Bayes

Whether you or anyone else believes it, I am not working under any GFs.  I said, basically, a number would come up sooner or later--eventually.  Now a person can believe that statement or they can believe that the number in question will never come.  Which is most likely?

So I pick a number, say 6.  I can, with a fair amount of certainty, say that 6 will come up eventually.  It may be hit the next spin or 160 spins later, I don't know.  I do know this:  If I mark that number 6 and it does not come up in 100 spins, it is 100 spins closer to the eventuality of hitting.

I can't believe this is so hard to understand.

I know I am going to die--eventually!  Every day I live, I am one day closer to the Reaper!

Not you, Bayes, but some people are so salivating to find that a person made a tiny mistake so they can jump on that person.  Sickening...

TwoCat

Sam, I wasn't picking on you, just responding to No. 6, but I think you know that. 

Quote

I do know this:  If I mark that number 6 and it does not come up in 100 spins, it is 100 spins closer to the eventuality of hitting.

I agree, with that no-one can argue, although Xander will give it his best shot.

Thanks, Bayes.

I also agree. This is the type of unknowing I referred to in a past post. I don't mean there is a blissful ignorance but rather, yes the number will hit, but the questions remain, even though it is 100 spins closer to hitting, we still don't know when it will hit. Or, really, why it will hit when it does and why it hasn't hit before.

We just put it down to an anomaly in the distribution and say that, anyway, it is within the realms of probability. But that doesn't help at all. Is there something else happening beyond what is seen on the surface, for example.

Quote from: Bayes on January 28, 2014, 09:00:04 AM
The fallacy is about being inconsistent. So red being more likely after 10 blacks could only be true if outcomes weren't independent, and, they may not be!

Well we have talked about this before. But are we talking about outcomes, or are we talking about the results of BETS? Isn't simply observing outcomes the root of the fallacy? But when you bet, you are making connections between the outcomes. So, in that case, red being more likely after 10 blacks is a reasonable supposition. Certainly should start a new thread about this sometime. It would be interesting to see what the holy grail windbags make of it.

Every spin is of course completely independent of previous spins.  This isn't even up for debate unless we're talking about testing the fitness of an RNG algorithm, or the live wheel.

Kind of off topic...

What matter most is the fitness of the wheel.  If a number hasn't shown for a long time, then the most foolish bet a person could make would be to chase the coldest number.  I have solid prove if anyone would like to argue the point further.

The opposite is true as well.  If you're on a live wheel, and you know very little about the fitness of the wheel, then the best bet that you could make would be to bet on the most recent number or few numbers to have hit, and what is listed as being the hottest number.  It would be unlikely to overcome the house edge, but it can cut the house edge down and on rare occasions over come it.  If you're someone that loves to chase numbers with the up as lose progressions, then at least chase the most recent and hottest numbers, but stay away from the cold ones.

-Xander

QuoteIf a number hasn't shown for a long time, then the most foolish bet a person could make would be to chase the coldest number.

          Nothing is hottest or coldest number. This statement is a fallacy in itself.

The question as to whether outcomes actually ARE independent is a different matter, and you can't get the answer by just logical reasoning, but GF is a logical error.---From Bayes

Guys

I don't need Bayes approval or disapproval--or anyone else's for that matter--but I've always thought of him as one of the people who make sense in a senseless environment.  So I'm not trying to "get on his good side".

As I read the above statement, I must assume the jury is still out in Bayes' mind as to whether spins are independent or not. 

I have long stated--before I heard of Bayes--that certain numbers inspire other numbers to come.  When Nick has has time to catch his breath, I am going to ask him to write the ultimate test sheet to prove or disprove this theory.  I was just waiting for Stef to complete the import feature on the bot.  I can test thousands of spins quickly.

Notice I said prove or disprove.  Lord knows, I could be wrong!!!   

Samster

I have some powerful simulators at my disposal and can already tell you the answer.  I also have over one million live spins from 00 wheels.

The answer on the live wheel has to do with the playing conditions, like the dealer, wheel speed, ball used, dominant diamond smack, etc.  It's not that the previous number(s) triggers another number to hit. Numbers will sometimes cluster because of the wheel's current state and fitness.  Also, sometimes the numbers only appear to cluster.


-Xander

Quote from: Xander on January 28, 2014, 06:31:19 PM
Every spin is of course completely independent of previous spins.  This isn't even up for debate unless we're talking about testing the fitness of an RNG algorithm, or the live wheel.

Spins may be independent in the sense that each number is POTENTIALLY available, as it were, on every spin, unlike in a deck of cards where cards are removed but not replaced (in which case it's impossible that the removed card can be re-drawn), but that's not the only way dependence could arise.


For example, suppose the dealer is concerned to keep the outcomes as random as possible, so every time a ball lands in the same sector 3 times in a row, she changes the ball, or speeds it up. Or, perhaps there is some faulty mechanism in the wheel which triggers a temporary bias when a certain sequence of numbers or sectors hits, or maybe it's a cheating casino which has magnets in the wheel, and when some particular outcome occurs (which might be the trigger for some "whale" to start playing his favourite system) they switch them on.


In all these case, past spins have affected future spins, so outcomes are not independent.

Quote
As I read the above statement, I must assume the jury is still out in Bayes' mind as to whether spins are independent or not. 


I have long stated--before I heard of Bayes--that certain numbers inspire other numbers to come

Sam, I don't think that some numbers are inherently disposed to come out following certain other numbers; that sounds like pure voodoo to me. If there seems to be some dependence, we should look for more prosaic explanations before we turn to numerology etc.

Quote from: Albalaha on January 28, 2014, 06:37:25 PM

          Nothing is hottest or coldest number. This statement is a fallacy in itself.

Why is it a fallacy?

The so-called hottest number may turn the coldest any moment you try to extract from it and vice versa.

Quote from: Albalaha on January 29, 2014, 08:07:26 AM
The so-called hottest number may turn the coldest any moment you try to extract from it and vice versa.

It likely is a fallacy if the wheel is unbiased and outcomes are independent, but that may not be. The cause of certain numbers being "hot" may be bias, in which case it's no fallacy to bet on them. You can't make the sweeping statement that betting on hot or cold numbers is always a fallacy.

I think we all know what Xander is saying: up until this point in time, exploiting the physics of the game is the only method that has ever been proven to work. No one has ever demonstrated beyond doubt that the game is mathematically beatable. Posting graphs and results of phantom bets is utterly meaningless.

Defining a hot number according to observation or "experience" or playing some inane instinct trigger won't work. But that doesn't mean it's not possible to predict what range of numbers will hit before any other range, using maths and empirical stuff alone. You can even narrow it down to a single number. All you need to do is define the parameters of the experiment and run them over and over within a certain time frame. In reality, probability seldom holds true in very short cycles, considering that 37 numbers allows for a large margin of error from the expectancy. But the more data there is, or the longer the time frame, the more diluted the premise becomes; the "long term" maths starts to take over.

This isn't like running a long sim of a bet selection, it's drilling down for conditions that allow some level of predictability within the time frame. Then you can look at, according to what has hit and when, what is more likely to hit again within your limits. I have already posted results of a long simulation to back this up.

Bayes

My statement should have been separated from yours by a mile.  Did not try to piggy-back you in any way.  I have published that belief for years--right or wrong.  Sorry.....

I once read, and I paraphrase, <While the wheel has no memory, we must treat it as if it does.>

Rather sorry I ever posted on this thread!!

Sam