Hopefully this is a serious discussion. Those who wish to point out my ignorance, please do it quickly and then leave.
Is there an effect with no cause? Does the apple fall from the tree for no reason? No, there is gravity and Nature's natural intent that the apple fall. And the wind. And the occasional roulette player beating his head against the trunk because he played the Martingale. There is cause!
A definition: something that inevitably follows an [1] antecedent (as a cause or agent) (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antecedent)
So when we see RRRRR, is there a cause or did it just happen? I know the first-blush cause is that random is doing his/her thing. Does random "decide" when to do this? Or is random as helpless against itself as we are against it?
The crux of the post: If it could be true that random is helpless against itself, is there a way to exploit this weakness?
TwoCat
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antecedent (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antecedent)
Quote from: TwoCatSam on August 06, 2013, 12:43:50 PM
So when we see RRRRR, is there a cause or did it just happen? I know the first-blush cause is that random is doing his/her thing. Does random "decide" when to do this? Or is random as helpless against itself as we are against it?
The crux of the post: If it could be true that random is helpless against itself, is there a way to exploit this weakness?
TwoCat
Yeah...seems like this train of thought has been covered alot recently or maybe I am mentally sorting the posts and prioritizing...anyways...
After having just watched another installment of the "Final Destination" movies...I guess I have to think about this one in a new light...(so I will leave my final judgment I guess to some time in the future)
However....My initial thought is that exploitation of Random lies in having the bankroll, bet selection and intestinal fortitude to play out a string once you feel you have an advantage based on an advantageous standard deviation situation arising. The trick is to be able to play out multiple "opportunities" in a manner to "win" rather than to simply survive as it seems many players do.
"Random" presents itself by deviating from the standard but if the deviation is long enough and extreme enough we have a level of certainty over the course of enough spins that if our bet selection, money management and bankroll all fall in line...should give you an advantage. Of course, that being said...we know the first several attacks we play with that mentality most certainly has us facing RFH after RFH...but in the end if you can weather the storm...you will win and beat random at it's own game.
Of course with limited bankrolls, a limited amount of physical time you can sit at the table, combined with table limits and the drudgery of waiting for opportunites to strike (and then winning within the first few spins only to wait for another opportunity to again arise) the boredom combined with the aforementioned certainly pit human nature against random and being a betting man myself...I know where I'm putting my money on that match-up.
So I say Random has no plan to do us in and can just do her own thing at will because she needs no plan...and we will do ourselves in not because random is random but because random is relentless
Quote from: TwoCatSam on August 06, 2013, 12:43:50 PM
So when we see RRRRR, is there a cause or did it just happen? I know the first-blush cause is that random is doing his/her thing. Does random "decide" when to do this? Or is random as helpless against itself as we are against it?
Sam, it seems to me that this is an example of the mind projection fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_projection_fallacy). As I tried to explain in the original thread, the sensible way to think about probability is as a degree of belief, not as something outside ourselves, or the long-run behaviour of objects. So to call something "random" is just an expression of our ignorance. Under those circumstances, it seems reasonable to assign equal probabilities to each number or event.
it seems that our universe really isn't like the clockwork universe we've thought it is and that the cause > effect pattern is not the only explanation why things happen.
lately I started watching the two documentations "what the bleep do we know" and "down the rabbit hole". there's a lot of it on youtube. I find these two extremely interesting although I freely admit that I don't understand everything they present immediately.
cheers
hans
Sam,
i think Casualty is the correct name for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics))
In my latest video, I play the Lw Methodology. It "seems" there is a rhyme and reason there. Maybe that is ignorance, too.
Bayes
I am well aware of confirmation bias. I learned it from you! I am also aware the mind seeks examples to prove its beliefs and overlooks those which don't. I have read "Your Owner's Manual" many times. Everyone should...
Turner
Thanks for that. I always confuse causality with casualty. (I think I'm confused now!!)
Perhaps, in the future, I should not bloviate without having thought the whole idea over a hundred times.
Thanks, all.
Sam
Thank you 2Cat : )
Quote from: TwoCatSam on August 07, 2013, 08:10:20 PM
Bayes
I am well aware of confirmation bias. I learned it from you! I am also aware the mind seeks examples to prove its beliefs and overlooks those which don't. I have read "Your Owner's Manual" many times. Everyone should...
Sam, this is a different fallacy. Unfortunately, gambling is especially fertile ground for them!
Bayes
Are you referring to this: "real existence of imagined objects"?
Is the Cat chasing an imaginary mouse?
How exactly does the gentleman's theories connect to my post? Please elaborate. I am a bit lost.
(By the way, this IS the original post. Someone decided to mimic me. I deleted it and Esoito resurrected it.)
Sam
Some people don't realize that everything they hear or see is first run through a set of filters. These filters are our life experiences. Basically, we see and hear exactly what we want to see and hear. Personally I find it hard to admit President Obama has ever said or done anything worthwhile because I loathe the man. My filters make it hard to see any good in him. So I set them aside--sometimes--and admit: Yes, that was a good idea.
One book I read said it this way: Don't just look at a thing; look at the lenses through which you are looking at the thing. Hard to do!!
Read if you wish:
Twocats,
Since we live in a physical world everything has cause and effect, only sometimes it is hard to see logic in something happening and the boundaries are unclear. It becomes too trivial to acknowledge the cause since we are only really interested in the effect, the actual thing that affects us physically or mentally. In other cases the consequence is just too shocking to be able to comprehend anything else. Then also certain factors might conspire to lead to a unique scenario which causes some consequence that is simply impossible to understand; that consequence in turn becomes a cause of another effect and so on. At this point people start saying "Everything happens for a reason", as oppose to "This happened for that reason". This is the human mind unable to process enough information to see logic in apparent chaos; things then get dumbed down to an acceptable but vague terminology, most of which cannot be clearly defined.
There is a problem with your example of RRRRR. We know each outcome is independent, and there is only one wheel, one track and one ball that can land in one pocket. Thus you have not really experienced RRRRR, but rather 5 x R, by coincidence at that point, sequentially. Are they different? Well one example considers RRRRR as somthing that just happens. 5 x R defines five individual causes and effects. Mathematically with the player at a disadvantage it's impossible to win. On paper the game is beatable through the use of progressions. In reality, that is still not actually the case. Any bet selection that does not consider extraneous variables is really just a system, even if it doesn't have concrete rules, and in the end they are all defeated by fluctuation. My opinion, it is not worth understanding randomness in this game but time is better suited to discovering some bet selection(s) with a low enough variance to allow the safe use of progressions. I am talking about a bet with long periods of dominant wins and short periods of losses. Against the random game that is the real holy grail.
Thank you, Number Six. I'll study that carefully.
Quote from: Number Six on August 09, 2013, 09:55:13 AM
My opinion, it is not worth understanding randomness in this game but time is better suited to discovering some bet selection(s) with a low enough variance to allow the safe use of progressions.
Talking of low variances I often hear differing opinions about a particular kind of bet selection. This is the "when" part of the bet selection. One technique in the "when" part is counting for virtual losses and then start betting. Do you think that will lower the variance?
One arm of this forum seems to advocate this kind of selection. For example, the post from BW recently named "Whiz supper" and Spin4fun's tweak on Speedy Gonzales they talk about waiting for a certain number of virtual losses before betting on it. Not only them, even some books I read advocate this kind of betting. For eg the Brett Morton book I read, it talks about waiting for atleast 6 spins (or in other words 1-5 virtual losses depending on the pattern you are observing) before betting against the wheel.
Other arm of this forum seems to think otherwise. I read Superman's signature which said, "If someone says wait for 2 virtual losses etc when defining the system, that system is stuff".
Really would like to understand views on whether such a thing is going to lower the variance. One side of me tells yes, and other side tells it is an useless effort.
[attachimg=1]
@ Archie,
QuoteIf you can't alter the mean, then what of the variance.
You can have a distribution with identical means but different variances. Here's a simple example:
{1,2,3,4,5} and {3,3,3,3,3} both have mean 3, but the first set has positive variance, while in the second the variance is zero.
And it depends on the application you have in mind whether the variance is secondary to the mean.
QuoteMore (real) gains, entertainment included, have been made with quantum mechanics than will ever derive from roulette. And even then, it remains random.
Quantum mechanics isn't random, it's deterministic and accurate to 10 decimal places. It may be weird and not well understood but that doesn't mean it's random. The Copenhagen interpretation is just that - an interpretation (there are others which don't entail the assumption that QM is inherently random). It's another example of the mind-projection fallacy.
Priyanka,
There is a great mythology about techniques such as dummy bets, virtual tracking, entry points and all the rest of it. It is actually quite an interesting topic; simple yet complicated at the same time. For many, it can also be hard to accept that virtual bets hold no merit at all and are, in fact, a total waste of time. So, the side of you that says it's a useless effort it correct, it's not just opinion, it could easily by proved (and has been time and again). I'll try to explain why.
The simple fact is, there is no benefit in tracking. It doesn't change anything. A good example of this is to take a system similar to the use of statistical ecart, which I had tested a lot a few years ago. The actual system doesn't matter but I'll simplify it by saying, it's a system that more or less translates as waiting for a certain standard deviation in even chance bets and then entering the game to bet for a statistical balance. This might seem logical but it's based in a fallacy and it's really just a posh way of looking for a condition like: in any 60 spins, if any even chance has hit less than 15 times, begin betting that even chance from spin 61 until you have gained 5 units. In that sequence you would encounter an SD of at least more than 3.5. Anything above 3.0 is considered a rare event. Now, if you indeed entered the game at that point and began betting, 50% of the time the SD would increase to 4.0 or 4.5, maybe even 5.0. In that case you lose. The other 50% the SD will decrease to 3.0, or 2.5, or 2.0, in which case you would hit your target. If an SD of 3.0 is rare, then how can it possibly increase half of the time (and it is, exactly, half of the time)? The answer is, the maths of the game only applies to actual bets on which you wager real money. That is the reality, which people tend to ignore.
So, when you enter the game at a perceived 3.5 SD, it is a false SD, and the real SD is still at 0-1, within the realms of normality. Then you find that the probability only begins to change when you begin to bet, hence you win 50% of the time, and lose the other 50% of the time. Also bear in mind that when you enter a game with a particular system, you are in it for life. You can't reset it by playing short sessions or by playing in different casinos. In fact, you can't even reset it by playing a different system or two systems at the same time. The variance just follows you around forever, it doesn't know where you are playing or for how long. This is related to an interesting concept known as the personal permanence.
Interesting stuff Six [smiley]aes/coffee.png[/smiley]
Very interesting. Very conflicting views but enriching to understand and follow this. If that's the case, do you think you will be able to give me an example of a low variance bet so that I can relate the concept to a practical realistic example. It might well be a case that this is only a concept and no body knows what a low variance bet is, but it will be really helpful, if you can share more insights on this.
Quote from: Number Six on August 09, 2013, 02:43:04 PM
This is related to an interesting concept known as the personal permeance.
Hmm!! This is another thing that I was pondering upon. How having a target set or having a stop loss and breaking things into session is going to control your Bankroll apart from it impacting or creating a false perception in your mind about winning and losing. In reality it is a continuous flow of numbers, how much ever small sessions you break it into, isn't it. The only thing that will prevent it from becoming a continuous set of repeatable events is if we didn't have table limits. Am I reading it right?
Quote from: Archie on August 09, 2013, 01:53:08 PM
By definition, each cause has its effect (injective or not). But that doesn't define reality.
"... they are all defeated by fluctuation." - Variance is secondary to the mean.
"... with a low enough variance to allow the safe use of progressions." - If you can't alter the mean, then what of the variance.
I don't believe I provided a definition of reality? Each cause has its effect, is it not on a physical level...what's the point?
Who is altering anything? Maybe it is not wise to take the literal definition of an extraneous variable. Perhaps we should just say it's wise to consider all factors, even the unwanted ones?
Quote from: Priyanka on August 09, 2013, 02:53:17 PM
Very interesting. Very conflicting views but enriching to understand and follow this. If that's the case, do you think you will be able to give me an example of a low variance bet so that I can relate the concept to a practical realistic example. It might well be a case that this is only a concept and no body knows what a low variance bet is, but it will be really helpful, if you can share more insights on this.
yanks,
The more numbers you bet, the lower the variance. If you count the number of losses before a win when betting on one number the numbers (waits) will be much higher than than if you're betting on 24 numbers. So betting one number you might get something like this series: 34, 23, 59, 34, 144, 42, etc before you get a win, but for betting 24 numbers it will be something like 1,1,1,2,1,2, etc.
The payoffs are proportional to variance. So in other words, even though you have to wait longer for a win betting a single number, when it arrives you get paid much more than if betting on 24 numbers.
If you can get the variance down for a particular bet, then you have the possibility of using a progression which won't take you too far into brown trouser territory. :P
Thanks Bayes!
I think now am straying into another territory. Is the variance governed by roulette or is it governed by your bet selection methods. In other words, does your bet selection impact the variance at all. If no, (presumably am assuming that's the right answer), then what is the point in discussing a bet selection. Again I am assuming that's left to your intuition isn't it?
Also, another important thought process that crosses my mind is even though your variance is inversely proportional to the pay-offs, are you able to get down the variance and pay-off ratio by choosing multiple betting positions and placing the same units at multiple positions. Let me make my question clearer by quoting an example. Take the Easy peasy system. You start with betting 2 units on EC and 1 unit on a line. Is it considered to be yielding a higher payoff to variance ratio compared to placing 3 units on EC? I am assuming the answer is yes. If yes, then is that the way to go? If the answer is no, is it because the expectancy of pay-off against the variance of the individual elements (EC and line) within this will point to the same pay-off/variance ratio?
Sorry am asking too many questions, but I really like to get to the bottom of this to understand the game much better like you all do. And I don't have words to thank for the numerous answers you all have helped providing.
-Yanks.
@number 6
your post to priyanka
I agree with you...love the comment "really just a posh way of looking for conditions" for the regression to mean boys, hilarious!
I prefer Esoteric...to posh
but it doesn't leave us with much does it? other than a bunch of fallacies
What should we be doing then?...in your opinion
"Sorry am asking too many questions..."
Priyanka: No you are not!!!
NEVER apologise for asking questions -- it's a major way of learning.
[As an aside, that's why teachers are forever asking questions. It helps clarify levels of students' understanding, and helps give the teacher (and astute students) some thumbnail indication of progress being made.]
Like Popeye the sailor used to say, you pays your money you makes your choice.
And Mr. Eye found Miss Oyl and they lived happily ever after.
One of the best movies ever made....
Sam
Quote from: Number Six on August 09, 2013, 02:43:04 PM
the maths of the game only applies to actual bets on which you wager real money. That is the reality, which people tend to ignore.
I have to disagree with Six on this. How does the wheel "know" if any player is wagering real money or not? The answer is that it doesn't of course, and the maths applies equally well for both tracking and playing. The problem is that by
seeking out sleepers, you will always find them, much in the way that you will always find 12 or 13 numbers which haven't hit in a cycle of 37 spins. In my experience you have to look at multiple sleepers and correlations between bet selections in order to be successful. It's complicated.
@ Turner, regression to the mean isn't a fallacy, it's just that it's often mistaken for the gambler's fallacy - they're not the same.
Quote from: Priyanka on August 09, 2013, 04:14:55 PM
Thanks Bayes!
I think now am straying into another territory. Is the variance governed by roulette or is it governed by your bet selection methods. In other words, does your bet selection impact the variance at all. If no, (presumably am assuming that's the right answer), then what is the point in discussing a bet selection. Again I am assuming that's left to your intuition isn't it?
Also, another important thought process that crosses my mind is even though your variance is inversely proportional to the pay-offs, are you able to get down the variance and pay-off ratio by choosing multiple betting positions and placing the same units at multiple positions. Let me make my question clearer by quoting an example. Take the Easy peasy system. You start with betting 2 units on EC and 1 unit on a line. Is it considered to be yielding a higher payoff to variance ratio compared to placing 3 units on EC? I am assuming the answer is yes. If yes, then is that the way to go? If the answer is no, is it because the expectancy of pay-off against the variance of the individual elements (EC and line) within this will point to the same pay-off/variance ratio?
Sorry am asking too many questions, but I really like to get to the bottom of this to understand the game much better like you all do. And I don't have words to thank for the numerous answers you all have helped providing.
-Yanks.
The "official" line is that no bet selection can make any difference. However, this is usually asserted with regard to expectation. That is, roulette is a negative expectation game and will remain so, regardless of how many spins you track or skip, or how you choose your bets. But expectation depends upon the mean, not the variance, which means that there is no mathematical "law" which says that you can't affect the variance through bet selection. And that's what I've found to be the case.
Regarding your second point, not quite sure what you're getting at, but you can't affect the payoff/variance by betting multiple locations alone, you need to find a real edge.
Quote from: Bayes on August 10, 2013, 05:45:16 AM
Expectation depends upon the mean, not the variance, which means that there is no mathematical 'law" which says that you can't affect the variance through bet selection...t you can't affect the payoff/variance by betting multiple locations alone, you need to find a real edge.
With a good edge, variance almost disappears. Meaning luck no longer enters into the equation, luck and variance being the same thing.
Quote from: Bayes on August 10, 2013, 05:24:29 AM
How does the wheel "know" if any player is wagering real money or not?
It doesn't need to though does it? In the end you still supposedly lose 2.7% of your investment.
If you sit out five spins and see BBBBB then bet R, the probability of winning is still 48.7%, not perceived 98.7% (ie the gambler's fallacy).
However if you had bet all spins, and say were at -5, by the fifth black the probability of winning with your red would be 98.7%.
Though the odds are still 18/37, always offering negative value. Apologies for the crude example, but that is just about as simple as it gets.
It's proved through all long-term system testing, that only actual bets are relevant.
BTW, I think it is possible some kind of tracking is of worth, but not in the way you would typically wait for some kind of set condition.
Quote from: Priyanka on August 09, 2013, 04:14:55 PM
Is it considered to be yielding a higher payoff to variance ratio compared to placing 3 units on EC?
I wonder, judging by the first question in that post....do you mean, does betting multiple locations affect overall variance, or is each location affected individually? Or can you reduce variance by using some kind of secondary bet? Not really, overall you are covering 21 numbers in your example, to which variance applies. BTW, in my opinion it's best to choose a bet type, maybe ECs or dozens and master their use. These tend to be easier to play than inside numbers or streets etc.
Quote from: Turner on August 09, 2013, 10:14:39 PM
What should we be doing then?...in your opinion
Sports betting. [smiley]aes/wink.png[/smiley]
Quote from: Marshall Bing Bell on August 10, 2013, 04:04:52 AM
System players need not concern themselves with cause and effect. The roulette wheel will do as it pleases and the ball will land where it will. And yes, random is helpless against itself.
:nod:
Quote from: spike on August 10, 2013, 07:28:03 AM
With a good edge, variance almost disappears. Meaning luck no longer enters into the equation, luck and variance being the same thing.
Is it possible at all t get a good edge? Holding the name Spike, may be you might know more abt getting a sharp edge
Quote from: spike on August 10, 2013, 07:28:03 AM
With a good edge, variance almost disappears. Meaning luck no longer enters into the equation, luck and variance being the same thing.
i would like to see how how this edge is achieved.
At least he gets the 'point' of it all! :whistle:
(re: Spike)
Its all about variance. Small edge = large variance.
Like in BJ card counting. They have such a small
edge they can have losing streaks that last for weeks.
Even the casino has a small edge in its games and
can have losing months because of it. Identifying your
edge, be it negative or positive, is what's important.
That's the starting point, finding out why your edge is
what it is.
Quote from: spike on August 10, 2013, 07:46:15 PM
Its all about variance. Small edge = large variance.
True that, but variance as the norm for your ECs is low.
So, mathematically, a player should not need an edge to be successful with a betting system, even if the EV is negative.
Casinos can still be beaten from time to time by lucky players due to the volatility of the games. The opposite applies too but the casinos have more money and know how much they need to cover their payouts. Ultimately the volatility kills any progression or mechanical flat bet. Logically then an effective bet selection should be based on the player's confidence in the next series of spins. But can you ever be more confident than 50/50? We'll have to wait until Gizmotron releases his memoirs to find out...
Well you don't have to wait. I've always said that you can prove to yourself what
works. Take the swarms of singles or the sleeping dozen in the 2/1 bets. They happen
everyday. If you are an expert at detecting these conditions, and if you know how
to cobble together winning sessions exploiting these conditions then you have all
the proof there is necessary. Did you know that a parlay progression of just three
steps works great during long streaks of singles or sleepers? Here it is:
15 = 10/5, 20/10, 40/20 = 120 - 15 = 105 net win
after each large win you move up to the next step. One dozen gets 10, the other dozen
gets the 5. After the large win, the 10, becomes 20, and the 5 becomes 10. When the small
bet wins you stay at the same level. If the trend condition continues you have a fifty/ fifty
chance of moving up the progression. So it's break even or win while it's working.
Quote from: Gizmotron on August 16, 2013, 02:48:18 PM
if you know how to cobble together winning sessions exploiting these conditions then you have all
the proof there is necessary.
;D
That tickled me! We don't need any fancy terms. We just need to engage the old grey matter.
John Patrick is a strong believer of trends.
Frank Scoblete calls trend betting hindsight.
Old blue eyes Frank Sinatra croones " I did it my way .".
Nathan Detroit does it tjhe Ole Blue Eye way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>MY WAY
Happy Winnings whichever way. There is NO sure way.
Nathan Detroit
This is really a brilliant thread, I have just glanced over it and will take me a long time to review.
Just a little shout out 2 2Cat : )
From what I understand Prez Obama finds himself in a very difficult situation, and this is an understatement (from my perspective)
All I can say is imagine yourself in his shoes, but at the moment you only have 10% of his knowledge.
What we see on the news is a not a complete picture.
He is truly trying his bets and will ultimately succeed.
The only way positive change will come about is if we remain positive about Prez Obama and the world.
Mr. AMK
I'll leave you to your opinion.
TwoCat
Low information voters love Obama. The media loves and protects Obama. They
never connect his policies to the results we now see. There is a track record for
why the economy is the way it is. Japan has been in a twenty year downslide for
doing exactly what Obama is trying now. Same result too.
People that drink the coolaid are not expected to go beyond the propaganda
they are expected to consume. This is the new normal. Get used to it.
I wish we could all just get along. The world is a happy go lucky place if you
just let the government solve everything. There's nothing more rewarding
than a low information perspective.
Gizmo,
Spoken like a true conservative.
The govenrnment should fear the people not the people should fear the government.
Nathan Detroit
VRWC
ATLAS SHRUGGED !!!
[mod] Folks, please try to keep politics OFF the forum. It is potentially so divisive, as is already becoming apparent. Ta. [/mod]
Very happy to see TwoCat and Gizomotron respond : )
It is a honor!
May I ask what your best 3 systems/methods/etc.. are?
I appreciate your time.
Sincerely,
AMK