There are 128 legal bets on the felt (I think I have this right - did I count them up correctly?). In addition the wheel can be partitioned into neighbours, tiers, and any sort of breakdown you care to think up. People can "cover zero", use the "imbalances" such as columns with more blacks than reds and vice versa, and so on and on. You can dream up all sorts of possible bets and the sky is the limit - there may be almost an infinite number of possibilities. It is no wonder that discussions, forums, schemes, systems, seem endless and there seems no end in sight of ways people are dreaming up to attack the game. What is a person to do?
I'd like to lend some brain power to "efficiency". If we were to accept that there is such a thing as "advantage play" (and I realize that this is contentious in its own right and worthy of a whole other discussion, but for the purposes of this one let's just accept it at face value), then how can we implement this in the most efficient way? The line between negative and positive advantage is small, would you agree? Even with an advantage, turning this into a profit requires efficiency because playing inefficiently will swallow up the profit in the blink of an eye.
Or even - how can we find, or define, an efficient bet? Should we use the math (i.e. statistics) or just plain logic. Statistics can be dangerous - but powerful when used appropriately. To quote Nassim - "it is a mistake to use statistics without logic, but the reverse does not hold: It is not a mistake to use logic without statistics".
To help kick it off and keep us on topic, here is a definition of efficiency.
A level of performance that describes a process that uses the lowest amount of inputs to create the greatest amount of outputs. Efficiency relates to the use of all inputs in producing any given output, including personal time and energy.
Being efficient simply means reducing the amount of wasted inputs.
Happy thinking! ^-^
Bryan
Quote from: sqzbox on January 02, 2013, 02:08:36 AMEven with an advantage, turning this into a profit requires efficiency because playing inefficiently will swallow up the profit in the blink of an eye.
Very thought-provoking post.
This efficiency topic reminds me about this:
even with the positive edge, the player will face drawdowns.
Then we can argue the most efficient way to bet is to use bankroll and unit-size management in order to optimize the winning runs in such a manner that they overcome the negative ones in order to help to the keep player afloat.
This implies rising the betting unit with casino's money.
In gambling the bankroll is truly the player's oxygen.
No bankroll = no game, hence every step for ensuring bankroll preservation while risking should be at the top of the smart bettor's list. Rising session units from the player's pocket is a no-no. A consistent method should be good enough to rise the units
on its own. Ideally starting with the very minimum base unit allowed, growing to the highest unit table maximums take.
The most efficient for bankroll preservation and multiplying is then identifying the most appropriate times to bet and maximize profits there (i.e. say for a single number, statistics might show clumps at a certain range of spins, this statistical attack zone should be
squeezed for as many units as possible), as well as identifying the worst times to bet (this implies evaluating when the number is a sleeper and "letting it go to sleep" as much as it dares to go prior to resuming active bets).
There's no difference between a unit won and a unit saved in the monthly balance.
Maximizing profits goes hand in hand with maximizing savings for increasing efficiency in the bankroll.
Thank you Sqzbox and Victor for key thought generating definitions and your practical observations for survival while climbing this challenging mountain.
Your statements deserve much detailed response and elaboration but if I may briefly add to Victor's note on the principles of bankroll preservation on one hand ( a delicate balancing act) and smart trigger timing as such a key efficiency component on the other hand, we are making fantastic progress and are starting this discussion well above base camp.
With the use of finely tuned triggers to activate designated trap bets we use time as our friend, and constantly review our position. Awareness and alertness is everything in choosing what to do next. When your life depends on it, we could say you will operate at peak efficiency. It is that level of focus that is needed to bring the best results.
Embedded in these few sentences are several ideas which need explanation and these will follow in due course. Thanks Sqzbox for rising to the challenge- lol.
Thanks Vic - interesting response. You make some good points and I like the analogy of bankroll = oxygen. Very true!
One point I would like to make - I believe it is a mistake to take the view that winnings are the casino's money. It is not! It is your own, hard-won money. Raising bets as a strategy when you are winning is fine - I have no problem with the concept - I just believe we should not view this as the casino's money. In my view it most certainly is not! It is YOUR money - and it was hard-won. If a person were to view their profits as casino money then it is very likely that they will make the mistake of varying away from their pre-determined strategy, for example maybe carrying on when they should have quit, because of the mental view of "oh well, it is casino money now so I won't really be risking anything if I push it a little bit longer even though my strategy is tuned to quit at this point". If you get my drift ... I don't want to get caught up in semantics but I believe this is a very important point.
Your point about letting a sleeper sleep is well-made. This is an example of what I like to call "managing the variance". There should be no surprises when playing - if you do not know the possible variance of your particular strategy then you haven't researched it enough to be playing it.
But back to topic - is it possible to construct an efficient bet? Given that the odds are unable to be manipulated and are completely inviolate no matter how one constructs a bet, can we find efficiencies from the ecart?
If you ever have "the casino's money" and try to leave with it, they won't like you! It means you pulled an Einstein and stole it!
It's your money---until you give it back!
Sam
...."can we find efficiencies from the Ecart?.....
Yes.
@sqz
http://betselection.cc/gambling-philosophy/(manrique)-a-chip/ (http://betselection.cc/gambling-philosophy/(manrique)-a-chip/)
Agreed! :)
Yes, yes, yes..... well ( with respect) we are awaiting your next step, Sqzbx.
Efficient bets - what are these? I think:
1) Hotnumbers
2) Repeaters
3) Most recent hit numbers
4) Coldest numbers
Using triggers and progressions. If you can combine all these you have the perfect system! :glasses:
All good ideas, and it seems that we have a consensus that generally believes that there is such a thing as an efficient bet. We probably have a good idea of what is meant by "efficient" as well.
But can we be more specific about it?
Can we maybe zero in on it a little more by agreeing what is an inefficient bet?
For example, would it be considered an inefficient bet to simply scatter 1 or 12 or 18 chips around the table in a random fashion on every spin - that is, without any regard to what is unfolding?
No regard to regression or variance, no structural overlays such as LOT, or cycles of 37, or whatever.
Would this be inefficient compared to, say, studying the ecart for normality, or anomalous behaviour, or cross-referencing statistical measures and betting selectively rather than every spin?
Is there really any difference?
Quote from: sqzbox on January 04, 2013, 06:00:11 AM
Is there really any difference?
Long-term =
no, according to math.
Short-term =
yes, it can be the difference between a winning session and a disastrous one.
Remember the true long term is "infinity" (because regardless of previous success, there will always be a vigintillion more spins which the system must pass to be sure --the never-ending story!).
In the end, we're ultimately trying to beat a short term: the spins in our own limited lives :)
Quote from: VLS on January 04, 2013, 12:38:23 PM
Long-term = no, according to math.
Short-term = yes, it can be the difference between a winning session and a disastrous one.
Remember the true long term is "infinity" (because regardless of previous success, there will always be a vigintillion more spins which the system must pass to be sure --the never-ending story!).
In the end, we're ultimately trying to beat a short term: the spins in our own limited lives :)
30 Years of roulette, playing 300 spins a day would be something like 3.25 million spins
;D
OK - this is where I have a little trouble - short term vs. long term. There are 2 problems.
1. These are both relative terms. Is the long term 3.25 million? or infinity? or 300 spins non-stop? Is the short term 5 spins? 50 spins?
2. Is not the long term just the sum of x short terms? If we say that the answer is yes for the short term, then are we saying that this is an average over a bunch of short terms? In which case, would not a statistically significant collection of short term sessions sum to the positive?
You see the dilemma I am sure. I am leaning towards the belief that it is NECESSARY to solve the problem for the long term. Saying that something (a strategy) works for the short term is just smoke on the water. dah-dah-daaaah ... dah-dah-dedaaah. :whistle:
Quote from: sqzbox on January 05, 2013, 12:20:53 AM
1. These are both relative terms. Is the long term 3.25 million? or infinity? or 300 spins non-stop? Is the short term 5 spins? 50 spins?
For me, Long Term:
-is the Overall Permanence of a method.
-is you Personal Permanence. (your LW registry of actual placed bets).
Quote from: sqzbox on January 05, 2013, 12:20:53 AM
2. Is not the long term just the sum of x short terms? If we say that the answer is yes for the short term, then are we saying that this is an average over a bunch of short terms? In which case, would not a statistically significant collection of short term sessions sum to the positive?
As you can deduct from above, my opinion is Yes, the long term is just the sum of x short terms. :rose:
"Frank Zappa and the Mothers
Were at the best place around
But some stupid with a flare gun
Burned the place to the ground" :beer:
Quote from: sqzbox on January 05, 2013, 12:20:53 AM
OK - this is where I have a little trouble - short term vs. long term. There are 2 problems.
1. These are both relative terms. Is the long term 3.25 million? or infinity? or 300 spins non-stop? Is the short term 5 spins? 50 spins?
2. Is not the long term just the sum of x short terms? If we say that the answer is yes for the short term, then are we saying that this is an average over a bunch of short terms? In which case, would not a statistically significant collection of short term sessions sum to the positive?
You see the dilemma I am sure. I am leaning towards the belief that it is NECESSARY to solve the problem for the long term. Saying that something (a strategy) works for the short term is just smoke on the water. dah-dah-daaaah ... dah-dah-dedaaah. :whistle:
The trick is to make profit. Too much time is wasted debating longterm Vs short term play. You must understand the game begins and ends from the time you enter the cycle to the time you leave.
what you are able to achieve within that timeframe is all that matters. You can try to be too clever about it all. And the reason is sheep mentality. You hear from so called experts that you don't stand a chance.
Who are you/we to question them? They must know best math is on their side right?
I have never doubted. That played straight you can't win, never ever. BUT WHO SAID YOU HAVE TO PLAY STRAIGHT?
If I say I have a double dozen/column method that wins 4 times out of 8 nearly all the time. The first thing most will say is wait a minute. You are losing 8 and winning 4 how can that work?
Their thinking is so stuck in I lay 5, then I expect at least 6 back. And you wonder why the masses still think this games for fools after 300 years.
To put it simply. smart money management is the most important thing, AFTER you have found a way to make it work. There needs to be no edge. Just a simple understanding, that if I bet this amount at a certain time I will gain a profit.
Not the flawed thinking that I've got to have an edge or I can't win. That flawed notion has guaranteed casinos that the masses always keep the losing habit. And their vaults full.
@JL - Ok, so you are saying, categorically as far as I can tell, that money management combined with bet selection, even if that bet selection does not provide an advantage, allows for profitable play long term. Do I have that right?
@MG - you got my obscure reference - well done and nice quote! :cheer:
Quote from: sqzbox on January 05, 2013, 09:50:50 AM
@JL - Ok, so you are saying, categorically as far as I can tell, that money management combined with bet selection, even if that bet selection does not provide an advantage, allows for profitable play long term. Do I have that right?
I am saying there doesn't have to be an on paper mathematical advantage. For example you bet red 10 times. Flat betting you need to win at least 6 times to profit.
I am saying you need to identify either a point random doesn't fall below the vast majority of the time. Or a point it doesn't go BEYOND. Then you tailor your MM to take advantage of these observations.
That's how I win at this game. Once you have that knowledge, you will always win overall. This I will prove.
OK JL - I believe I understand you.
Some years ago a chap wrote a treatise (some called it a book) called Roulette 2000. He was (is?) a statistician. It was his belief that if you waited for an event, and he had a bunch of them enumerated, and then bet accordingly you would hardly ever lose.
For example, if the event of 20 reds in a row constituted a rare event then his belief was that if you had a MM scheme that could handle 6 fails before a win, for example a simple 7 step marty, then you had a winner strategy if you waited until you saw 15 reds in a row - this would guarantee a winner until 22.
Obviously this particular event was pretty rare and you would be waiting forever (effectively) for it to appear, but he had a whole bunch of them to look out for and so he usually didn't have to wait too long before an opportunity of one kind or another came up.
Well, long story short, he played seriously for a while and had several really close calls, ended up about even, paid back his bankers and gave up.
I was one of his bankrollers so I know the story to be true - although I might have one or two details wrong because it is over 10 years ago now. But nevertheless, for me it was a watershed moment.
It caused me to re-examine a lot of my beliefs and also to bring me back to the maths in a very solid way. I no longer believe this approach to be valid.
I have faith in the maths and I do believe that a mathematical advantage is required for long term success.
However, that is just my belief. I fully respect your right to believe otherwise and my mind is not closed to the idea if you can, as you say you intend to do, prove it.
Getting back to the thread topic, would you say that your bet selection method constitutes an efficient bet? What is it about that bet that differentiates it from an inefficient bet?
What does the long term (1m+ spins) prove?
That things more or less confirm to what probability dictates. It will more than likely show -2.70% for any 'system' you care to test.
Now let's say we have a winning player....
He has a 1k bankroll and divides it x 50 meaning he places $20 a bet.
Let's assume he can win 1 unit a day and he only plays 50 spins a day.
He also compounds his winnings. He would be placing 1k bets at the start of next year.
So 50 spins x 5 days (he doesn't do weekends) = 250 spins per week.
250 spins x 52 = 13,000 a year.
He could quit playing after just a few years and under 50,000 spins. He only needed to win 1000 units.
Do you think it's possible to win 1000 units and be ahead after 50,000 spins?
I would say yes!
Do you think it's possible to be ahead after 3.25 million spins?
I will think about that one!
All this talk of the long term seems like a load of nonsense to me at times.
The losing player is not going to last 3.25 million spins.
The winning player only needs a fraction of them.
You could argue what if 100 players all played the same as this guy x 50k spins = 5M+ spins.
Would they all win?
It's possible because they wouldn't be playing a mechanical system which would likely conform to the norm!
you couldn't get any more efficient than this guy. :))
Quote from: sqzbox on January 05, 2013, 01:20:14 PM
OK JL - I believe I understand you.
Some years ago a chap wrote a treatise (some called it a book) called Roulette 2000. He was (is?) a statistician. It was his belief that if you waited for an event, and he had a bunch of them enumerated, and then bet accordingly you would hardly ever lose. For example, if the event of 20 reds in a row constituted a rare event then his belief was that if you had a MM scheme that could handle 6 fails before a win, for example a simple 7 step marty, then you had a winner strategy if you waited until you saw 15 reds in a row - this would guarantee a winner until 22. Obviously this particular event was pretty rare and you would be waiting forever (effectively) for it to appear, but he had a whole bunch of them to look out for and so he usually didn't have to wait too long before an opportunity of one kind or another came up. Well, long story short, he played seriously for a while and had several really close calls, ended up about even, paid back his bankers and gave up.
I was one of his bankrollers so I know the story to be true - although I might have one or two details wrong because it is over 10 years ago now. But nevertheless, for me it was a watershed moment. It caused me to re-examine a lot of my beliefs and also to bring me back to the maths in a very solid way. I no longer believe this approach to be valid. I have faith in the maths and I do believe that a mathematical advantage is required for long term success.
However, that is just my belief. I fully respect your right to believe otherwise and my mind is not closed to the idea if you can, as you say you intend to do, prove it.
Getting back to the thread topic, would you say that your bet selection method constitutes an efficient bet? What is it about that bet that differentiates it from an inefficient bet?
RELIABILITY Bryan. Gambling is by definition risk taking. Doing something with no certainty of success.
What the methods I speak of with VIRTUAL LIMITS do, is take away alot of the uncertainty. They have identified something random struggles to do efficiently. And they simply exploit that.
Nothing more or less. To answer your awakening to the idea that maths explains all. Through your given example of the guy betting against 20 reds. 1, that was no VIRTUAL LIMIT to begin with.
And 2, the time invested wasn't justified. I have never even waited 100 spins to get a game with the methods I use. One of them often matures inside 20 spins.
That is the WHOLE POINT to find realistic and playable VIRTUAL LIMITS. Not ones that take ages to mature.
The reasons BV do not like mutual bets, is just that, some run the bot 24/7 and wait sometimes many days for a betting oppurtunity, like 18 EC in a row, and then start a marty from one cent.
The server have to contact the player 1000 of times before a bet is placed.
Most of the methods I use, place a bet every spin.
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 05, 2013, 02:41:02 PM
RELIABILITY Bryan. Gambling is by definition risk taking. Doing something with no certainty of success.
What the methods I speak of with VIRTUAL LIMITS do, is take away alot of the uncertainty. They have identified something random struggles to do efficiently. And they simply exploit that.
Nothing more or less. To answer your awakening to the idea that maths explains all. Through your given example of the guy betting against 20 reds. 1, that was no VIRTUAL LIMIT to begin with.
And 2, the time invested wasn't justified. I have never even waited 100 spins to get a game with the methods I use. One of them often matures inside 20 spins.
That is the WHOLE POINT to find realistic and playable VIRTUAL LIMITS. Not ones that take ages to mature.
Like if you could be sure that if you waited for 300 spins you had a "sure win", you wouldn't do it! ???
Quote from: sqzbox on January 05, 2013, 01:20:14 PM
Some years ago a chap wrote a treatise (some called it a book) called Roulette 2000. He was (is?) a statistician. It was his belief that if you waited for an event, and he had a bunch of them enumerated, and then bet accordingly you would hardly ever lose. For example, if the event of 20 reds in a row constituted a rare event then his belief was that if you had a MM scheme that could handle 6 fails before a win, for example a simple 7 step marty, then you had a winner strategy if you waited until you saw 15 reds in a row - this would guarantee a winner until 22. Obviously this particular event was pretty rare and you would be waiting forever (effectively) for it to appear, but he had a whole bunch of them to look out for and so he usually didn't have to wait too long before an opportunity of one kind or another came up. Well, long story short, he played seriously for a while and had several really close calls, ended up about even, paid back his bankers and gave up.
This seems like a prime example of inefficiency. I've tried similar techniques in the past, and they don't work. Waiting for strong deviations can be effective, but you need a more sophisticated MM than a martingale; it's far too aggressive and banks on gaining a win (if only one) in the extreme short term, which you can never rely on. Regression to the mean is a statistical fact, but to take advantage of it isn't easy although it IS quite an efficient way of selecting your bets.
Quote from: MarignyGrilleau on January 05, 2013, 03:43:06 PM
Like if you could be sure that if you waited for 300 spins you had a "sure win", you wouldn't do it! ???
There are no sure wins Marigny. There are bets that are more certain than others. The longer the wait the sooner the change holds true. But it must be played on a RELIABLE bet selection.
If every player had the right method and amazing patience. At worst the casinos would have a much smaller profit margin. If as ralph says you ran a bot to wait days for an even chance to run off 18 in a row. You are likey to win in the next ten spins. But not certain. But who can wait that long to start their campaign? Very few.
If however you had a bet selection that could give you a similar or even stronger feeling of certainty inside a hundred spins. You get excited. That's where my enthusiasm comes from. But I must prove it with hard cash.
Then more will have a natural inclination to take what I say seriously. And put what they think is black and white about this game on the shelf for a while. Maybe forever if theyve got the right stuff.
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 05, 2013, 08:09:25 PM
Then more will have a natural inclination to take what I say seriously.
Why is that so important, that anybody take you seriously?
You say things like that constantly, and it undermines everything
you write because the only people who think that way, that they
must be taken seriously, they have to be, are people with huge
inferiority problems. People who believe in themselves and know
what they're doing never make statements about being taken
seriously.
They're THEIR work speaks for itself, they are never worried
about how they're perceived.
Quote from: spike on January 05, 2013, 08:27:37 PM
Why is that so important, that anybody take you seriously?
You say things like that constantly, and it undermines everything
you write because the only people who think that way, that they
must be taken seriously, they have to be, are people with huge
inferiority problems. People who believe in themselves and know
what they're doing never make statements about being taken
seriously. They're work speaks for itself, they are never worried
about how they're perceived.
So speaks the man who says he can take this game without ever using a progression.
But proves nothing.
For your work to be taken seriously you must SHOW it working. Not talk down to others and hold on preciously to the
secret of your own claims. So several people have to be put right on what I claim. And what I can do. You included. As you
are one of the prime charactors who called me a charleton.
Nothing will REALLY ever change among the masses with this game. Even if I make a million. The only thing that will
change is people will know I am for real. And what I know and do will be there for those who want it. The rest will carry on
believing whatever they believe.
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 05, 2013, 10:16:46 PM
For your work to be taken seriously you must SHOW it working.
But why is being taken seriously so important? Who cares?
What difference does it make. You can either win or you can't,
that's the serious part. To so overwhelmingly care what people
on a board think of you seems just a little odd. You seem obsessed
with it and its imbedded in every post you make. You want to be
a roulette authority so badly that you actually beg people to believe
you. All you have is your work, that stands alone and determines
peoples opinion ultimately. Constantly pleading to be taken seriously
is off putting, to say the least.
Quote from: spike on January 05, 2013, 10:32:39 PM
But why is being taken seriously so important? Who cares?
What difference does it make. You can either win or you can't,
that's the serious part. To so overwhelmingly care what people
on a board think of you seems just a little odd. You seem obsessed
with it and its imbedded in every post you make. You want to be
a roulette authority so badly that you actually beg people to believe
you. All you have is your work, that stands alone and determines
peoples opinion ultimately. Constantly pleading to be taken seriously
is off putting, to say the least.
Its not about pleading, its about proving a game thought of as impossible to overcome in the longterm. Never was, if you apply the right method and right mindset.
I care because I've been making my living from this game for 8 years. Every forum I've ever seen has an underlying feeling of pessimism. People exchange ideas. But deep down very few really believe it can be done.
I set out to show it CAN. So people don't just go through the motions in years to come. They will have a real indisputable example to reference. To look at and say if he did it. I can do it.
That's the long and short of it. And into the bargain many people who would sell their mother before they would ever believe a mechanical system can take this game longterm. Will be put right once and for all.
And there goes the thread... >:(
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 05, 2013, 10:44:05 PM
I care because I've been making my living from this game for 8 years.
8 years. At a game you don't even understand.
Let me give an example. You state over and over that
the outcomes from H/L are somehow different than
those from R/B and O/E. This is patently false and
here's why.
The wheel has 37 pockets. We number them for the
sake of keeping track of them. The pockets don't
know they have numbers. They don't know half of them
are high and half are low, half are red and half are black,
etc.
On an unbiased wheel, which is most wheels, the ball
falls in the pockets randomly, it doesn't play favorites. In
the end, all pockets come up an equal number of times.
Every pocket is a combination of H/L O/E R/B. To say H/L
comes up differently than O/E or R/B is a physical impossibility.
Its foolishness to think so. Its even more foolish to state that
its true. Yet you do it all the time and expect a complete
falsehood to be taken as fact because you say so.
If you ever want to be taken seriously, study the game and learn
how it works first. Otherwise you'll just be talking to yourself.
Quote from: MarignyGrilleau on January 05, 2013, 10:55:01 PM
And there goes the thread... >:(
I can tell you officially that I don't care. Sometimes, all you can do is laugh.
Gentlemen, please - let's play nice! It's the emotive language that pushes people's buttons. And it is largely unnecessary. John, perhaps you are just a little battle-weary from years of exposure to other forums negativity. I can't believe that you lack imagination since you have, as you say, found a method that has worked for you for 8 years. Therefore you must, at some level, be still open to new ideas and growth, and hence you must allow for this to be true in others also.
I, for one, am interested in exploring your term VIRTUAL LIMITS and how that might translate to an efficient bet. Your statement "matures inside 20 spins" implies studying the ecart as it unfolds and looking for certain conditions to be manifesting. This looks to me like you are finding a specific bet which is "efficient". Presumably you will have stop rules in place also - which I would translate as stopping when the efficiency is gone (or profit/loss target is reached). I would not like to get hung up on terminology here - we may be talking about the same thing, although coming at it from slightly different angles.
I'm also interested in why you would so passionately declare that this bet has no edge, and argue so strongly that the belief that an edge is needed is "flawed thinking". Would you still say that if it could be shown that your bet does indeed have an edge? How do you know that it does not?
On a personal level, I do believe that an edge is needed, as I have stated elsewhere - although I am most certainly willing to be proven otherwise - but for you to state so categorically that my thinking is flawed is insulting and disrespectful to me personally and to the years of work I have done to reach this point. This is the reason why people react to your emotive language - you show no respect.
Now, I know that in this tough world we have to develop a thick skin, but I do believe there are times when we should be able to relax our guards and be willing to expose ourselves a little in the interests of self-improvement and possibly to help others in that goal for themselves. I believe that the goal of the moderators here is for this forum to be one of those places and so we are a little more vulnerable here than we might be face to face. Only bullies take advantage of such circumstances.
So I would like to make a plea to everyone to please: lose the emotive language, treat everything as opinion rather than fact until clearly proven, and be respectful and courteous in your writing. Can we manage that?
thanks
Bryan
Spike - you are absolutely right - the pockets could be called apples, pears, oranges, cats, mice, etc. - makes no difference. Properties of "numbers as labels" have no place in the development of strategies.
A word on regression since it was mentioned by Bayes. My belief is this - I believe in the existence of regression to the mean as a statistical fact, but I do not believe that it can be used to provide an advantage. The reason is this - regression to the mean takes place over such a long period that it is PRACTICALLY impossible to use it. If a person is expecting the regression to take place over a short period of time (which would be required to make it playable) then the wheel must toss out another, compensating, abnormal run. Now, if you allow me to define "normality" as that which occurs within 2SD's then normality is what we experience 95% of the time. So what is your chance of the abnormal occurring when you need it? 5% of course. And that it is in the direction you need? 2.5% I reckon. For this reason I gave up chasing methods based on regression a long time ago.
And why does this damn editor keep putting 2 CR's LF's between paragraphs?
Nothing abnormal has to happen in order to take one unit plus.
Follow indication and tendency that correction will start and place your bet. Be prepared for fluctuation and try to exit ahead. It is all speculation isn't it? :pirate:
Quote from: sqzbox on January 06, 2013, 01:07:51 AM
Spike - you are absolutely right - the pockets could be called apples, pears, oranges, cats, mice, etc. - makes no difference. Properties of "numbers as labels" have no place in the development of strategies.
Once you name something, you expect to see it act in
specific ways. Better to always think of the wheel in
an abstract way. Work on what random might do, not
on what a wheel with named slots might do.
Spike, do you have a 200 x 800 screen..? or perhaps a Twitching Finger that has a tendency to hit the return key..! You can go further along the page, we can all still see it..!
I agree 100% with spike. All numbers are same and these so called "group" of bets like Red/black, dozens/columns etc. upon table is made to fool us. If someone looks for a pattern in ECs, it is like trying to mislead oneself.
But there is another side of the coin too, which can not be overlooked. ECs or any group of numbers are random betselections. Over a long term, every number evens out almost if the wheel doesn't have a bias. So these "pseudo groups" do balance themselves too.
Every betselection has proportionate advantage and disadvantage attached to it. A single number may sleep even for 500 spins (due to temporary variance, not due to any bias) but can "Red" or any other EC behave similarly? If a number can sleep easily for upto 500 spins an EC can also not appear 13 times, in a row. There is absolutely no limit to it.
Again I ask same thing, if PB or martingale are bad ones, which one is better practically, mathematically and universally?
If someone can answer this, may be JL will stop playing PB forever.
Quote from: MarignyGrilleau on January 06, 2013, 01:27:13 AM
Nothing abnormal has to happen in order to take one unit plus.
That's right. Regression happens in different spin frames simultaneously and in multiple aspects. True, a sequence can drag on for 100s of spins at 3 SD w.r.t. red, say, but that won't stop you making 1 unit from a short term imbalance over the last 20-30 spins if it arises. Make your one unit and look for another opportunity. Do that over and over and you have the game beat.
Quote from: albalaha on January 06, 2013, 09:27:40 AM
Every betselection has proportionate advantage and disadvantage attached to it. A single number may sleep even for 500 spins (due to temporary variance, not due to any bias) but can "Red" or any other EC behave similarly? If a number can sleep easily for upto 500 spins an EC can also not appear 13 times, in a row. There is absolutely no limit to it.
Of course there's a limit. If there weren't, probability and statistics would be meaningless. The notion that a wheel is "biased" presupposes the very limits which you deny. To quote one of my favourite forum posters, TurboGenius - "Random has limits, math beats a math game".
Quote"Random has limits, math beats a math game".
Bayes, I consider u the most mature person on various forums I know of. If there is a limit, what is that? I have a query for you in your maths section too regarding saliu.
Quote from: albalaha on January 06, 2013, 11:11:39 AM
If there is a limit, what is that?
It depends what distribution and event you're talking about. Each bet (EC, streets, single numbers etc) has it's own "nature" in so far as it behaves in a certain way. So in general, you wouldn't expect an EC to go missing for 50 spins, as a street might. You can express limits in terms of standard deviations (although that's not the only way). For example, if you suspected that a wheel might be biased, you might record spins and if you found that one sector was hitting more often than it should, then you would have some evidence that the wheel was biased. This is fairly straightforward and intuitive, everyone knows that a fair wheel should hit each number with equal probability BUT that there will be some variation. The question is, when does the variability cross over from "normal" randomness to become strong evidence that each number doesn't, in fact, have an equal chance of hitting? So there is an implicit limit in the nature of randomness. It isn't fixed in the sense that random won't "cross the line" (which is why it's a bad idea to "find" the maximum number of spins an event can sleep and then apply a martingale at the appropriate point in the sequence), but it can be expressed mathematically as a probability, which is the best you can expect.
Bayes,
I always agree upon what u say because u r the least biased person I have ever seen but how can we see whether a wheel has actually biased or it is a temporary variance merely?
There is a practical limit, range which breaks in 1/3 of the cases. Range which it breaks in 10% of the cases, and range which is break in 1% of the cases and so on until "infinite".
In practice we never see 37 number 4 in a row. As we do not see the last 37 spins exactly more again in our life time.
The problem using statistic is it is not very easy to make it working for us, it is still random, which is not predictable in short term. It is hard to know why a method is winning if it does.
Quote from: albalaha on January 06, 2013, 12:24:27 PM
Bayes,
I always agree upon what u say because u r the least biased person I have ever seen but how can we see whether a wheel has actually biased or it is a temporary variance merely?
Found this article, might be of any help.
http://www.casinoenterprisemanagement.com/articles/september-2007/roulette-bias-... (http://www.casinoenterprisemanagement.com/articles/september-2007/roulette-bias-exposed)
Quote from: albalaha on January 06, 2013, 12:24:27 PM
Bayes,
I always agree upon what u say because u r the least biased person I have ever seen but how can we see whether a wheel has actually biased or it is a temporary variance merely?
Well, we're getting into advantage play methods now, but for the wheel (I'm not talking about outside bets, which are unlikely to be temporarily biased in the true sense of the word), you would generally look for some corroborating evidence OTHER than statistics. E.g., the humidity of the environment, or some physical bias which doesn't manifest UNLESS the wheel is spun slowly, etc. It's a complex subject and one which I'm not qualified to discuss, but the statistics are used only as confirmation that there is some physical cause of the apparent bias.
Quote from: albalaha on January 06, 2013, 12:24:27 PM
Bayes,
I always agree upon what u say because u r the least biased person I have ever seen but how can we see whether a wheel has actually biased or it is a temporary variance merely?
I have experiment where experts were meausuring in very precise boundaries how much actualy takes for a wheel to have "bias"
I won't bother with detailed numbers in tests, although they were amazing.
This is the conclusion.
Tilting the wheel to 1.35° led to a greater than 99.9% probability that the results were the
result of a "bias" on the wheel. Reducing the angle of tilt reduced the probability figure, but
even at an angle of only 0.1°, a probability of 98% that the wheel was "biased" was still
obtained. The results in the other three planes gave repeatable results, with the lowest
probability still in the region of 98%. An analysis of the peak segment numbers also indicates
that the "bias" appears to move in relation to the plane in which the table is tilted.
So BIAS is AP method which has the widest possibility of exploring in casino, and in practice it is very very hard to have perfectly leveled wheels without some degree of bias.
On contrary, to find it, and use it against casino takes enormous amount of time and spins. We are talking about several thousands of spins to get sure confirmation.
And be sure that whenever some fat giant guy leans on the table while you are playing, you have biased/wheel/ results and you don't have perfect random results >:D
(if the wheel is not deatached from the table, which is best countermeasure for this)
Cheers
Drazen
Quote from: albalaha on January 06, 2013, 09:27:40 AM
I agree 100% with spike. All numbers are same and these so called "group" of bets like Red/black, dozens/columns etc. upon table is made to fool us. If someone looks for a pattern in ECs, it is like trying to mislead oneself.
I take it then that you have never taken advantage of a perfect occurring pattern? I love fooling that incredible amount of extreme variance money into my wallet. I especially like the part where other players around me give me that 'deer in the headlights' look.
What seems to be foolish to others can often surprise you. Patterns come in all shapes and sizes. I'll give you a free one that will haunt you for the rest of your life. Everything is a loose similarity of a recurrence of past sequencing, with a slight quality of imperfections to the same. To the individual that can see this goes the spoils.
Who's to say whom the "fools" are?
Quote from: spike on January 05, 2013, 11:07:31 PM
8 years. At a game you don't even understand.
Let me give an example. You state over and over that
the outcomes from H/L are somehow different than
those from R/B and O/E. This is patently false and
here's why.
The wheel has 37 pockets. We number them for the
sake of keeping track of them. The pockets don't
know they have numbers. They don't know half of them
are high and half are low, half are red and half are black,
etc.
On an unbiased wheel, which is most wheels, the ball
falls in the pockets randomly, it doesn't play favorites. In
the end, all pockets come up an equal number of times.
Every pocket is a combination of H/L O/E R/B. To say H/L
comes up differently than O/E or R/B is a physical impossibility.
Its foolishness to think so. Its even more foolish to state that
its true. Yet you do it all the time and expect a complete
falsehood to be taken as fact because you say so.
If you ever want to be taken seriously, study the game and learn
how it works first. Otherwise you'll just be talking to yourself.
I never said there's a difference between the three even chances. Look at the physics of the game. it's a ball travelling around a numbered wheel. As you said it knows nothing of what its moving around.
NOW! Look at the layout of the wheel. And tell me there's no difference between the layout of HIGH LOW-- ODD EVEN. And that of RED BLACK.
don't ever talk down to me in a condescending manner Spike. I know things about this game that will rewrite the history books when Im done.
Translating those things to more open minds. Is all I will do. You will still be doing plenty of talkng this time next year. But it won't matter then.
Actions speak louder.
I truly feel sorry for those that are stuck on magical beliefs. It's one of the primary causes of problem gambling. There's no talking to them.
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 06, 2013, 02:50:58 PM
don't ever talk down to me in a condescending manner Spike.
I don't know any other way to talk to you. If I said
what I think of you and your methods, I would be
banned permanently. I have zero respect for you
and the blather you spew.
Of course you said H/L are different than R/B and O/E,
we even had a discussion about it. You can't change
what you said in the past just by waving your hand.
Magical thinking doesn't work in reality, you know.
Quote from: spike on January 06, 2013, 07:32:48 PM
I don't know any other way to talk to you. If I said
what I think of you and your methods, I would be
banned permanently. I have zero respect for you
and the blather you spew.
Of course you said H/L are different than R/B and O/E,
we even had a discussion about it. You can't change
what you said in the past just by waving your hand.
Magical thinking doesn't work in reality, you know.
MAGICAL THINKING?????
You don't know All my methods. And again I never said there was a difference between H/L and O/E.
I SAID THERE WAS A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE IN THE RESULTS. I attained with those two-even chances and RED BLACK. And im not alone in this finding.
And the general belief is it has something to do with the layout.
Do I seek your respect and acceptance? Absolutely not. Even when I've done the impossible you will avoid it. Your ego won't allow you to humble yourself to acknowledge you were wrong. And that's fine.
Easy to attack others who put themselves on the line. But still you offer up nothing of real substance that anyone can test to see if youre capable of what you claim. And that's typical, of people who claim much but will show nothing.
JL -" And the general belief is it has something to do with the layout."
Spooky. I had no idea there was a general belief or consensus regarding your claims.
Quote from: Gizmotron on January 06, 2013, 08:16:10 PM
JL -" And the general belief is it has something to do with the layout."
Spooky. I had no idea there was a general belief or consensus regarding your claims.
We are talking about the even chances in relation to results garnered for PB Giz nothing else.
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 06, 2013, 08:22:51 PM
We are talking about the even chances in relation to results garnered for PB Giz nothing else.
You have an uncanny gift for stating the obvious.
Quote from: Gizmotron on January 06, 2013, 08:24:16 PM
You have an uncanny gift for stating the obvious.
You just put JULY 19TH in your diary. That's the date you and all the other naysayers learn what I've known to be obvious for some time.
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 06, 2013, 08:33:13 PM
You just put JULY 19TH in your diary. That's the date you and all the other naysayers learn what I've known to be obvious for some time.
Just did. BTW, just curious, is that the day that they let you go?
Let's talk about advantage play for a moment. I think we all understand what that means. For my purposes here let's limit it to the ecart - that is, exclude anything that relates to the physical nature of the medium such as table or wheel bias. What sort of advantages do you think we can find if we look into the results as they unfold? Gizmo has mentioned patterns and recurrence of past sequences, Bayes mentioned statistics, and JL some other method yet to be disclosed. Remember - there has to be a REASON why the advantage exists. Hence it should be measurable.
Nathan - I really don't need this kind of stuff on my discussion. Believe it or not I am actually trying to have a serious and worthwhile debate here. With all due respect, may I suggest Aut tace aut loquere meliora silencio
thank you
Bryan
Quote from: JohnLegend on January 06, 2013, 08:02:43 PM
I SAID THERE WAS A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE IN THE RESULTS. I attained with those two-even chances and RED BLACK. And im not alone in this finding.
There can't be a slight difference in the results. The
fact you can't see that shows the huge flaw in your
thinking about random outcomes. That you're not
alone in your flawed findings is hardly news, most
people are flawed in their understanding of roulette.
Hey JL,
Please do not take my words otherwise but you should stop making claims relating to July. It is getting irritating and funny at times.
You may win a million with PB till July while other may still lose big with it. There is nothing eternal in PB that can shake the gambling world. It is just a trial and error and only as good as any other method. I believe in tests and not in words and I am afraid that tests say absolutely opposite of your claims.
You are doing well with your methods and contributing very well in your own capacity. I deeply appreciate that. For haven's sake stop all these.
Quote from: albalaha on January 07, 2013, 04:21:50 AM
Hey J It is getting irritating and funny at times. There is nothing eternal in PB that can shake the gambling world. I believe in tests and not in words and I am afraid that tests say absolutely opposite of your claims.
Don't worry, he did the same thing in 2010 by setting a date
far in the future. That day came and went in 2010 and he never proved
any of the stuff he said he would. There's nothing to prove.
Quote from: albalaha on January 07, 2013, 04:21:50 AM
Hey JL,
Please do not take my words otherwise but you should stop making claims relating to July. It is getting irritating and funny at times.
You may win a million with PB till July while other may still lose big with it. There is nothing eternal in PB that can shake the gambling world. It is just a trial and error and only as good as any other method. I believe in tests and not in words and I am afraid that tests say absolutely opposite of your claims.
You are doing well with your methods and contributing very well in your own capacity. I deeply appreciate that. For haven's sake stop all these.
Albalaha, im not talking just about PB. Its the weakest of my methods. But for a mere 7 unit buy in. It was never meant to be supernova proof.
You don't put all your eggs in one basket. I use up to 6 methods to make my money. Im not doing this to prove anything other than I CAN WIN.
Spike will be talking me down forever. But what exactly has he proven?
The time for talking success is long over. You have to show it, prove it now. 10% of whatever I make from my chalenge will be donated to this forum. Victor will be very happy about that in the longrun.
I appreciate your spirit JL but you are mature enough to stop these debates. Better concentrate your energy and experience to come up with better methods.
Quote from: albalaha on January 07, 2013, 06:44:32 AM
I appreciate your spirit JL but you are mature enough to stop these debates. Better concentrate your energy and experience to come up with better methods.
My talkings done Al, I've already got the methods. The results will show what they can do from here.
Quote from: sqzbox on January 06, 2013, 10:35:41 PM
Let's talk about advantage play for a moment. I think we all understand what that means. For my purposes here let's limit it to the ecart - that is, exclude anything that relates to the physical nature of the medium such as table or wheel bias. What sort of advantages do you think we can find if we look into the results as they unfold? Gizmo has mentioned patterns and recurrence of past sequences, Bayes mentioned statistics, and JL some other method yet to be disclosed. Remember - there has to be a REASON why the advantage exists. Hence it should be measurable.
You would certainly know if your profits keep climbing. There are many tests that you can conduct to get an idea if your winning run is down to some kind of skill or just pure unintelligent luck!
There is a concept in statistics called 'chance of randomness' (COR). This is an exact statistical measurement of how 'lucky' a series of events are.
Doing something that has only a 1 in 30,000 chance of happening purely by luck is considered 'proof' by most experts that skill and not luck was involved.
Something like this is certainly a good starting point.
cheers.
Well, I was kinda hoping that measurable means that it can be simmed.
But in any case, maybe if I give you an example -
what do you think is most likely going to happen in the 20 spins following a run of 20 reds in a row?
OR
if, after 24 spins you have seen 18 unique numbers what is the likely scenario for the next 14 spins?
Quote from: sqzbox on January 07, 2013, 12:58:44 PM
Well, I was kinda hoping that measurable means that it can be simmed.
But in any case, maybe if I give you an example -
what do you think is most likely going to happen in the 20 spins following a run of 20 reds in a row?
OR
if, after 24 spins you have seen 18 unique numbers what is the likely scenario for the next 14 spins?
I couldn't answer that sqzbox. I operate on a spin by spin basis.
I know we are not talking about AP play here.
However.......
Card Counters use the true count for the next hand.
Roulette Computers predict for the next spin.
I really don't think there is a way anybody could predict with any accuracy what the next 20 spins are going to bring unless you take bias into account!
I would love to be wrong on this however. Maybe this is where players who use some kind of regression to the mean strategy could help out!
Quote from: sqzbox on January 07, 2013, 12:58:44 PM
OR
if, after 24 spins you have seen 18 unique numbers what is the likely scenario for the next 14 spins?
you will, on average, get 4 repeats in the next 14 spins.
Quote from: Blood Angel on January 07, 2013, 03:02:04 PM
you will, on average, get 4 repeats in the next 14 spins.
Maybe! The average is not to much help. You get an average red every second spin, you get a dozen every third spin, number 4 every 36 spin (on NZ). It is not easy to take advance of such knowing.
Over a range of much more spins it may be something into it.
Quote from: sqzbox on January 07, 2013, 12:58:44 PM
Well, I was kinda hoping that measurable means that it can be simmed.
But in any case, maybe if I give you an example -
what do you think is most likely going to happen in the 20 spins following a run of 20 reds in a row?
The same thing which is most likely regardless of what has gone before - somewhere between 8-12 blacks. There is no voodoo about regression to the mean, the next sequence doesn't balance BECAUSE the previous sequence was extreme, there is no law of cause and effect in operation here, and the effect is strongest in a purely random process. It works in both directions -
QuoteIn statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics), regression toward the mean (also known as regression to the mean) is the phenomenon that if a variable is extreme on its first measurement, it will tend to be closer to the average on a second measurement, and—a fact that may superficially seem paradoxical—if it is extreme on a second measurement, will tend to have been closer to the average on the first measurement. - Wikipedia.
But mr. Bayes what about exploring of this phenomena in roulette in practice? It isn't so simple as it might seem. It isn't just enough to start betting after 1st extreme is measured hoping that you won't have severe deviation in same direction. It can happen, and it will happen eventualy, and the true is that just after 2nd extreme, things might start go evened (but still not correcting in great ratio) and no MM can handle that...
But again if you take a short term indication to start the attack like if you see few wins in last few spins, you can also get in black serie of losses after that... How do you know deviation stops to grow and it is distributing normal or going back slight in back?
I think that is the main question and hardest thing to accomplish? It can happen that everytime you enter in the cycle thinking few wins indicate that correction, black serie for starts again. You stop, waiting again such thing, but it happens again, just when you entered, which takes you with good number of losses already.
That happened to me while practicing this thing.. So what is your advice?
Cheers
Drazen
Quote from: Bayes on January 07, 2013, 03:51:05 PM
There is no voodoo about regression to the mean, the next sequence doesn't balance BECAUSE the previous sequence was extreme, there is no law of cause and effect in operation here, and the effect is strongest in a purely random process. It works in both directions -
This truth will go right over they're heads, Bayes. You violate
the first law of pseudo science: Everything is true because
I say its true. This allows them to ignore proven facts, and
continue to march to the tune of the losing drummer.
Applying cause and effect to random outcomes is a huge
fallacy that trips up most system designers. A and B just
happened, C can't be far behind. So they take examples
of where that happened and ignore those where it didn't.
Logic won't work in roulette, a very hard lesson to learn.
Considering the 20 reds scenario, if the run is over, and there is no real way to determine if it is or not, but assuming it is, then the next 20 spins will be "normal" 95% of the time. If the run is NOT over then I think I can safely say that we are closer to the end of it now than we were when it started.
As so well-stated by Bayes, there is no cause and effect in operation here. It is my belief that in this short time frame no regression to the mean will be visibly effecting. This is why I am of the belief that regression is not a tool that we should be attempting to use - it just doesn't happen in our time frame. Attempting to capitalize on regression is, to me, a prime example of Gambler's Fallacy.
Considering the other scenario, the statistical expectation is 6 new numbers and 8 repeaters. Naturally, those figures are the mean. It would be more accurate to say the following.
When there have been 18 unique numbers at spin 24 then at spin 38 there will be -
a 92.5% chance of 4 - 8 new numbers (mean of 6), and
a 92.5% chance of 6 - 10 repeaters, mean of 8).
I am of the opinion that what we are all about in this game IS trying to predict - THE LIKELY FUTURE. I capitalize it because I want to make sure you understand that I am NOT saying predict THE FUTURE. But it seems to me that it is not unreasonable to try and predict the likely future. We do it all the time. I'll give you some predictions of the likely future right now - the sun will come up tomorrow; at my location we will see a new moon on the 12th Jan; if I run onto the motorway during peak hour traffic there is a greater than 99% probability of being hit by a vehicle (morbid!); and so on and on. Our entire life is governed by our predictions of the likely future - these predictions keep us and our families safe and, hopefully, advance our life quality. Why should it not be reasonable to do the same with roulette?
Quote from: sqzbox on January 08, 2013, 02:33:34 AM
As so well-stated by Bayes, there is no cause and effect in operation here. It is my belief that in this short time frame no regression to the mean will be visibly effecting. This is why I am of the belief that regression is not a tool that we should be attempting to use - it just doesn't happen in our time frame. Attempting to capitalize on regression is, to me, a prime example of Gambler's Fallacy.
Well, I think it's important to differentiate between Gambler's Fallacy and RTM. One is a fallacy, the other isn't. Here's (http://www.financialwebring.org/gummy-stuff/coin-tossing.htm) a link you might find interesting. I would submit that attempting to
capitalize on RTM may be an engineering problem, but it isn't a fallacy, although admittedly, in practice the distinction between them isn't so clear cut. I think many try to avoid anything that smacks of Gambler's fallacy - no-one wants to believe a fallacy, right? The trouble is, trying to capitalize on trends is also a fallacy (the inverse gambler's fallacy), as is trying to "beat random with random" and any other form of bet selection. In fact "bet selection" in roulette is an oxymoron; according to the mathematicians, scattering a handful of chips on the table with a blindfold on is just as good as any other "selection". I think that's nonsense, and outcomes do actually converge to their expected values more quickly than you might think.
In another thread you said something about how combinatorics might help to find good bets, giving an example of R/B streaking while more often that not, H/L isn't, or something like that. IMO this is a fruitful approach, and one I use myself. Take R/B for example, I don't just see R/B, but look at the data stream under multiple aspects, and these aspects aren't just "seeing patterns where none exist", but are objective patterns which must conform to probability. e.g., there are as many isolated singles as there are series, there are as many series of 2 as there are series > 2, etc. These are all implied by the fact that the bet has an even chance of winning. There is nothing special about R/B when viewed as such, and all the other relationships must conform to the "laws" of probability such that none goes "off the chart" as it were, which means that there are certain constraints because all the patterns are connected in so far as they all come from the same source. This is what is meant by saying that "random has limits".
Quote from: Bayes on January 08, 2013, 08:15:48 AM
I would submit that attempting to capitalize on RTM may be an engineering problem, but it isn't a fallacy, although admittedly, in practice the distinction between them isn't so clear cut.
True, and actualy this is the biggest problem here. If one can solve this engineering problem efficiently then he has beaten the game.
Without this efficient solution, RTM means well, pretty much nothing. :fight:
Regards
Drazen
Thanks Bayes - well put and a nice article you referred us to. I admit that I struggle a little when trying to differentiate in my mind between RTM and GF - it is the on-going struggle that helps the mind grasp and integrate the concept. As I said earlier though, I do believe that RTM exists (since it is a mathematical certitude) - just generally not manifesting in our convenient time frame. Help me with the following scenario. I will try to be very careful in my wording so as to minimise any possible ambiguity.
We will have 200 coin tosses. We will examine them in 2 groups - the first 100 and the second 100. In the first 100 we see 90 heads. Would you expect the next 100 to comply with the normal probability distribution or to weigh in heavily on the tails side?
It is very much possible to get 600 heads vs 400 tails in 1000 trials/tosses. A coin has no memory to balance things out. 500 heads and 500 tails are merely rule of probability. Randomness knows no rules.
sqzbox,
90 heads in 100 coin tosses is 8 standard deviations below the mean, which is pretty much impossible GIVEN a fair coin. If I actually saw that happen I would assume the coin was biased and bet heads in the next 100 tosses, but I assume you merely want to make the point that the first measure was an extreme one.
Since the mathematical expectation NEVER changes, the most likely scenario is +/- 1 std over the next 100 tosses, meaning between 45 and 55 tails (around a 68% chance of this). I agree, it can be tricky to understand the difference between GF and RTM, maybe because we're so used to thinking in terms of cause and effect.
It might help if you think about a roulette bet which has a very high chance of winning, such as covering 36 numbers on a single zero wheel. If you were to make a series of such bets and recorded a "W" each time one of the 36 numbers hit and a "L" each time the uncovered number hit, the sequence would have very few consecutive "L"s. It's more likely that a "W" would be followed by another "W" than a "L", but you don't have to invoke any prior losses in order to see that it would be true, because you can see intuitively that the higher the probability of a SINGLE bet winning, the more likely it is that you will get long winning runs and few consecutive losses. Extreme events are by definition rare, so it follows that a win (a non-extreme event) is much more likely to be followed by another win, and a loss is more likely to be followed by a win.
Quote from: Bayes on January 08, 2013, 01:22:51 PM
sqzbox,
Extreme events are by definition rare, so it follows that a win (a non-extreme event) is much more likely to be followed by another win, and a loss is more likely to be followed by a win.
???
Quote from: albalaha on January 08, 2013, 12:58:22 PM
It is very much possible to get 600 heads vs 400 tails in 1000 trials/tosses. A coin has no memory to balance things out. 500 heads and 500 tails are merely rule of probability. Randomness knows no rules.
albalaha, I wouldn't say it's "very much" possible. That scenario represents 6.3 STD below the mean, which would be incredibly rare, if not impossible. I would certainly have doubts about the fairness of a coin which generated those results. If randomness knows no rules then why not 200 head in 1000 tosses?, or 50?
Can this be concluded it is better to attack just after W? If lose wait for another win and attack again? But again, where is bettors judgment here, which superman and you are mentioning, this can automated, right?
Cheers
Drazen
Many methods win most of the time, and it is just "rare" events which kills it. The "rare" events use to come a bit faster than we expect.
High bankroll and progressions stand until a "rare" events happen.
QuoteCan this be concluded it is better to attack just after W? If lose wait for another win and attack again? But again, where is bettors judgment here, as superman and you are mentioning, this can automated.
Speaking for myself only, the W would have already been my bet, IF my prediction is correct, I'll use streaks as an example again, if I thought my indicators were saying the next red hit will be a streak not a single event, I would bet once for that to happen, if it was a single event again, I would wait for the next red and bet red again, lose? then I would repeat the wait, this would be my 3rd attack on that specific trigger, if the 4th bet lost I would still keep the trigger alive, waiting for the next red but just flat bet ignoring the last 3 losses, this is where the hole starts getting deep as THAT specific trigger was faulty but it eventually came through.
Then, with the 3 losses in mind, when my next trigger has appeared I may bet 2 units to try and recover a little of the last triggers losses, BUT if I had done this for 3 or 4 triggers and it still isn't working I would just start over, forget the losses and start from 1 unit. This is the problem for many players, the thought of being in the negative is hard to accept for most people so they try to recover as fast as possible thus risking more units.
A big problem on most gambling forums is that 95% of the members want to earn easy money from gambling in general, they've just found roulette, found a forum, read a few pages and think it's easy, it aint, there's also those that just keep going round in circles from one method to the next, there's no simple way of winning long term. I know I speak for a few people in stating that I have been testing, checking and result crunching for the best part of 6 years, only now for the last year have I been able to actually make consistent winning sessions WITHOUT stupidly huge risks, anyone can play a martingale but we know where that ends up.
In short, there is no SINGLE method and no SINGLE MoneyManagement plan to win consistently, and I don't think what I have is a method in reality, it's a way of playing the game in general.
QuoteBut again, where is bettors judgment here, which superman and you are mentioning, this can automated, right?
Did you mean can't automated? or can BE automated?
I still don't think it can be automated sadly.
Quote from: Drazen on January 08, 2013, 01:37:10 PM
Can this be concluded it is better to attack just after W? If lose wait for another win and attack again?
No. As per the Marigny strategy, better to attack after a L. The loss could come at any time, but two consecutive losses are less likely than a single loss. At this point you might protest that it's GF because you're dealing with independent events and the loss which has just occurred makes no difference to future trials, and while it's true that the odds of the losing sequence haven't changed (hence you need to be cautious), it's a better entry point than merely picking one at random.
Thanks mr. Bayes it helps. I have something in mind trying with this.
@ superman
True, many think that gambling could give them independent lifestyle just like that.. Oh that is very very hard to accomplish no matter which way.
Oh numbers of hours I putted in this game is measured in thousands in few years for sure, and still not 100% sure I can beat the game.
But something is interesting here my friend. The way you play can't be tested on millions of spins fast to be sure you can beat it, (as with any other systems you are ding) becasue it can't be coded as you say and pretty much all depends on your personal evaluation of the situation. You are actualy beating the game in walk.. you never know how session will end and how long will it be. So it seems to me that you are in a way still testing and getting confidence with this by real playing with low limits, even after so many won sessions :)
Thanks Bayes - I was hoping that that would be the answer. I only used 90 heads in 100 tosses because that was what the link you referred us to used as an example. The point I was actually hoping to indicate was that after an extreme event (and I know we can't specify exactly when it is over) then normality reasserting is the most likely scenario. Some might say that RTM would cause an overload of tails in the short term future (i.e. the next 100 spins in my example) in order to achieve statistical balance over the 200. But here is where I disagree. It is my assertion that the likely future is ALWAYS normality.
QuoteYou are actualy beating the game in walk.. you never know how session will end and how long will it be. So it seems to me that you are in a way still testing and getting confidence with this by real playing with low limits, even after so many won sessions
Sounds about right BUT mentally I intend for the session to end in the plus, I have thought a few times of ending a session in the negative, temper mainly, but that would be defeat so mentaly regroup then plod on again on bad sessions this can be tough. I'm still learning though and have been playing with the idea of using 0.20 as a base bet, when I played this way before JL had my account I was playing in 0.01 units LOL
Quotealbalaha, I wouldn't say it's "very much" possible. That scenario represents 6.3 STD below the mean, which would be incredibly rare, if not impossible. I would certainly have doubts about the fairness of a coin which generated those results. If randomness knows no rules then why not 200 head in 1000 tosses?, or 50?
Bayes,
What is the probability of getting 5 or 7 reds in a row? Don't u feel that they can appear more often in a session than the mathematical probabiility says?
See 75 Blacks, 105 Reds and 5 Zeroes.
Quote from: sqzbox on January 08, 2013, 02:17:16 PM
Some might say that RTM would cause an overload of tails in the short term future (i.e. the next 100 spins in my example) in order to achieve statistical balance over the 200. But here is where I disagree. It is my assertion that the likely future is ALWAYS normality.
Yep, some seem to think that there's some kind of force which pulls the outcomes back to balance in the short term, but that IS GF. It's an amazingly stubbornly held belief held even by many educated people, but after you've lost a couple of bankrolls, you learn. :P
Bayes -"The trouble is, trying to capitalize on trends is also a fallacy (the inverse gambler's fallacy)..."
Trying to capitalize on the effectiveness of following trends is not a fallacy. In fact it is nothing more than trial & error. I'm pretty sure that you were just making a generalization. I also suspect that you might have considered that this might have hooked my interest.
But there is something I read that was far more interesting. You are not convinced that patterns hold much value. In fact they are one of the least discussed features of randomness. I took a beating for suggesting the existence of elegant patterns. Perhaps now, people are more inclined to become more aware of their significance?
Quote from: albalaha on January 08, 2013, 03:08:15 PM
Bayes,
What is the probability of getting 5 or 7 reds in a row? Don't u feel that they can appear more often in a session than the mathematical probabiility says?
See 75 Blacks, 105 Reds and 5 Zeroes.
Black is 2.57 STD below the mean in that sequence. Probability doesn't say there has to be a set number of 5 or 7 in a row, and it depends how many spins there are in the session. The longer the odds, the more spins you need for the average to manifest. Don't forget that probability is an AVERAGE, and there is quite a high margin of error each side of it. For the full picture you need the standard deviation and this is always relative to the number of spins.
There is a famous quotation about statistical observation and probability:
Then there is the man who drowned crossing a stream with an average depth of six inches. ~W.I.E. Gates
Quote from: Gizmotron on January 08, 2013, 03:36:28 PM
Bayes -"The trouble is, trying to capitalize on trends is also a fallacy (the inverse gambler's fallacy)..."
Trying to capitalize on the effectiveness of following trends is not a fallacy. In fact it is nothing more than trial & error. I pretty sure that you were just making a generalization. I also suspect that you might have considered that this might have hooked my interest.
But there is something I read that was far more interesting. You are not convinced that patterns hold much value. In fact they are one of the least discussed features of randomness. I took a beating for suggesting the existence of elegant patterns. Perhaps now, people are more inclined to become more aware of their significance?
Gizmo, I know. I was just playing devil's advocate to make a point. :)
To be honest, I don't think our respective methods are so different. I use trial and error too, but my emphasis is more on the "maturity of chances" rather than trend following. In a way, I'm trying to catch a trend in the same way you are, but perhaps just start earlier in the sequence. I also watch out for patterns, but again, usually bet for them to break rather than continue, then I'll bet the anti-pattern and continue until a loss.
Quote from: albalaha on January 08, 2013, 03:49:45 PM
There is a famous quotation about statistical observation and probability:
Then there is the man who drowned crossing a stream with an average depth of six inches. ~W.I.E. Gates
I have learned if you put one foot in hot water and the other in ice it is on average comfortable.
MG,
I mean to say, probability and randomness may go against each other at any moment and that is what we call as "variance". If you bet on corrections, u need not benefit from it. In long run, every bet is almost same but u can't say so about a session that we are going to play.
Quote from: Bayes on January 08, 2013, 03:28:25 PM
Yep, some seem to think that there's some kind of force which pulls the outcomes back to balance in the short term,
Roulette always seeks to balance itself, but its an erratic process.
Its undependable and maddening, you're right to ignore it completely.
It always balances in the long run, unfortunately the casino only
allows bets in the extreme short term.
I have learned if you put one foot in hot water and the other in ice it is on average comfortable.
:)) :applause: That's brilliant Ralph - love it!
Ok folks - we are up to 7 pages now and that is probably enough for this particular discussion. I haven't finished, but with all the great discussions going on at the moment I suspect my little prod in the direction of my own thinking is probably overshadowed somewhat. Before I lock this one down, however, I thought it might be useful to summarise the thoughts that I believe we are mostly agreed on. This, in itself, could be contentious but we can always agree to differ. But I am willing to keep it going for just a little bit longer in an attempt to reach some sort of consensus, although this may not be possible. I'm ok with that.
1. The likely future is always normality.
2. Given the point above, RTM is unlikely to be a usable concept in the time frames we play in.
3. While one statistical measure may vary considerably from the norm, others maintain normality.
There may have been others - feel free to add, although that may trigger another discussion.
1a. Even the wild swings of randomness are part of what normal is. As opposed to a magical belief of what randomness is.
Thanks everybody - locking it off now as it seems to have run out of steam. Continued with a bit more of a focus in the thread entitled Combinatorics - let's bounce this around for a bit.