Quote from: JohnLegend on January 05, 2013, 10:44:05 PM


I care because I've been making my living from this game for 8 years.

8 years. At a game you don't even understand.

Let me give an example. You state over and over that
the outcomes from H/L are somehow different than
those from R/B and O/E. This is patently false and
here's why.

The wheel has 37 pockets. We number them for the
sake of keeping track of them. The pockets don't
know they have numbers. They don't know half of them
are high and half are low, half are red and half are black,
etc.

On an unbiased wheel, which is most wheels, the ball
falls in the pockets randomly, it doesn't play favorites. In
the end, all pockets come up an equal number of times.

Every pocket is a combination of H/L  O/E  R/B. To say H/L
comes up differently than O/E or R/B is a physical impossibility.
Its foolishness to think so. Its even more foolish to state that
its true. Yet you do it all the time and expect a complete
falsehood to be taken as fact because you say so.

If you ever want to be taken seriously, study the game and learn
how it works first. Otherwise you'll just be talking to yourself.

Quote from: MarignyGrilleau on January 05, 2013, 10:55:01 PM
And there goes the thread... 

I can tell you officially that I don't care. Sometimes, all you can do is laugh.

Gentlemen, please - let's play nice!  It's the emotive language that pushes people's buttons.  And it is largely unnecessary.  John, perhaps you are just a little battle-weary from years of exposure to other forums negativity.  I can't believe that you lack imagination since you have, as you say, found a method that has worked for you for 8 years.  Therefore you must, at some level, be still open to new ideas and growth, and hence you must allow for this to be true in others also.


I, for one, am interested in exploring your term VIRTUAL LIMITS and how that might translate to an efficient bet.  Your statement "matures inside 20 spins" implies studying the ecart as it unfolds and looking for certain conditions to be manifesting. This looks to me like you are finding a specific bet which is "efficient".  Presumably you will have stop rules in place also - which I would translate as stopping when the efficiency is gone (or profit/loss target is reached).  I would not like to get hung up on terminology here - we may be talking about the same thing, although coming at it from slightly different angles.


I'm also interested in why you would so passionately declare that this bet has no edge, and argue so strongly that the belief that an edge is needed is "flawed thinking".  Would you still say that if it could be shown that your bet does indeed have an edge?  How do you know that it does not?


On a personal level, I do believe that an edge is needed, as I have stated elsewhere - although I am most certainly willing to be proven otherwise - but for you to state so categorically that my thinking is flawed is insulting and disrespectful to me personally and to the years of work I have done to reach this point.  This is the reason why people react to your emotive language - you show no respect. 


Now, I know that in this tough world we have to develop a thick skin, but I do believe there are times when we should be able to relax our guards and be willing to expose ourselves a little in the interests of self-improvement and possibly to help others in that goal for themselves. I believe that the goal of the moderators here is for this forum to be one of those places and so we are a little more vulnerable here than we might be face to face.  Only bullies take advantage of such circumstances.


So I would like to make a plea to everyone to please: lose the emotive language, treat everything as opinion rather than fact until clearly proven, and be respectful and courteous in your writing.  Can we manage that?


thanks
Bryan

Spike - you are absolutely right - the pockets could be called apples, pears, oranges, cats, mice, etc.  - makes no difference.  Properties of "numbers as labels" have no place in the development of strategies.


A word on regression since it was mentioned by Bayes. My belief is this - I believe in the existence of regression to the mean as a statistical fact, but I do not believe that it can be used to provide an advantage.  The reason is this - regression to the mean takes place over such a long period that it is PRACTICALLY impossible to use it.  If a person is expecting the regression to take place over a short period of time (which would be required to make it playable) then the wheel must toss out another, compensating, abnormal run. Now, if you allow me to define "normality" as that which occurs within 2SD's then normality is what we experience 95% of the time.  So what is your chance of the abnormal occurring when you need it?  5% of course.  And that it is in the direction you need? 2.5% I reckon.  For this reason I gave up chasing methods based on regression a long time ago.


And why does this damn editor keep putting 2 CR's LF's between paragraphs?

Nothing abnormal has to happen in order to take one unit plus.
Follow indication and tendency that correction will start and place your bet. Be prepared for fluctuation and try to exit ahead. It is all speculation isn't it?

Quote from: sqzbox on January 06, 2013, 01:07:51 AM
Spike - you are absolutely right - the pockets could be called apples, pears, oranges, cats, mice, etc.  - makes no difference.  Properties of "numbers as labels" have no place in the development of strategies.

Once you name something, you expect to see it act in
specific ways. Better to always think of the wheel in
an abstract way. Work on what random might do, not
on what a wheel with named slots might do.

Spike, do you have a 200 x 800 screen..? or perhaps a Twitching Finger that has a tendency to hit the return key..!  You can go further along the page, we can all still see it..!

I agree 100% with spike. All numbers are same and these so called "group" of bets like Red/black, dozens/columns etc. upon table is made to fool us. If someone looks for a pattern in ECs, it is like trying to mislead oneself.
                        But there is another side of the coin too, which can not be overlooked. ECs or any group of numbers are  random betselections. Over a long term, every number evens out almost if the wheel doesn't have a bias. So these "pseudo groups" do balance themselves too.
                   Every betselection has proportionate advantage and disadvantage attached to it. A single number may sleep even for 500 spins (due to temporary variance, not due to any bias) but can "Red" or any other EC behave similarly? If a number can sleep easily for upto 500 spins an EC can also not appear 13 times, in a row. There is absolutely no limit to it.
         Again I ask same thing, if PB or martingale are bad ones, which one is better practically, mathematically and universally?
If someone can answer this, may be JL will stop playing PB forever.

Quote from: MarignyGrilleau on January 06, 2013, 01:27:13 AM
Nothing abnormal has to happen in order to take one unit plus.

That's right. Regression happens in different spin frames simultaneously and in multiple aspects. True, a sequence can drag on for 100s of spins at 3 SD w.r.t. red, say, but that won't stop you making 1 unit from a short term imbalance over the last 20-30 spins if it arises. Make your one unit and look for another opportunity. Do that over and over and you have the game beat.

Quote from: albalaha on January 06, 2013, 09:27:40 AM
                   Every betselection has proportionate advantage and disadvantage attached to it. A single number may sleep even for 500 spins (due to temporary variance, not due to any bias) but can "Red" or any other EC behave similarly? If a number can sleep easily for upto 500 spins an EC can also not appear 13 times, in a row. There is absolutely no limit to it.

Of course there's a limit. If there weren't, probability and statistics would be meaningless. The notion that a wheel is "biased" presupposes the very limits which you deny. To quote one of my favourite forum posters, TurboGenius - "Random has limits, math beats a math game".

Quote"Random has limits, math beats a math game".

Bayes, I consider u the most mature person on various forums I know of. If there is a limit, what is that? I have a query for you in  your maths section too regarding saliu.

Quote from: albalaha on January 06, 2013, 11:11:39 AM
If there is a limit, what is that?

It depends what distribution and event you're talking about. Each bet (EC, streets, single numbers etc) has it's own "nature" in so far as it behaves in a certain way. So in general, you wouldn't expect an EC to go missing for 50 spins, as a street might. You can express limits in terms of standard deviations (although that's not the only way). For example, if you suspected that a wheel might be biased, you might record spins and if you found that one sector was hitting more often than it should, then you would have some evidence that the wheel was biased. This is fairly straightforward and intuitive, everyone knows that a fair wheel should hit each number with equal probability BUT that there will be some variation. The question is, when does the variability cross over from "normal" randomness to become strong evidence that each number doesn't, in fact, have an equal chance of hitting? So there is an implicit limit in the nature of randomness. It isn't fixed in the sense that random won't "cross the line" (which is why it's a bad idea to "find" the maximum number of spins an event can sleep and then apply a martingale at the appropriate point in the sequence), but it can be expressed mathematically as a probability, which is the best you can expect.

Bayes,
    I always agree upon what u say because u r the least biased person I have ever seen but how can we see whether a wheel has actually biased or it is a temporary variance merely?

There is a practical limit, range which  breaks in 1/3  of the cases. Range which it breaks in 10% of the cases, and range which is break in 1% of the cases and so on until "infinite".


In practice we never see 37  number 4 in a row. As we do not see the last 37 spins exactly more again in our life time.


The problem using statistic is it is not very easy to make it working for us, it is still random, which is not predictable in short term. It is hard to know why a method is winning if it does.

Quote from: albalaha on January 06, 2013, 12:24:27 PM
Bayes,
    I always agree upon what u say because u r the least biased person I have ever seen but how can we see whether a wheel has actually biased or it is a temporary variance merely?

Found this article, might be of any help.
http://www.casinoenterprisemanagement.com/articles/september-2007/roulette-bias-...