+ Register

[Turner]

Number 6.....i really like your posts.


You say everything I know, that Im too scared to admit 

[Albalaha]

Dear Beat the wheel,
        Please illustrate what u just shown step by step and better in an excelwith the progression that you are referring to.

[monaco]

Yes, it is a normal behaviour of statistics, we know the outcomes will slide up and down from the mean all the time. I'm not so much saying RTM has to be defined, but rather, it has to be put into context so you can predict it more accurately in real time. Going back to the example of cycles of outomes constantly overlapping, by that logic, RTM has to be measured from constantly moving points in time.

A problem in a live casino for sure, but software can overcome that online. I use Bayes' software which helps a lot, but I almost can't imagine any way you could play this way in a real casino.

Yes, but only if you have kept betting through everything, even negative variance. Only then do things like probability and standard deviation apply to your wagers. If there are no bets there is no expected value, and thus there can be no variance. You can't jump in and out of random outcomes and expect to ride the big upswings and avoid the downswings. The variance just stops when your wagers stop, and begins again when your wagers do. At that point, on the ECs, variance has a 1 in 2 chance of going either up or down.

I see the distinction between 2 separate SD's (your virtual and real) - you are saying they are mutually exclusive, one having no impact on the other?



Maybe come full circle with this now, but I think that question is better.

For example if you reached -2.0 SDs you might choose to stop betting, and begin again when the "virtual" SD is -3.0. The virtual SD is exactly that: an illusion. When you jump back in at -3.0 and expect it to regress, the real SD is still only -2.0.

Out of interest, do you agree with my point that where an SD (virtual or real) hits -3.0, it is more likely to decrease than carry on increasing? If it was 50/50 that the SD would go either up or down at -3.0 then you wouldn't be dealing with random independent outcomes – there would be a bias somewhere.

This isn't to say it can't carry on increasing, it might, but it is less likely to (I wish there was another phrase I could use).
The actual difference between the reds/blacks or singles/series or whatever you're measuring at this point might not decrease but the SD is likely to - I think this is where the difference between Regression and the Law of Large Numbers needs to be made explicit. Law of Large Numbers is useless to us, but unfortunately gets thrown in with rtm.

"But in this sense, rtm doesn't know if you are making real money wagers or not – it will act itself out whether you are betting or not"


No it doesn't. But we can agree to disagree.

I find it hard to see how you can disagree with my statement. How can a statistical phenomenon be affected by if I make a bet or not? It's completely indifferent to me & my gambling - nothing I do or any action I take can have the slightest effect on it. Ok, agree to disagree.

"I know that the next 200 spins are more likely to be closer to the average."

Are they?

Yes, I believe they are, that's what rtm states.. 1st 200 spins, 65/135 (extreme Event A), we know (Event B) next 200 spins are more likely to be closer to the average..

unless is can be proved to make an actual difference

People like yourself whose opinion I respect all seem to say no!

[Number Six]

A problem in a live casino for sure, but software can overcome that online. I use Bayes' software which helps a lot, but I almost can't imagine any way you could play this way in a real casino.

I agree, it is not suitable to play manually, at least not without some kind of tracker. Automation would be even better, if it was worth investing in.

I see the distinction between 2 separate SD's (your virtual and real) - you are saying they are mutually exclusive, one having no impact on the other?

Only one of the SDs is exclusive: to its own existence in relation to your bet. The other one does not exist at all, it's just an illusion, therefore it can have no bearing on the future. It may not seem like a valid point to you, it depends on what you want to believe or what your own experience might tell you, but the SD and probabilities really do only apply to the results of outcomes where real money is wagered. If you stop betting at -1.5 SDs, when you begin again, at any point, the SD is still -1.5.

Out of interest, do you agree with my point that where an SD (virtual or real) hits -3.0, it is more likely to decrease than carry on increasing?

Virtual, no; there is still a 50/50 chance it will go either way. Real, yes; it is more likely to decrease. But again the problem remains: how long will it take? And also, if you reach -3.0 SDs, where have you measured it from? Is it from the first ever wager you placed, or would you choose to measure it from constantly moving points? The overall SD for, say, red across 250 spins maybe -3.0, but for the last 50 spins it may be something else; which may suggest a flaw in your selection criteria.

This isn't a great example but it leads to the point: is it better to define an optimum distance between points of, say, 50 spins, and change your bet every 50 spins according to the last 50? Would that make a difference than just looking at the bigger picture? Is it even better to look at the bigger picture, combined with smaller pictures, compare them and then make a selection? These are the things that need to be defined using regression as the main example. Does anything make a difference?

I find it hard to see how you can disagree with my statement

"No it doesn't" meant, sure, it doesn't know you are not betting, not that regression will not act itself out. But in relation to your wagers, no it does not happen if you are not betting. There is no expected value, and no maths applies to a virtual bet. You might look upon that with disbelief, logically it should make sense, but on another note maybe you have to actually see it to believe it.

It is exactly the same fallacious approach as waiting for 5 reds and then betting black. The probability of winning is still .486.

Yes, I believe they are, that's what rtm states.. 1st 200 spins, 65/135 (extreme Event A), we know (Event B) next 200 spins are more likely to be closer to the average..

No bets, no SD! When I have some free time, we could use this example scenario and run a sim of a few trials to see what happens.

People like yourself whose opinion I respect all seem to say no!

Well, if you ask me there are some conditional situations that are effective.

[Big EZ]

This was my first run of 1k placed bets.........

1000 total placed bets
536 wins
Longest losses 8 in a row once
Average losing run is 3.6

And monaco had said I returned a z-score of 2.28


Here is my second run of 1k placed bets
1000 placed bets
549 wins
Longest losses 9 in a row once
Average losing run is 3.7


Could you please do the z-score for me again monaco....





Also I think this goes well with this topic because I am just experiencing a positive fluctuation or is there really an advantage?  At what point can someone say OK that's enough testing, and consider the results as true?




6,
You said getting the average of the losing run will only tell you exactly that.  But that in itself could be used to help strengthen the MM side of things don't you think?

[Bayes]

"No it doesn't" meant, sure, it doesn't know you are not betting, not that regression will not act itself out. But in relation to your wagers, no it does not happen if you are not betting. There is no expected value, and no maths applies to a virtual bet. You might look upon that with disbelief, logically it should make sense, but on another note maybe you have to actually see it to believe it.

It is exactly the same fallacious approach as waiting for 5 reds and then betting black. The probability of winning is still .486.

I have to say that I DO look on it with disbelief. Why doesn't the maths apply to a virtual bet? In any case, it would be no great hardship even if it were true, because you could simply bet the minimum while waiting for the "trigger".


RTM doesn't say anything about the probability of the next (individual) outcome, only that given a strong deviation from the average, the next SAMPLE (and the larger the sample, the more likely this is to be true) is likely to be closer to the average. Actually, this applies whether or not the sequence is severe, but the way RTM is phrased ("given that...") makes it sound superficially like the gambler's fallacy.

[Albalaha]

RTM doesn't say anything about the probability of the next (individual) outcome, only that given a strong deviation from the average, the next SAMPLE (and the larger the sample, the more likely this is to be true) is likely to be closer to the average.

What is the difference between this "Likely" and "it is due to happen" of gamblers' fallacy? Both theories doesn't help in any way, in gambling. If it does, prove that through any clear example.
           Indeed, playing after certain SD is a kind of gambler's fallacy, a statistical veil upon your eyes. Playing after a particular SD moves you away from betting repeatedly and you get proportionally far lesser opportunities to bet and to earn. Nothing reduces the risk and reward ratio in gambling. All strategies are proportionally helpful and harmful.
               #3 of zumma book is a very fine example against these myths and there is no "smoothening" of variance even in 15,000 spins. Virtually, it should have gone smoother, in long run but the "long run stretch" is itself virtual and unpredictable.
             I know that people can use better scientific and mathematical terms to push their views but what I have stated is a harsh and undeniable reality.

[Bayes]

The advantage lies in the fact that if starting to bet "cold" (that is, with no knowledge of past outcomes) you will encounter more severe losing runs. And it's not true that there are fewer opportunities, at least, not if you know what to look for and use ALL the information. There are always multiple aspects or probabilities in a sequence of outcomes, and none of them are less valid than the others. So to take the EC's, you can see them as a simple binary bet, or as streaks of varying lengths, or as groups of R/B taken 3 at a time etc etc. These multiple probabilities each have their own averages and SD's and must all work together, as it were, in order to produce the outcomes which fall within certain limits (the vast majority of the time). In other words, the multiple aspects are all connected, as they must be because they all arise from the same process.


The reductionist approach taken by most people simply isn't sophisticated enough to create a successful method. Nevertheless, RTM is a true phenomenon and it CAN help to reduce variance, if used as part of a package.

[Albalaha]

There are some ugly facts which we should not forget:
1. Every number has mathematically equal chance to appear but due to "law of small numbers" anything can happen in a limited playable session and "regression towards mean" can not help us in any way in that span. It is only good, theoretically.
2. There is nothing like a "fill in the gap" thing in a session. If a number is going very bad in its first run, there is no guarantee that it will improve in the next cycle. If RTM helps any way in playing, play number 3 of zumma and beat that with that or give us any example of how to use this concept practically that gives a "definitive edge". If it wins and loses randomly, it is not any better than playing any manner randomly.
3. Everything works in a particular condition be it RTM or martingale, when adverse runs like number 3 comes all these theories become laughing stocks. There is no mathematical theory that can make you a winner in gambling otherwise all maths professors would have been gambling in casinos making millions.
4. Every betselection is proportionally good and bad when it is random. There is nothing like "hot" or "cold" numbers and even some bet is looking like one, it may turn upside down any moment.

[Number Six]

I have to say that I DO look on it with disbelief. Why doesn't the maths apply to a virtual bet? In any case, it would be no great hardship even if it were true, because you could simply bet the minimum while waiting for the "trigger".

Where there is no bet there is no probabilility of winning or losing, and there is no expected value. How can it be different? How can a virtual bet make any difference at all? It's a total fallacy. Yeah bet the minimum until there is some kind of trigger, up the bet size when the system is in play. All the maths applies only in relation to one's wagers and bankroll.

I'd be interested to know why you think virtual play holds any credence.

You said getting the average of the losing run will only tell you exactly that.  But that in itself could be used to help strengthen the MM side of things don't you think?

This is no zero, right? The z-score is 3.8. It's great; the problem is, if your results are hand tested they are open to corruption due to personal bias - it can happen subconsciously. Can you simulate your bet? It would be interesting to see the results of 10,000 placed and even if the 2,000 you have tested tally.

Knowing the average might be useful for academic purposes, but formulating MM around that average will increase your risk of ruin. You have to know that you can bet through the worst deviation; the average won't help with that. But if your results are unbiased you actually don't need any MM. You can compound your winnings flat betting with some % increments. I wouldn't use any progression, or at worst increase your wagers slightly as you come out of a drawdown. If there is an edge the longer you play the more you win.

[Turner]

I'd be interested to know why you think virtual play holds any credence.

So would I, even though I agree with Bayes point of view, I would equally like to see why you don't.


I don't mean, lets agree to disagree....or, no it doesn't, I mean explain please.


I would find both explainations interesting


( it may change my view)

[Number Six]

Turner,

I am sure we can agree that virtual play is some kind of way of avoiding variance or simply just skipping spins until there is some sort of trigger or condition that's perceived to hold an advantage. It's an erroneous approach. It is, in short, gambler's fallacy. No matter how complex the bet selection might seem to be, it's essentially the same as betting black after 3 or 4 reds, or a virtual trot of similar deviation. In that case the probability of winning on black is still .486. If that was not true, we could all make millions and play with 95% edges. No maths applies to that, or any, virtual trot. In order for the maths to apply, there has to be a wager. The house edge cannot be avoided by not betting. With no bet, you take it, and yourself, out of the game. It's important not to overanalyse this or think of it in some complicated context.

I'm not sure I could explain it any more than saying that where there is no bet there is no probability of winning or losing. How can a virtual bet have an affect on anything: future results or your bankroll? It can't. It doesn't change anything, it makes no difference.

If that doesn't explain it, feel free to specify why or why you think the maths can apply to a non-wager.

[Pockets]

Answer is not very straightforward. This is one of those things where there is no clear demarcation of right or wrong even if go by maths. For maths, it doesn't know whether you play virtual or real. It is dependent on only the outcome from the wheel. So it suggests you can use it to your advantage. But at the same time, math suggests these are all independent events, so house edge will remain and hence it doesn't matter whether you play virtual, there is no advantage. Confusing ain't it.

A more simplistic explanation. Consider a sequence of events in EC - WWLWWLWLWLWWWLWL
One is playing all real. 
result - +4

One is stopping real play after a loss and after two virtual wins, continues in real mode.
Result - 0

[Bayes]

Six,

the probability of winning on black is still .486.

No argument here.


But RTM isn't concerned with individual outcomes, because an individual outcome (one spin) cannot be an extreme event; RTM applies to a sequence - multiple outcomes. You can assign a probability to the outcome of a sequence of bets (using the binomial distribution), so for example the expected number of wins (the average) in a sequence of 10 EC bets is 5, or using standard results from the Normal Distribution, you could say that there is roughly a 70% chance that your number of wins will be between 4 and 6.


Now this result applies whatever your results were from the PREVIOUS 10 spins, right? (so no gambler's fallacy committed yet). In the same way that the probability of ONE win is 0.486, the probability of 4-6 wins in 10 trials is also fixed (the wheel has no memory).


This is really the key to why RTM "works". The long-run expectation is the most likely outcome for any sequence (even though you can't rely on it necessarily in the short term), and strong deviations (by definition) are rare, so there's no question of rare events "causing" a "correction" or past spins affecting future spins. If you're going to ask questions about cause and effect, it would be more pertinent to ask why the deviations occur in the first place, not why outcomes should NOT revert to the mean after deviations.


So, you may ask, if it makes no difference what has gone before, then why WAIT for a losing sequence before starting to bet? isn't THIS a case of GF?


And as Al has pointed out, I'm missing out on all the wins which I WOULD have gained by not waiting for the rare events, and when the rare event does occur, the odds of the next sequence haven't thereby changed - so it's a complete waste of time and a big fallacy!


Not quite.  Firstly, waiting for the rare events is a non-issue because I use software which generates 1000s of bet selections, so I get a bet almost every spin (I'm always at the "edge" of the bell curve). Secondly, I'm not concerned about "missing out" on wins because my emphasis is not on winning, but on NOT LOSING. My priority is not to get as many wins as possible, but to eliminate as many losses as possible.


I do need to use a progression (albeit not an aggressive one), and the problem with progressions, as we all know, is that they can win very often but when you hit the run from hell they can wipe out all your winnings and then some. So I let the wins take care of themselves; my business is to cut down the length (not so much the frequency, which doesn't affect my profits, only the time it takes to get them) of the losing runs.


The only way I know how to do that RELIABLY (I've tried other approaches like following trends and switching from one bet selection to another, without any long-term success), is to "use" RTM. I wait for an extreme deviation (3 SD+) and then start betting when I see some indicators that the tide is turning, using a mild negative progression (it has to be negative, postive progressions don't work well at all).


Now at this point you might protest that this doesn't really solve the problem or shorten the losing runs at all, because there is no theoretical limit to them, and in fact, by seeking out the worst-case scenarios I'm actually making things worse for myself. The latter point does have some validity; you do see some shockingly bad losing sequences using this method (worst I've seen is 6 wins in 40 spins) and caution is needed, but it's very instructive to see just how bad things CAN get. As to the former complaint - that losing runs can continue indefinitely - I don't have much patience with that because it's simply false and a consequence of taking the maths too literally (an equation is only a model of reality, and the map is not the territory).


The fact is, outcomes run in cycles; losing runs come to an end, and the more extreme the losing run, the sooner it will end. I may have losses, but I have eliminated the majority of them before I start betting (virtual betting or not makes no difference to the maths - the wheel has produced those outcomes which are independent of any player). This is the simplest way I know of to reduce the losses to the point where you can use a progression without the stress of wondering when it's going to blow up. Even so, I don't play in a totally mechanical way, there is always some judgement involved, but it's a skill which improves with practice.

[Albalaha]

Dear Bayes,
           I read your posts like a read a good quality book and rely upon them in similar fashion. If you say, "RTM" can give an edge than playing continuously and randomly, would you give me any working example of how it can best be used? I am talking of straight up bet.