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. 

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.

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