A Big lie – goes the title of the famous blog by author R D Ellison. Often in my school days I used to hear the conspiracy by Americans on their claims for the first to reach the moon. A Big lie said one side and a great achievement said the other. Warren commission concluded that Oswald was the lone gunman behind JFK incident and there is a section that says it is a big lie. Elvis death in 1977 is a big lie to a section. And that is the wonder of the sixth sense we hold. Arguments. Opinions. Theories. Philosophies. Beliefs.
Beliefs have a great part in making a man what he is. And I believe no one is an exception to this rule. Some believe things as it is said, some believe in what they see and some believe in things which are proved. Again different beliefs when it come what is to be believed. Roulette and gambling is not an exception especially with loads and loads of things lying in the shades of grey. Last few months, I have been lucky enough to get introduced to this world of roulette, the beliefs and disbeliefs, agreements and disagreements, learnings and un-learnings. It interests me and will keep on interesting me for days to come.
One such believe is 13 and 31 and their affinity. I have seen posters with strong belief to this affinity. Some accept that it is illogical, but still believe the affinity owing to what they have seen in the past. Irrespective of whether I look at American or European wheels, they are placed distant from each other to qualify for a neighbour bet. Apart from both being black, odd and falling in the first column, I can't see any similarities from a wheel or table perspective. So I decided to experiment. 1000 spins from Wiesbaden, 1000 from my own collection that I played in view casino and 1000 from random.org. Affinity was tested against 5 spin sequence and 10 spin sequences. Affinity of 31 and 13 vs 31 and 12 vs 31 and 32. Surprisingly 31 vs 12 resulted in a profit situation as opposed to losses for the other two. Does that mean 31 and 12 is a better bet compared to 31 and 13?
My conclusion and belief is one on one, slot on slot, spin on spin the outcomes are independent. 31 and 12 is no different from 31 and 13. Will be very interested to hear what others think.
You sample is very small to get any conclusion. Although it needs no testing that 12 and 31 or 12 and 32 are no way related to each other or together can do any good.
I did a big test on this and of course 13 followed 31 no more than any other...and what ever did show as being higher than average...say 2 follows 15....didn't in the next test.....so yes...some pairs hit higher than others in a sample..
I think its in here or cc.roulette called 31 follows 13...or 13 follows 31...can't remember
Quote from: Turner on August 13, 2014, 10:42:57 AM
some pairs hit higher than others in a sample..
Great to hear some concurring views.
Quote from: Albalaha on August 13, 2014, 10:10:18 AM
You sample is very small to get any conclusion.
Albalaha - I would be really interested in understanding this better. I have read elsewhere that when you test 1 million spins, the next 1 million will show up a completely different beast. Which essentially mean that any sample size will remain inadequate to understand the principles of randomness. What sample size is a good sample size to you and why do you think so?
My sample size is based on the fact that I would approximately play about 700-800 spins a month and someone who plays 10 hours everyday for a month may do approximately 3000 spins.
@Leapy,
Maybe this could be a good reference point that you need to know:
http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/4297616/authentic-way-effectiveness-playable#.U-tM5MWSxA4
If your method stays positive after 100k placed bets, it has genuine superiority. Even if it doesn't go positive but reduce the house edge from 2.7% to 1% or lesser, it is worth playing.
http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=11293.msg100277#msg100277
Found it
When Victor started rf.cc, there was a guy with username "compa". He was given an exclusive section too. He wrote a holy grail telling when u see A,B,C numbers bet red and when u see X,Y,Z numbers bet black. I asked him what is the relation between them he answered you don't understand roulette.
In playing betvoyager I often noticed that 0, 26 and 32 seem to come together but if we try to utilize any of such self-earned fallacies, we get to know it was merely a coincidence or a random dance looking predictive. Obviously when we test more, we learn from our mistakes. Please do not take otherwise but this topic doesn't deserve more debate.
Quote from: Turner on August 13, 2014, 12:01:12 PM
http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=11293.msg100277#msg100277
Found it
Thanks turner. Wish I found it earlier. Would have saved a couple of hours :)
Quote from: Albalaha on August 13, 2014, 11:37:29 AM
@Leapy,
Maybe this could be a good reference point that you need to know:
http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/4297616/authentic-way-effectiveness-playable#.U-tM5MWSxA4
Thanks Albalaha. I had seen this in Kavs site as well. My problem is am trying to understand the basis of this claim. Why would anyone say that it is a winning system based on the numbers defined there? Why is 1000 not 500 or 2000. Why is 50 not 25 or 100.
The basis of the claim is mathematical. Shorter periods usually can suffer from negative or positive variance and can give misleading results.
If you can't test a method by 100k bets, in a row, do 100 sessions of 1000 bets each. If a method can even reduce the house edge, in long run, it is playable and it has the edge. Coincidence, won't let you win for 100,000 bets.
Thanks Albalaha for the clarification.
I think I will have to leave it there as still am left wondering why it is 100000 and not 90000 or 110000 and not able to understand the mathematics behind the magic 100k
There has to be a standard to measure something. Why do we use centimeter or millimeter to measure? we can use our fingers too. When Van Klein wrote this theory he must have reasoning to ask for 100k placed bets to determine the effectiveness of any method. If a method defies the house edge even slightly, it is worth trying.
Have you ever thought why a meter has 100 cm or why a dozen have 12 count. Mathematician who used them first has logic for them and if we do not know those logic we can't question them either. By the way, if you are happy with testing 90k or 110k, do that.
Hello LF
There are ways and ways of looking at opportunities. Some cannot see the wood for the trees.
One of my colleagues who is a brilliant creator of methods, and thus someone who must do an awful lot of testing to eliminate appearances from reality, is a scientist by training and thus brings the scientific method to test his theories. He plays in many modes, but with great success on RNG in one website where he has achieved excellent results over a 12 month audit of his play. In passing I should note he takes great care to avoid being beaten by any form of cheating and there are ways to reduce such risk, and the sums he wins would not cause alarm.
He tests from data of 10,000 spin sets and uses 30 of such, according to the Charles Theory, ie uses 300,000 spins. This is a formidable tool. I recommend it if large sample sizes are required.
However the essence of roulette is to be able to read short cycles, based on human live perception, and take advanatage of opportunities when they present themselves. Philosophically I see the universe as abundant in resources which are infinite, and thus we are surrounded with opportunity, but let us limit this to roulette in short cycles. Still abundant.
However most may be invisible to us unless we open our eyes and perceptions.
The 13/31 ratio is an opportunity if you know how to look at it.
I have written extensively on this in my Blog. At times it is a rich source of potential profit, at other times one must wait. That is the nature of short cycle analysis in roulette, access to a ratio, and then set the traps to operate when the opportunity presents itself, sometimes immediately, sometimes strongly, sometimes weakly.
My approach is to set a trap that uses corner bets mainly 10/14 and 28/32 and to use a wheel and table neighbour spread but in focus on the reversals.
You miss the point entirely if you test for 100,000 spins or more on 13/31 ratio or 12/21 or 23/32. Of course they are independent. But they also cluster in cycles. Cluster analysis reveals that it is necessary to tune for the most effective and efficient bet to trap these short cycles. That requires experimental testing on a large scale but is a lot of fun. This works, and is a source of great excitement.
It just depends how and where you look.
Do not look at spins as just independent, but also see them in overlapping groups.
Hope that fires your imagination.
XXVV
Richard
With all due respect...I am surprised to see you give the time of day to the mumbo-jumbo of 31-13 and number reversal. It isn't viable and has no basis, only in the realms of supernatural. 13 doesn't follow 31 in any natural way....no more than 12 follows 0 or 35 follows 7.
Numbers follow each other more than once over time, and every pair (all 666 of them) will have its day where it hits more than most over a period of spins.
I wish I hadn't said 666 now because some "new age numeracy hippy" will latch on to it......so I change that to 1332 because each pair is reversible.
@Turner
Nice to share a thread again with you. Clearly you have not read my extensive notes on reversals in the Blog.
Haha, also yes there is a heavy instant karma price to pay for alluding to 666 -lol. My posts passed that total without impact last month but I was half anticipating reactions. That of course is the essence. We trigger by half expectation -lol.
Actually to digress a little, and I am not giving away too many secrets here, Classical Hebrew transposes numbers and words with striking and intended meaning. This is termed Gematria. All sorts of hidden and intended meanings were 'ascribed' by the classical scribes/ scholars enabling hidden links where two Gematria totals are equaled by two quite different words. I won't go into further detail here.
You may be pleased to hear that 'Love' through its Hebrew letters, each of which has a number, adds to 13 total. It is a beautiful number but tell that to the Knights Templar on a Friday.
Of course my favourite is Zero and the Hebrew letter Aleph ( not available on this keyboard is exquisitly beautiful, and at one level is linked to zero).
Remember the cover of the great Santana first album - you will see Aleph featured there. All and Nothing.
So mystical connotations may or may not be your scene, although I would have thought.....
You are missing the point. It is not the direct 13/31 link but the associations from time to time. It works for me because I target neighbours - you have to make allowances.
Mike will understand this. He knows I deal in grey areas, but of course in black and white if it comes to contracts. Some people get agitated with 'grey' or 'neighbours' because it is not compartmented or logical enough for them. My argument is that, as in building, we design 'tolerance' which allows for better fit - hence my frequent fuzzy logic reference to the Porsche factory and precise assembly of complex curved shapes. Frank Gehry the great LA Architect uses the same tolerances when designing his twisted galleries and museums and hotels. Actually the CAD systems the Architects use come from aircraft design and manufacture.
On a recent doco I saw the fabulous Ferrari 250 GT - GTO- the great racer from the 60's and to me one of the most beautiful cars ever made. It achieved its shapes by aluminium panels beaten over wood molds. Every car was thus slightly different and unique and in the model seen, one door was longer than the other by either 25mm or was it 250mm - anyway significantly different!. Fuzzy logic ( grey thinking mathematics changed all that).
You will appreciate as well as 13/31 I could choose 0/34 or 1 and 30. It makes no difference. What I am simply saying is that the reversals are easy to remember and attack, especially 13/31 through the two corner bets! Every pair of numbers will have its time in the sun.
Smoke and mirrors!
R.
XXVV
lol....ok...I succumb to your lyrical waxing.
See...I like milk, but wouldn't pour it over Fish and Chips. I like mystical stuff....but wouldn't pour it over roulette.
Gravy on fish and chips.....maths and probability on roulette (with a pinch of LOTT)
Albalaha - thanks for taking the time to reply.
Quote from: Albalaha on August 13, 2014, 06:36:30 PM
There has to be a standard to measure something.
So am assuming van Keelen's method is the standard for roulette testing? Is that right?
Quote from: Albalaha on August 13, 2014, 06:36:30 PM
if we do not know those logic we can't question them either.
don't take me wrong, I am not questioning the logic. I am simply asking if anyone understands the logic and share it so that i can understand it. I am no one to question the logic.
The problem i have got is I am starting to doubt whether there ever existed a mathematician existed called as Van keelen. Does anyone know anything about this mathematician, which century he belonged to etc or is the van Keelen test just scam without any basis.
Quote from: Albalaha on August 13, 2014, 06:36:30 PM
why a dozen have 12 count
Dozen comes from the french word douzaine which means a group of twelve, in turn from cardinal number douze which is 12. Supposedly, this practice of placing things in a collection of 12, originated from the practice of counting the finger bones in ones hand using the thumb. So using one hand you can count 12 and two hands you can count 144 which is also called "gross". This is my understanding of the practice behind counting in dozens and why it is 12.
Quote from: Albalaha on August 13, 2014, 06:36:30 PM
why a meter has 100 cm
A meter does not have 100 cm; a meter is divided into 100 cms. What it means is a metre is the fundamental unit of length. 1/100th of this measure is cm so on and so forth.
QuoteA meter does not have 100 cm; a meter is divided into 100 cms.
Oh, I never knew both things have different meanings. Do we argue for the sake of arguments or we wish to learn something?
Do you have any doubt that a method that does nothing to house edge, in long term can not be profitable? Do you want to challenge the theory propounded by Van-Klein? Any hypothesis or assumption can win or lose in short run. It is the long run that matters. If a method has nothing to do with long run, it is a sure loser.
Albalaha - I wish to learn. I am very thankful that you took time to explain when I asked for a view. I am not arguing any point here, I am just trying to understand. So please don't take me otherwise.
I understand and concur with your view that if a method has nothing to do with long run it is a loser. That is my belief as well. But I am questioning my own belief here. My only question is what is long term and what is it based on? If it is 100000, why is it not a million or a 1000. Does van keelen, if he existed, has any basis behind putting a 100000 number as the threshold or is it based on the fact that it is a large number? If there is a basis other than the fact it is a large number what is it? Curious, and I don't expect you to know the answer. I am just politely asking whether you can share in case you know the answer.
Let me describe my problem in a bit more detail. I have a set of million spins that I downloaded from this forum. I split it into 10 sets, because I wanted to test an EC selection of mine. In 3 of the sets of 100000 spins it passed the van keelen test. In 7 of them it failed. Overall for million spins it failed. So that means essentially it is a losing System and which has passed van keelen test 3 times. If van keelen hypothesis is right then the test results has to be consistent.
Am I missing a trick here?
Some interesting stuff here, http://www.win-maxx.com/basics/ (http://www.win-maxx.com/basics/)
14 years on and a lot of this is still being thrashed out today
Van Keelen is one of them
The Van Keelen Test
Every serious system player is interested in an objective method, giving him information whether his system has a certain value and is going to produce a net profit in the long run.
Beside the "Statistical Ecart" and other test options, with which we will deal in one of the next issues of Basics, "the Van Keelen Test" is a simple measuring procedure, with which the player can determine the chances of success or failure of his system.
The Van Keelen Test, which was developed decades ago, will give the player information about the value of a system, and requires the player to check his system over a certain number of placed bets before he begins the practical play.
This again has the advantage that possible losses only develop on paper and not in reality at the table!
The Van Keelen Test sets into relationship the net gain of a system to the number of placed bets, whereby the minimum number of the placed bets checked for all chances must amount to at least 1000.
The units wagered must be of equal value; no progression is to be used! It is very important to point out that we speak here of placed bets, not spins!
To check a system over 1000 spins, has no meaning!
This testing method has the inestimable advantage that a system must be checked at least over 1000 placed bets, and on this basis a prediction about the value of the checked system is possible.
With 100000 *checked bets, even a negative result can be still another feature of a good system. Because if a system indicates a real superiority over ZERO, the possibility exists, that with an adapted progression continuous gains can be obtained.
Even-Money-Bets (Black/Red/Even/Odd/High/Low):
A system indicates a genuine superiority:
1. if after 1000 placed bets a gain of more than 100 units was obtained!
2. if after 8000 placed bets a gain of more than 60 units was obtained!
3. if after 100000 placed bets a result better than - 1000 was obtained*
Twelve-Number-Bets (Dozens/Collumns):
A system indicates a genuine superiority:
1. if after 1000 placed bets a gain of more than 50 units was obtained!
2. if after 8000 placed bets a gain of more than 50 units was obtained!
3. if after 100000 placed bets a result better than - 2000 was obtained*
Six-Number Bets (Lines):
A system indicates a genuine superiority:
1. if after 1000 placed bets a gain of more than 100 units was obtained!
2. if after 8000 placed bets a gain of more than 200 units was obtained!
3. if after 100000 placed bets a result better than - 600 was obtained*
|
@Leapyfrog,
Are u placing bets in all 3 samples of 100k spins that you claim to win? If not, in how many u do? It is the number of placed bets that counts and not the number of spins. If you did not reverse engineer a data to use your method and it still wins 300k placed bets with an EC bet, it is amazing. If you bet every spin and still win, I am more than impressed. While if you bet on certain condition or "trigger", you may get misleading results in 100k spins since bets placed are not sufficient to conclude, in that span. They may still be affected from "temporary bias".
Regarding your rigidity with "why 100k placed bets", I am not Van-Klein to answer this but this confirms to my own experiments too. A system winning over 100k placed bet without "reverse engineering" or "cherry picking" of betting favorable cases only, it is indeed very solid. I prefer to test any method of mine with the help of a tracker in excel having 1000 spins to atleast 100 times. If I say place bet in say half of the spins, I conclude only after assessing 200 random sessions.
I hope all these helps a bit.