'll have a read of it, to be frank already I'm not convinced, this seems very similar to the "Penny-ante Nontransitive paradox" which I did test when it first came up on at Gamblers Glen over 10 years ago. It could not be applied to the game of Baccarat.   

If they are suggesting an uneven distribution to favour FTL (heads), then I'm definitely a skeptic, because as you can see from above, the worst possible sequence is two chops following the No Bet hand (LL).  The most frequent sequence in Baccarat are chops!!

Label me a skeptic, personally I would much prefer to encounter 'LL' against the pattern XXX and OOO than XOX and OXO, much prefer to have my nemesis to be a streak of 3 than 3 chops, that is just the way I judge the game, the Zumma stats will run true.

 

[alrelax]

Exactly what I do with sections and turning points. It identifies as what has happened and what has not happened in a better system than the scoreboard presents.

Nothing continues however nothing is assured to come out either.

It allows my expectations to be much more realistic and more in tune with most shoes especially for the shorter and stronger or weaker and of course the neutral shorter sections of them.  Rather than a continuance of more than four to seven hands at least the majority of times, which almost everyone expects to happen or wants to happen that plays the game.

And that's a lot of what I have been preaching.

[BEAT-THE-WHEEL]

Gentlemen,
The best we can , is to devise a method that always hit math expectation within HE, which the mathboys can't dispute,
But then, again, they will say, in short run, we might hit long expected Extreme Varinace....

Thus imho,
Have a selection that very STABLE, (in medium run), say, 100 to 200 placed bet, or 100+ group of sequence attack,
Expect the occurance of long variance, avoid the long variance,  and mild progression, and cut loss strategy..

An EDGE is possible, but need 10000 placed bet, which just impossible in BM...

If and when we have confidence and faith, that our selection very stable, albeit with long sequence of variance, then its not difficult to win.

In fact, long variance in stable selection, is a blessing,  when we simply outwait them, ....

[Nickmsi]

Hi Lugi, rather than interfere with this thread I posted a response at:

https://betselection.cc/roulette-forum/use-mathstatistics-to-beat-roulettebaccarat-part-2/

Thanks

Nick