If a coin is tossed 3 times and all three tosses land on heads, the PROBABILTY (odds) of the next toss coming up heads is only 1 in 16.
The "CHANCE", on the other hand, never changes and is 50% on EVERY toss.
(Its all in the wording I guess)
Ken
It`s a darn good consideration when betting BLACK or RED ..
Dr. Mabuse
Probability and Odds are two different things - you must know that by now surely? And the if the 3 heads have already shown up then the probability AND chance for the next toss is still 50%.
Quote from: Mr J on July 20, 2014, 05:16:27 PM
If a coin is tossed 3 times and all three tosses land on heads, the PROBABILTY (odds) of the next toss coming up heads is only 1 in 16.
The "CHANCE", on the other hand, never changes and is 50% on EVERY toss.
(Its all in the wording I guess)
Ken
The 1 in 16 IMO only applies if you declare the intent before any result. The Probability and odds over a single out come are 50/50 (omitting the zero), over 4 decisions, sure 15/1 (1 in 16 before the first spin). You need to state what you are applying them too, a single decision or series of decisions.
Well......I sometimes post questions if I know I'm right, I post to get a bit of assistance. Meaning? I got into a huge arguement (at another board) so I thought I would post my question to many others so this other moron can read the "results". Thanks !!
Ken
If you consider only one toss, it is 50:50 but if u consider the probability of HHHH or TTTT, it is always 1/16.
WHAT Albalaha mean, is,..
u should rephrase your question,
Not what the NEXT TOSS probability,
BUT...
"What the probability of SERIES result when a coin,
being 'TOSS FOUR TIME' "???
And the answer is 1/16.
I am getting tired of these '50/50' ,
'can't win the edge', and can't win long term ,
and blah, bla,bla.debate...
All because they ask the wrong question
of what they had in mind and get the reply for other intended question!
...and then accuse other as moron...DUH!
List has 16 entries.
{H,H,H,H} {H,H,H,T} {H,H,T,H} {H,H,T,T} {H,T,H,H} {H,T,H,T} {H,T,T,H} {H,T,T,T} {T,H,H,H} {T,H,H,T} {T,H,T,H} {T,H,T,T} {T,T,H,H} {T,T,H,T} {T,T,T,H} {T,T,T,T}
Quote from: Mr J on July 20, 2014, 05:16:27 PM
If a coin is tossed 3 times and all three tosses land on heads, the PROBABILTY (odds) of the next toss coming up heads is only 1 in 16.
The "CHANCE", on the other hand, never changes and is 50% on EVERY toss.
(Its all in the wording I guess)
Ken
Ken - You are right. Don't get lost in the words. If you explain why need an answer to this question, then i will be able to clarify this better. This is the first question i had when i started playing roulette and i have got myself around it.
Let me add a simple addition to your question to explain this better and let me try explaining this with only 3 spins instead of 4 spins.
TTT
TTH
THT
HTT
THH
HTH
HHH
HHT
Out of 8
probabilities (
possibilities) there are two
probabilities in which HH appears in the first two spin. The next spin appearing H and the sequence becoming HHH is 1 out of 8
probable chances. Also next spin appearing T and the seuqence becoming HHT is also 1 out of 8
probabilities. So there is a equal
chance of 1 out 8
possibilities for the next spin to H and next spin to be T.
This is the truth. The issue is whether this 1 out of 8 probability is something whether can be taken to an advantage. To be honest, or to be politically correct -
No way that i am aware of - which doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. You expand this any number of spins, lets say 35 spins, and then you will figure out that every single pattern will have equal probability and there is no advantage of some one playing RBRBRBRBRBRBRBRB over someone playing RRRRRRRRRRRRRR or BBBBBBBBBBBB as they all have 1 in multiple chance of occuring.
To me the whole subject of probability and its application to roulette is dented with variances. At one hand you are explaining the expectation and the other hand you are saying there can be variance.
So essentially you are saying if you walk down this road you will get to downtown, but it is possible that you might also stray into a jungle. Strange, very strange, it's a drunkards subject to study.
"WHAT Albalaha mean, is,..
u should rephrase your question,
Not what the NEXT TOSS probability" >>> They are not my words, per say. I quoted the guy I was debating with, what he said. This way, HE can't say I asked the question wrong. Point being, I was correct (thanks to you guys BTW, thanks!!). :rose:
Ken
I always assumed that "chance" and "probability" refer to the same thing. Just goes to show that not defining your terms leads to confusion.
Odds are another way of expressing probabilities, and vice-versa. Bookies usually use odds, but you can convert from one to the other easily.
You can have "odds against" or "odds in favour". The odds against is the ratio of the probability (chance!) of failure to the probability of success. The chance (probability!) of a dozen bet winning, for example, is 12/37, which is the success. The chance of failure is 25/37 because there are 25 "chances" to lose. So the odds against are 25/37 divided by 12/37. The 37's cancel out, and you're left with odds against of 25-12, or as it's sometimes written, 25:12, a bit more than 2-1.
If you want to express it as odds in favour of, just reverse the previous odds, so you get 12-25 in favour.
On a single number -
odds = 35 to 1, or 36 for 1.
Probability = 1 in 37.
Totally different things.
It is the difference between the odds and the probability that makes the house money. It is REALLY important to make this difference clear when in discussion - all sorts of misunderstandings will occur if you do not.
Oh - and one further difference that comes to mind as I think about it some more - the house can vary the odds but they can't change the probabilities. I think in certain South American countries the odds for a single number in roulette are 34 to 1, for example. I'm sure somebody told me this recently - but in any case, the odds are a choice whereas probabilities are not.
Hi sqzbox,
QuoteOn a single number -
odds = 35 to 1, or 36 for 1.
Probability = 1 in 37.
Totally different things.
Odds here refer to the payout. Unfortunately the use of the term "odds" isn't consistent, as is observed in the Wikipedia article on Odds. I quote
Quote
Odds are a numerical expression, always consisting of a pair of numbers, used in both gambling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling) and statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics). In statistics, Odds for reflect the likelihood that a particular event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_%28probability_theory%29) will take place. Odds against reflect the likelihood that a particular event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_%28probability_theory%29) will not take place. Unfortunately, the usages of the term among statisticians and probabilists on the one hand, versus in the gambling world on the other hand, are not consistent with each other (with the exception of horse racing).[1][2] Conventionally, gambling odds are expressed in the form "X to Y", where X and Y are numbers, and it is implied that the odds are odds against the event on which the gambler is considering wagering. In both gambling and statistics, the 'odds' are a numerical expression of how likely is some possible future event. In gambling, odds represent the ratio between the amounts staked by parties to a wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wager) or bet.[3] Thus, odds of 6 to 1 mean the first party (normally a bookmaker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bookmaker)) is staking six times the amount that the second party is. Thus, gambling odds of '6 to 1' mean that there are six possible outcomes in which the event will not take place to every one where it will. In other words, the probability that X will not happen is six times the probability that it will.
It remains true, though, that you can express probabilities as odds and vice-versa, without any ambiguity. In fact, it seems advantageous to express probabilities as odds in the world of casino gambling because it's easier to see what the house advantage is (but of course, the casinos probably wouldn't want that). It's not obvious that being paid at 35-1 and a probability of 1/37 shows that the house has an edge, but expressed as odds, it is. In my example of a dozen bet, for example, the odds (probability of a win) are 25-12 against, but you are paid 2-1 or 24-12 on a win. Now it's clear that the bet is not a fair one.
Nicely stated. I would contend, however, that the context we are in is the gambling one and in common parlance when we talk about odds we are really meaning "the odds on offer" which is different to the probability of the outcome. However your point is well made about the logical equivalence. It's just this type of difference in meaning that causes problems in communication.
I confess I always think of odds in terms of what is on offer because I am aware that the game is unfair and the only way to measure the degree of "unfairness" is to compare the odds with the probabilities. The point was made to me quite categorically when I was demonstrating the game "penny ante" to a well experienced gambler friend of mine and once he understood the game his immediate question was "what are the odds"?
Anyway, thanks for your detailed response - very interesting.
A post by Nathan Detroit on the same subject at another forum:
Quote by palestis *****You walk up to a roulette and decide in advance to bet on black. With a twist. First you wait until you lose 3 times in a row. Meaning RRR. (Of course you don't lose actual money. Only in the virtual loss mode). If the probability of the 4th spin to bring yet another red is 1/16, then the probability of black should be 15/16. Overwhelmingly in your favor. The question is this. With 50:50 chances, betting randomly, is it possible to keep on losing spin after spin after spin? How many times? And is there a limit after which, a 50:50 chance finally comes your way? ********
REPLY by Nathan Detroit
Excellent EC method based on longterm odds . Begin with the first real bet at spin # 4 and a seasoned player familiar with this method knows the precise moment when to stop betting.
This method requires patience and reduces the exposure to the casino`s advantage. To select a table with the le partage rule is a must.********* end of quote
Nobody knows when six reds in a row will occur. The same is true for three in a row or ten in a row. The trick is to win the first bet and to ride the rest. You have a 50/50 chance of winning the first EC bet. Trying to ride the wave of a win streak is the idea. Each first try loss is a signal that your starting bets might be in a phase of all bad starts. This happens sometimes. You must play a game of money management that allows for streaks of bad starts. If you can out live the bad streaks then you can ride enough win streaks to finish in the positive.
Hi Gizmotron,
There was another thread by BEAT-THE-WHEEL ( which mysteriously disappeared ) in which he posted a sequence of wins and losses - 30 straight losses followed by 9 straight wins - and challenged the forum to find a solution. A very unlikely scenario, but easy enough to beat with the reverse martingale. All losses would be cleared and 1 unit profit made after only 5 consecutive wins. Are you suggesting that something like that can win consistently if you bet the same as the last decision ( which would have you winning every streak )?
No to progressions. I'm suggesting that you have enough bankroll to make up for downturns caused by first bet attempts that tend to swarm for a while. Things will change. You will be able to enter times where your first bets win in swarms. you get to capitalize on all those streaks. Many streaks will pay off the few first bet losses. My favorite is the sleeping dozen. These streaks last from 10 to 30 spins in a row.
QuoteQuote by palestis *****You walk up to a roulette and decide in advance to bet on black. With a twist. First you wait until you lose 3 times in a row. Meaning RRR. (Of course you don't lose actual money. Only in the virtual loss mode). If the probability of the 4th spin to bring yet another red is 1/16, then the probability of black should be 15/16. Overwhelmingly in your favor. The question is this. With 50:50 chances, betting randomly, is it possible to keep on losing spin after spin after spin? How many times? And is there a limit after which, a 50:50 chance finally comes your way? ******
Yet when you do this you only win 50% of your attempts, not 15/16. If it were that easy we would all be doing it. For example, by extension of the above principle I predetermine the following - if I see 2 reds I will bet black and if I see 2 blacks I will bet red. On the principle above I should win 3 out of every 4 bets placed. Doesn't happen. I win 50%! Always! Virtual betting gives no advantage, changes nothing - wish it did, but it doesn't. Period. End of story. Use your creativity to look elsewhere - this one is a dead duck.
"Use your creativity to look elsewhere - this one is a dead duck."
Indeed.
And anyone who pursues it is quackers. (Or perhaps on quack cocaine)
Quote from: sqzbox on July 23, 2014, 12:02:59 AMVirtual betting gives no advantage, changes nothing - wish it did, but it doesn't.
It will help you manage loss strings. The actual odds are reflective to the actual number of bets you actually place :-)
It is true that virtual betting of any kind doesn't give you any advantage by itself but it may help you playing safer coupled with a few other safeguards. Having an "edge" over house is not possible by any means since opposite is the reality but still earning from it is possible.
Winning flat bet, in long run, is absurd and not possible. Since you can't decide any better bet and have to suffer the house edge too, you can't win flat bet. No pain, no gain.
" Winning flat bet, in long run, is absurd and not possible."
Everytime there is a sleeping dozen that sleeps from 15 to 30 spins in a row, and I'm there and see it, then I win big. It only takes getting in to take advantage of it. You must have a good exit strategy to play this way.
Quote from: Rinzler on July 23, 2014, 09:23:29 PM
Gizmotron, what if all this in and out fast doesn't change anything? A lot of superstitious, albeit correct, players.
There's nothing fast about it. It's carefully chosen times. It's about reading the context of the current state and adapting to the conditions. The actual degree of difficulty has nothing to do with probability. Everything is circumstantial coincidence. I'm just taking advantage of coincidence.
Quote from: Gizmotron on July 23, 2014, 10:03:33 PMEverything is circumstantial coincidence. I'm just taking advantage of coincidence.
I've heard of circumstantial evidence, but....
https://pathetic.org/poem/1083901034 (https://pathetic.org/poem/1083901034)
"Winning flat bet, in long run, is absurd and not possible. Since you can't decide any better bet and have to suffer the house edge too, you can't win flat bet. No pain, no gain."
I doubt that XXVV, a successful and profitable flat bet devotee, would agree with that very dogmatic statement!
Quote from: esoito on July 23, 2014, 11:20:21 PM
"Winning flat bet, in long run, is absurd and not possible. Since you can't decide any better bet and have to suffer the house edge too, you can't win flat bet. No pain, no gain."
I doubt that XXVV, a successful and profitable flat bet devotee, would agree with that very dogmatic statement!
For someone who is so careful to wisely organise exit strategies, Albalaha appears in this quotation to have successfully painted himself into a corner by not so wisely excluding possibilities that could very much be used to his advantage at times but perhaps not so with the particular bet characteristic being extolled upon here.
I prefer to mix metaphors and leave the door open and not burn bridges (except BetForum.cc)
As a goal for myself, and as I trust his judgment and ethics as impeccable, I propose to forward to Esoito, over the coming seven weeks, an outline of one of my key playing methodologies that uses flat staking and harnesses cluster analysis over short, medium and long term playing cycles. After years of comparative analysis I found that in my bet the greatest efficiency was achieved through flat staking and not progression. One reason being that a 'bank loss' in the flat staking mode can relatively quickly be recovered, whilst as you will appreciate progressions make such options much more difficult.
As always, it comes to tuning, timing and the unique characteristics of a bet - and knowing these strengths and weaknesses.
I am sure there are certain bets where greatest efficiency is achieved through a smart combination of flat and short progression. In fact that is what we can successfully apply to the WF family of bets - unfortunately such as Bayes never got to see that as much empirical testing was required to refine this. Some people were so keen to see 'failure' their vision was distorted so that success was invisible to them. What we see is interpreted by the mind, and that must be clear and unbiased.
In due course I will ask Esoito to appraise, in general terms the bet and the flat staking approach used for the cluster analysis work. As I say, a useful test for my work.
Being aware of the realities and mathematics of casino gambling are the prime requisites to be a pro gambler. Every rational player knows that there is nothing like patterns, you can't determine future wins by looking at past wins, virtual betting may help you be safe from extremes but in no way, any or all of these help to have any better bet than we can randomly have. Negative variance that can arise while playing is beyond our control. House edge or house fees is already there to create a tilt against us.
Only a clairvoyant having mystical powers can guess what is going to happen in the near future and can claim to win, flat bet. Normal human beings need to either take risk with money management or totally rely upon luck to get a positive variance which can let him win flat.
QuoteTrying to ride the wave of a win streak is the idea. Each first try loss is a signal that your starting bets might be in a phase of all bad starts. This happens sometimes. You must play a game of money management that allows for streaks of bad starts. If you can out live the bad streaks then you can ride enough win streaks to finish in the positive.
Such misconceptions lead a player to think that a positive progression or regression could be a remedy to all gambling uncertainties but in long run playing for a "ride" or "streak" doesn't win by itself. If they could win, casinos would have dried a few hundred years ago.
No one said it was easy.
refer 'The Psychic Gambling Supersystem' by Sunil Padiyar
Also refer my simple notes on the Blog for Clump Theory - a simple bet if ever there was, and the short cycles are played flat staking. This is what you can characterise a yo-yo bet up and down and it is a simple matter getting off when slightly ahead. The cycles are so short if it goes wrong just pull the plug. At other times you can race ahead!
This is an extract (translated by me from Spanish) from the book Syncrodestiny, author Deepak.
"What most people call luck is nothing more nor less than the application of synchronicity in the fulfillment of our intentions.
Through the lessons of synchrodestiny, it is perfectly possible to adopt a state of mind that in life there are opportune moments and when we can identify them and take profit of them, everything can change.
"Luck" is what we call in the modern world to name the miraculous.
Thus, synchronicity, meaningful coincidence, miracle or good luck, are different ways of referring to the same phenomena.
As we have seen, the intelligence of the body is manifested through coincidence and synchronicity. Also the broader intelligence of nature and the ecosystem-the great web of life-
and the fundamental understanding of the universe.
When we begin to consider the coincidences as opportunities, each acquires meaning.
Each match (coincidence) becomes an opportunity for creativity."
This is related to what Gizmotron tries to teach in his posts.
Basically I agree with his stance.
Quote from: Albalaha on July 24, 2014, 06:17:24 AM
Only a clairvoyant having mystical powers can guess what is going to happen in the near future and can claim to win, flat bet. Normal human beings need to either take risk with money management or totally rely upon luck to get a positive variance which can let him win flat.
You have know idea how close to an advantage this is. I've already shared what that is at this forum. There must be a price. You can find it on your own. Or you can ignore it altogether, perhaps it will remain somewhere in the back of your mind.
Quote from: Albalaha on July 24, 2014, 06:29:56 AM
Such misconceptions lead a player to think that a positive progression or regression could be a remedy to all gambling uncertainties but in long run playing for a "ride" or "streak" doesn't win by itself. If they could win, casinos would have dried a few hundred years ago.
You are correct that riding win streaks is not enough. In fact you must overcome the impulse of greed. If you stay, because it's not enough, then you will probably play until you lose your already won gains.
" This is related to what Gizmotron tries to teach in his posts."
It is impossible for me to not see real opportunities as well as real pitfalls. Even though others can't see them as clear as a bell, I can. Many years ago, it seemed like I was completely on my own. Example my discussions over the years regarding Elegant Patterns. Most people don't get it. That's fine. Try to ignore a sleeping dozen that sleeps for more than 30 spins. I dare the scoffers to test for how often they occur. That number might surprise even the most ardent of my critics. Not taking advantage of them by a player seems to be some kind of disservice to proper gaming style.
Betting upon virtual limits can be a wise idea but to get such things will need thousands of spins. they are little better than random betting but again not a panacea in themselves.
Ten sleeping dozens in a row are common. Playing a game of balance against them, using flat bets, and using a goal of just two wins to establish balance and fulfillment of session results is easier than depending on progressions to prop up wishful thinking.
The only thing I am learning from this thread is how each individual is trying to out do the other. How about giving some examples that support your claims, so the rest of us, non participants, can say, "ah ha, I get it."
Over the years, I have witnessed many, on this thread, give discredit to others without having walked in their shoes. It is a pattern that is so predictable. What are the chances of me being correct? 50 percent? Correct?
The Crow
TC, download my practice software, make 150 spins, scroll down the charts for dozens and columns, identify the sleeping dozens and the sleeping columns. Identify the context of the current conditions for how long sleepers are occurring. You now have knowledge of the current state of the conditions. Place a bet according to the current conditions when the next sleeper begins to form. One of two things will happen. The conditions will either continue or they won't. You need acquired playing experience to learn how to best deal with changing conditions.
I hope you can see this as an example.
WOW, from such a simple question, which was answered within the first few posts BTW, The thread has now grown serious legs.
@gizmo,
Are you referring to regression towards Mean and its strategic use?
Quote from: Albalaha on July 24, 2014, 05:14:17 PM
@gizmo,
Are you referring to regression towards Mean and its strategic use?
No. I'm using the balance of the odds. You have 65% chance of winning each bet. You have a 40% chance of winning two bets. If you win the first bet then you can only lose half of the balancing from the two bets to one method. It takes two wins to equal one loss. I'm betting on the two other dozens or columns to win while the third is sleeping. With flat bets at $500 or $1,000, two wins are enough. The trick is to not start out in a downturn.
Quote from: carpanta on July 24, 2014, 10:07:14 AM
This is an extract (translated by me from Spanish) from the book Syncrodestiny, author Deepak.
"What most people call luck is nothing more nor less than the application of synchronicity in the fulfillment of our intentions.
Through the lessons of synchrodestiny, it is perfectly possible to adopt a state of mind that in life there are opportune moments and when we can identify them and take profit of them, everything can change.
"Luck" is what we call in the modern world to name the miraculous.
Thus, synchronicity, meaningful coincidence, miracle or good luck, are different ways of referring to the same phenomena.
As we have seen, the intelligence of the body is manifested through coincidence and synchronicity. Also the broader intelligence of nature and the ecosystem-the great web of life-
and the fundamental understanding of the universe.
When we begin to consider the coincidences as opportunities, each acquires meaning.
Each match (coincidence) becomes an opportunity for creativity."
This is related to what Gizmotron tries to teach in his posts.
Basically I agree with his stance.
Thanks so much to Carpanta for this brilliant quotation and link to a fine book, and to Gizmotron for his efforts to be crystal clear in explanations. Well done. And to take TC's point also , as an example of taking wisely 2 wins as sufficient I refer to the Clump Theory examples ( deliberately a ridiculously simple bet) in my Blog Section latest postings. Very constructive efforts everyone.
Welcome, Carpanta. And that's a most interesting contribution to the thread.
Quote from: Schoolman on July 22, 2014, 07:28:25 PM
Hi Gizmotron,
There was another thread by BEAT-THE-WHEEL ( which mysteriously disappeared ) in which he posted a sequence of wins and losses - 30 straight losses followed by 9 straight wins - and challenged the forum to find a solution. A very unlikely scenario, but easy enough to beat with the reverse martingale. All losses would be cleared and 1 unit profit made after only 5 consecutive wins. Are you suggesting that something like that can win consistently if you bet the same as the last decision ( which would have you winning every streak )?
I couldn't locate that thread either, so I will post a solution here, incidentally Izak has been beating runs such as LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLWW for years
Basically write out a Labby, 1, bet 1 unit, keep on betting 1 unit until a win, so in the case of 10 losses, 20 losses, or 100 losses in a row will be the sum of your draw-down. When you finally snare a win, bet the current draw-down + 1 unit.
The obvious problem is when you get; LLLLLLLLLLLLLWLWLW you get creamed, for more details of this wild ride nutjob progression, get hold of any of Izak's systems prior to the last few years (there are 100's to choose from) , the MM is the same in nearly all of them, but hey it makes great advertising.