Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 01, 2018, 11:14:58 PM
Look, Giz, IMO you devised a brilliant idea to wisely consider outcomes by asymmetrical terms (dozens, etc). After all my nickname speaks for it.
Itlr 1-2 vs 3 or 1-3 vs 2 or 2-3 vs 1 equals to zero (adding the negative tax) but we have to expect some natural deviations that soon or later will show up. That is trying to take advantage of such fluctuations in a way or another.

I dropped the 24 numbers method. I'm working this out in even chance numbers of 18 to 20. I did this because I only need 2 net wins to win a session. This is the rabbit and the hare race. This is not that difficult to accomplish. I know that it only takes a small win streak to recover and go up net 2.

Quote
Actually and I'm sure I'm not wrong, if your algorithm works (or my methods work) is because you have found out a possible defect of randomness of roulette results or that in some instances baccarat asymmetrical force will shift the results toward an univocal direction.

There is no flaw in randomness. There are micro swings as the general expectation works it's house advantage downward. Along the way are opportunities that are good enough to grind your way up to a net 2 win. People that bet the same amount on every bet will get ground down, as expected. People that target the micro upticks will prevail if they also minimize the damage from the micro downticks. That takes making a decision based on a situational awareness, a task easily programmable.

You dropped 24 numbers method? You sayed it was the best method until now.

Anyway 20 vs 18 is still an asymmetrical proposition or I'm missing something?

No flaw in randomness? That's ok. I can't dispute this.

BA: didn't mean that huge bettors are winning players, just that people claiming to possess fool proof strategies are supposed to bet more than red/green chips.

Childish? In my country we never ever asked for money to stay alive.

as. 










   

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 02, 2018, 12:40:13 AM
You dropped 24 numbers method? You sayed it was the best method until now.

Anyway 20 vs 18 is still an asymmetrical proposition or I'm missing something?

No flaw in randomness? That's ok. I can't dispute this.

BA: didn't mean that huge bettors are winning players, just that people claiming to possess fool proof strategies are supposed to bet more than red/green chips.

Childish? In my country we never ever asked for money to stay alive.

as. 

1) I'm not responsible for my country's debt, corruption is, since the Olympics of 2004 many perceived it as opportunity to snatch many millions and disappear while living the debt as heritage for the generations to come...


2) We are talking about attitude and mentality, not the national treasury, banks, politics and corruption.


When Gizmo told me at Gambling forums: "...at the shithole of a country you are living in..." I've not get insulted because you see I'm one of those people who perceives reality for what it really is, even if this means unpleasant.
Don't get me wrong, it's wonderful to have holidays here, but awful to live under such conditions...!

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 02, 2018, 12:40:13 AM
You dropped 24 numbers method? You sayed it was the best method until now.

The best method for me is to get 3 net units up. To get that at $100 units is easier with Even Chance bets like betting on the reds or the odds. So I bet a 2 unit bet on the first net win, and 1 unit on the second net win. I use two net wins to get 3 net units up. It sort of comes from John Patrick's "up and pull" technique. I just play until I win those steps.


I changed tactics 6 months ago. I used to play for 20 to 40 net wins up from very long sessions. I always counted on hitting at least one super trend. Now I swing trade the micro ticks in a candlestick type chart of any day trading technique on the stock market. If you know how to see micro swings in Roulette trends then you can see that they are similar. It's all based on actual results.

Quote
Anyway 20 vs 18 is still an asymmetrical proposition or I'm missing something?

I'm not sure what you mean by asymmetrical. There is a balance to even chance bets. It pays off at 1 to 1 odds. It covers almost half the wheel. Randomness characteristics are still observable with Even Chance bets.

Quote from: Gizmotron on June 01, 2018, 09:18:09 PM

That's a very good description of a selfish, self serving personality. Like I just said a while ago, people like the facts that they get and from whom that they get them. From those kind of facts comes conclusions that make perfect sense too.


But what I want to know is, have you ever started a business or run your own business before? Have you ever been responsible for making payroll to a lot of employees every week? Have you had to jump through bureaucratic hoops in order just to stay in business or operate a business? My guess is that you never had that responsibility or expense before. I would be surprised if you did have that experience. Have you ever read 'Atlas Shrugged?' There are a lot of us that know what Trump has done is to turn the tables on the government looters and takers. This is not about degrading people. What you are seeing is the forgotten people fighting back while they still can. Trump stands up to City Hall. It just so happens to be his trademark. Trump haters are just people that think they know the truth. But to me they couldn't run a lemonade stand. Just remember this. It's people like Trump that make out the paychecks. You can only beg for more and hope that you get it. Only a loser settles for mediocrity and then demands crumbs. You will never know how pathetic the demand's of employees tug at the hearts of risk takers. You are expendable and always will be if all that you can aspire to is being an employee. Group think -- blah! It's just a bunch of wishful thinking nags. Without powerful looters some of you are going to be fired. Drain the swamp.

Hehehe.  No there's nothing wrong with guessing but apparently you're not very good at it!  Not that it's any of your business but I've been self-employed my entire life except for about 3 years.  Again not that it's any of your business but I don't work.

As far as Ayn Rand is concerned she was just another fascist as far as I'm concerned.  Too many people confuse capitalism with free enterprise. Just because you're self-employed doesn't mean that you are a capitalist. Capitalism relies on creating an underclass for success. The capitalists are people like Trump and his financiers and the oligarchs.  Now that doesn't mean that all capitalists are bad people because in reality there is no capitalism nor is there fascism or even socialism in today's world.  One could argue that capitalism did bring millions of people out of poverty though I argue it was tempered by social programs such as collective bargaining where to buy the workers made inroads into acquiring some of the means to production which, is the definition of socialism.

A real problem in our society today is racism, materialism and militarism as MLK so succinctly elaborated on way back during his speeches about Vietnam. As Noam Chomsky has pointed out our society can boost the economy through defense spending as it does. But that boost generally goes to the top tiers.  The same economic boost can be done through domestic spending such as infrastructure, Healthcare and education subsidies. But those expenditures tend to whittle away at the power brokers profits.  The swamp is comprised of just those power brokers.

So from my viewpoint Donald Trump, the epitome of a demagogue, is populating the swamp with real capitalists and their far-right minions such as Miller.

I presume your fancy yourself an intellectual. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Anyway thanks for the discussion I enjoyed it. You can have the last word.

Quote from: alrelax on June 01, 2018, 05:36:19 PM
Vic, care to comment??  Did I or did I not send you several/numerous complaints, concerns and reason why many members here stop posting and became extremely less active over the past year or longer??  Vic, confirm or deny, for the benefit of the record please.

Confirmed. Glen has shown he's caring for our board actively long before he's been appointed as a mod

(That's a powerful reason why fellow mods accepted his nomination at the moderators' lounge)

Quote from: Gizmotron on June 01, 2018, 08:44:09 PM

Why, mathematically, must anyone have an edge in order to win?

Gizmo,

You really don't need math to understand why an edge is needed, simple logic in plain English is enough. First, what is an edge? It's the difference between what you SHOULD get paid in order to break even, and what you ACTUALLY get paid. If the payments on winning bets are short, the edge lies with the house, if they are long, you have the edge. eg. if the payout is 35 chips on a single number and the probability of a hit is 1/37, you will lose, if it's 1/36 you will break even, and if it's 1/35 you will win (long term). The edge is defined by the relationship between the payout and the probability of a win. The simple math which encapsulates this is well known. Here is the forumula for expectation in even money bets on a double zero wheel:

EV = (18/38 x 1) + (20/38 x -1) = 18/38 - 20/38 = -2/38 = -5.26%

So ON AVERAGE, you lose.

Gamblers often think they can win because the house edge very rarely manifests over a session or even a number of sessions. They win because of the variance, which in the SHORT term can often put them way ahead of what the expectation (long term average) dictates. But as the number of bets increases, the house edge dominates. It's the short term behaviour of variance (standard deviation) which fools players into thinking that they can win long term. The expected loss is proportional to the number of bets made, but the standard deviation is proportional to the square root of the number of bets made.

The blue line (standard deviation) initially increases at a faster rate than the expected loss (red line), but there will come a time (when the lines intersect) after which you will be in the red, never to recover.

Quote from: Jimske on June 02, 2018, 04:14:57 AM
I presume your fancy yourself an intellectual. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Anyway thanks for the discussion I enjoyed it. You can have the last word.

Disagreeing with me, the two of us discussing our differing opinions on the best direction for our country, won't solve anything. You like centralized power where a Keynesian Economics model is the best way to establish a fair minded culture. I can suggest that the ubiquitous unintended consequences from liberal centralized planning always tends to undermine that actuality. Show me the culture that has not eventually turned to tyranny as it always runs out of other people's money. I would suggest that freedom is the enemy of socialism. But that does not matter much. We like the people that have given each of us our facts. There is no point in discussing the differences. Please admit it that you favor a communistic model. That's becoming fashionable again. I suppose you think that the forgotten man in America is just going to lay down their guns so that a Saul Alinsky styled game plan can be carried out? You will not believe the unintended consequences if that scheme where ever tried. I know that the liberals will never give up and that they will always keep coming. I know that it looks just like rules for radicals is working. I would say that the "Red Pill" movement has effectively dislodged the possibility of a landslide landing on your favorite leaders heads. It's fun to watch the pendulum swing back. ... back to Roulette.

Quote from: Mike on June 02, 2018, 07:58:27 AM
Gizmo,

You really don't need math to understand why an edge is needed, simple logic in plain English is enough. First, what is an edge? It's the difference between what you SHOULD get paid in order to break even, and what you ACTUALLY get paid. If the payments on winning bets are short, the edge lies with the house, if they are long, you have the edge. eg. if the payout is 35 chips on a single number and the probability of a hit is 1/37, you will lose, if it's 1/36 you will break even, and if it's 1/35 you will win (long term). The edge is defined by the relationship between the payout and the probability of a win. The simple math which encapsulates this is well known. Here is the forumula for expectation in even money bets on a double zero wheel:

EV = (18/38 x 1) + (20/38 x -1) = 18/38 - 20/38 = -2/38 = -5.26%

So ON AVERAGE, you lose.

Gamblers often think they can win because the house edge very rarely manifests over a session or even a number of sessions. They win because of the variance, which in the SHORT term can often put them way ahead of what the expectation (long term average) dictates. But as the number of bets increases, the house edge dominates. It's the short term behaviour of variance (standard deviation) which fools players into thinking that they can win long term. The expected loss is proportional to the number of bets made, but the standard deviation is proportional to the square root of the number of bets made.

The blue line (standard deviation) initially increases at a faster rate than the expected loss (red line), but there will come a time (when the lines intersect) after which you will be in the red, never to recover.

That's it? Look at that last paragraph. It confirms the existence of an opportunity with regards to time. Time implies more than one spin. I'm still waiting for the proof. Perhaps you could demonstrate the non existence of uptick swings. That would be convincing.

Mike,

Gizmo doesn't comprehend the math.  He really sucks at it.  He's a "literate boy," but not one of the "mathboyz."

Quote from: Xander on June 02, 2018, 06:18:26 PMMike,Gizmo doesn't comprehend the math.  He really sucks at it.  He's a "literate boy," but not one of the "mathboyz."

More "we" tactics. Ha ha...Enjoy this: I wrote it from scratch 14 years ago.

   repeat while pp < 18
    put 1 into ep
    repeat for each element ep in rkoR
      put ((xL bitAnd 4278190080) / 16777216)  bitAnd 255 into a
      put ((xL bitAnd 16711680) / 65536) into b
      put ((xL bitAnd 65280) / 256) into c
      put (xL bitAnd 255) into d
      put (((  ((S1[a + 1] + S2[b + 1]) mod 4294967296) bitXor S3[c + 1]  ) + S4[d + 1] ) mod 4294967296) bitXor xR into xR
      put xL into temp
      put xR into xL
      put temp into xR
    end repeat
[/b]You've got to love X-Code and the best version LiveCode.

Quote from: Xander on June 02, 2018, 06:18:26 PM
Mike,

Gizmo doesn't comprehend the math.  He really sucks at it.  He's a "literate boy," but not one of the "mathboyz."

Give it a break please.  Let others enjoy and be involved without the negativity you are starting to bring on.  Please.  Thank you.

Quote from: Xander on June 02, 2018, 06:18:26 PM
Mike,

Gizmo doesn't comprehend the math.  He really sucks at it.  He's a "literate boy," but not one of the "mathboyz."

I know, but my replies aren't really for Gizmo. And besides, he's admitted he has a "problem" with gambling. I'm proud to be one of the "mathboyz". 

Quote from: Mike on June 03, 2018, 07:24:28 AM
I know, but my replies aren't really for Gizmo. And besides, he's admitted he has a "problem" with gambling. I'm proud to be one of the "mathboyz". 

I'm proud that you are a "mathBoyz" too. I hope that you get time to pick up a few recipes from the Food Channel on how to saveur Crow.


I'm currently proving to myself that you have to be wrong and that I am right, an extra good bonus, - that. Once this becomes factual you will still be able to rely on your standards, until it becomes untenable.  It's all here at these forums how the greatest minds in math & gambling where seen as nothing more than practitioners in an idiom liken to a meeting of the flat earth society.


Here are the actual criteria for classifying problems with gambling:

QuoteDSM­5 Diagnostic Criteria: Gambling Disorder


* For informational and discussion purposes only *


A. Persistent and recurrent problematic gambling behavior leading to clinically significant impairment or
distress, as indicated by the individual exhibiting four (or more) of the following in a 12 ­month period:


a. Needs to gamble with increasing amounts of money in order to achieve the desired excitement.


b. Is restless or irritable when attempting to cut down or stop gambling.


c. Has made repeated unsuccessful efforts to control, cut back, or stop gambling.


d. Is often preoccupied with gambling (e.g., having persistent thoughts of reliving past gambling
experiences, handicapping or planning the next venture, thinking of ways to get money with
which to gamble).


e. Often gambles when feeling distressed (e.g., helpless, guilty, anxious, depressed).


f. After losing money gambling, often returns another day to get even ("chasing" one's losses).


g. Lies to conceal the extent of involvement with gambling.


h. Has jeopardized or lost a significant relationship, job, or educational or career opportunity
because of gambling.


i. Relies on others to provide money to relieve desperate financial situations caused by gambling.


B. The gambling behavior is not better explained by a manic episode.


Specify if:


Episodic: Meeting diagnostic criteria at more than one time point, with symptoms subsiding
between periods of gambling disorder for at least several months.
Persistent: Experiencing continuous symptoms, to meet diagnostic criteria for multiple years.


Specify if:


In early remission: After full criteria for gambling disorder were previously met, none of the criteria
for gambling disorder have been met for at least 3 months but for less than 12 months.


In sustained remission: After full criteria for gambling disorder were previously met, none of the
criteria for gambling disorder have been met during a period of 12 months or longer.


Specify current severity:


Mild: 4–5 criteria met.
Moderate: 6–7 criteria met.
Severe: 8–9 criteria met.


From the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (section 312.31).

I'm just (D) from the above list. That's 1 characteristic of problem gambling and does not register as problematic by the standards set here.

Good criteria about problem gambling!  Thanks.  How about including not following a preset plan?  Include making bets higher than the method requires (I am guilty of that on occasion).  I call that plunging or tilting.  Included would be staying longer than expected.  Stuff like that.  Disicpline.