+ Register

[Albalaha]

Drazen, we may not discuss it here. But you might be absolutely right. The MM is what is creating that edge and not the bet selection here.

This is exactly what I have been emphasizing upon in all my challenges. If you beat persistent variance, you have a true Holy Grail. One who can not lose much even in extreme worst time, will be a real winner. If your MM doesn't give you an edge with flat bet and if it works in favorable conditions only and lose worse in adverse cases, you should not play this at all because loss will be your last outcome.

[Albalaha]

If your MM does give you an edge with flat bet then you don't need any MM other than flat bet. You will win and win and win without having to worry about MM.

that is what I said. Thanks for emphasizing my words. If you can win flat bet, u do not need MM and there is none that can win flat bet, for sure, in long run.

[Turner]

Just my sense of humour...don't all get offended....but this whole post reminded of a Mr Universe body building competition

[FLAT_IN_O]

          that is what I said. Thanks for emphasizing my words. If you can win flat bet, u do not need MM and there is none that can win flat bet, for sure, in long run.

--Lately I do constantly...even posted idea,10000 DB spins,dealers involved/without reveling it all/on the other forum,for all to study it,but unfortunately Mr J./mod/thought it was against the rules so it was deleted......probably he will do the same here,so it wouldn't be point posting it.Am not,nor ever was against sharing...you wana it pm.me......now again some/mods/ might think am selling something....but they never
thought of the fact that DB stuff is reading this also.....therefore will only give this to these that I know.
Don't forget your private mail.

[Bayes]

Wow, this thread has turned into quite a debate! 

The truth is sometimes you are better off playing the innate permanence, and sometimes you are better off playing the personal permanence. The problem is knowing when to play which, something that is very difficult to do.

I would say that the "personal" permanence informs the "innate" permanence. Roughly speaking, your bet selection (if derived from past spins) uses the innate permanence and your personal permanence gives you the results of that bet selection. So you need both in order to know whether the bet selection has any merit or not.


If Six is correct and all probabilities are meaningless unless accompanied by actual wagers, this would mean that any statistical hypothesis tests (which form a big part of statistics and are based on standard deviations) would also be meaningless. Let me put this in a concrete context: suppose you suspect that a particular wheel in your local casino is biased, so you collect some data. Having collected the data, you need to analyze it in order to determine whether the wheel is in fact biased, and the result of this test forms the basis of your decision to play and subsequent bet selection (if the test comes out positive). Although there are many types of hypothesis test, what they all basically have in common is the comparison of the actual data collected in terms of expectations and standard deviations. So if for example a particular sector shows hits above 4 standard deviations (say), then you might decide to go ahead and play that sector (using ACTUAL wagers).


Six,

Betting black after five reds can be no different to regression measured over 1000 spins. In fact, betting black after fives reds is itself a regression bet; there has been a slight and fast deviation, now the player expects a slight and fast regression on the very next spin, so he bets with the erroneous belief he has a better chance of winning.

But 5 reds is not an extreme event, which is necessary for RTM. You need at least 9 reds to get 3 SD. And betting a single black after these 5 reds cannot be considered a valid case of RTM because RTM should compare sequence with sequence. So if you considered 5 reds to be your extreme event, the chances of the next FIVE outcomes also being red would be small. Sorry to keep repeating myself, but this doesn't mean that the prior extreme event CAUSES the succeeding not-so-extreme event, nor does it mean that the succeeding event will necessarily "balance out" or "correct" the extreme event, because that would violate the principle of independent trials. I get the feeling that most people are fixated on this, and so reduce RTM to gambler's fallacy.

Regression to the mean can be any length of spins taken at any time. Measuring it across 10 spins is no less valid than measuring it across 10,000. If your first wager is to bet black after 10 reds, is your chance of winning any better that 18/37?  No. It is gambler's fallacy.

Agreed, but that's not what RTM claims. It only says that the event following an extreme event will be less extreme. You can't have the following event consist of one spin if you're comparing it with a sequence of spins, that's comparing apples with oranges. To make a comparison both events need to be of the same length, but in that case the prior extreme event would also need to consist of one spin, but to call a single spin "extreme" is absurd.


Pockets,

The MM is what is creating that edge and not the bet selection here.

No. I thought the same for a while, so I tested the MM using a random bet selection over several thousand spins. Time after time it floundered, but that has never happened using the RTM bet selection. I won't post the MM here because it would take the thread too far off-topic.

[Bayes]

This leads back to the first question from the beginning of the thread again - how do you measure that? Is there a figure in terms of smaller losing streaks, or narrower parameters between highest high & lowest low? If I'm searching for a lower variance bet, how can I be mathematically sure that I've got one? or is it subjective, you just feel it's lower variance because of experience & through many spins of play & practice?

monaco, there are several statistical tests which are designed to compare variances. The most well known is the F-test.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-test_of_equality_of_variances


In that article there are links to some of the other tests which measure the same thing.

[Number Six]

If random outcomes follow the laws of regression, when you are playing virtually, the spins which are real creates patterns and will follow laws of regression and will have its own SD.

You don't appear to be that confused; your assumption is right. The results of real and virtual bets both have their own SD; but only the real SD is meaningful. Following the virtual SD is a fallacy. Phantom probabilities cannot influence future results.

suppose you suspect that a particular wheel in your local casino is biased, so you collect some data

People worry about things like this becoming a matter of semantics or accuse people of being pernickety. My opinion, the definitions are most important. The wheel is not biased until you start to win money off it.

You can't have the following event consist of one spin if you're comparing it with a sequence of spins, that's comparing apples with oranges

I'm sure you can see it was a rudimentary example, focussed only on the first bet after the extreme event; however long you bet for is not really the point. For the record, I am not saying RTM is a fallacy. The fallacy is betting for regression on the back of virtual spins.


Bing Bell,

Don't you think the PP is definitive to your wagers only? Otherwise there can be no variance from skipped spins. That spin ceases to have significance if you don't try to beat it individually or part of some other sequence.

[monaco]

monaco, there are several statistical tests which are designed to compare variances. The most well known is the F-test.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-test_of_equality_of_variances


In that article there are links to some of the other tests which measure the same thing.

Cheers 

You cannot reach the EV without a bet. It's that simple. I suspect you are bored of me going on about it, I guess you will have to figure it out in your own time.

It's all I'm trying to do still - figure it out - can only say thanks again for your replies & posts in doing that..

[Bayes]

RTM talks about the next event being more likely average, so why decide to take the side of, or wait for, the under-represented? Upon hitting that 3.0SD, why not bet for the side currently hitting? RTM says the next x spins will be more likely closer to the average, so why not bet the current 'hot' side (as a side must be chosen), and even if rtm began the moment you started betting, you're still likely to be in a period of 'average' which looks fine for your MM?

Good question. When I first started playing this way the same thing occurred to me, and for a while I experimented with betting for the SD to continue (following the trend). What I found was that although this often worked (especially early on in the attack), eventually the outcomes would even out and I would find myself on the wrong side. Then when I tried to anticipate the change I would get whip-sawed. In the end I decided it was simpler just to monitor the flow of outcomes until there was some indication of "normality", make a couple of bets, then move on to another opportunity at the end of a winning run. If things get really tough, I'll just "fix" that marquee (you'll know what I mean by that if you've used my tracker, although these days I use software with a graphical display in the baccarat style except that it shows the streaks on either side of a horizontal line).


Another change from that old tracker is the method I now use to select the poorest performing pattern, which may make it more advantageous to choose the under-represented side to bet on. Now, instead of picking the sequence which (if played "virtually") resulted in the highest percentage of losses, I use a type of scoring system based on various factors like number of spins since a double win, a triple win, number of spins since at least one win in the last 3, 6, 9, and 12 spins. This gives me a more fine-grained picture of how the losses are distributed, which can make the attack (length and selection) more targeted.

[Bayes]

The fallacy is betting for regression on the back of virtual spins.

Six, it seems we've failed to persuade each other on this issue, so we'll have to agree to disagree. 

[Xander]

Bayes,

If you're talking about betting on trends on the outside then you might be falling for a bit of the gambler's fallacy there.

I suppose that if you're taking into account the wheel's fitness, then betting with the trend would make the most sense.  Especially if you're betting on the numbers straight up, rather than on the outside.  The reason is because if a wheel was biased, then there's a greater chance that you could be on one of the biased numbers.  If so, then the house edge for such a bet could be slightly lower than playing the coldest numbers.

Playing the coldest numbers on a live wheel, is probably the best way, that I know of, to actually lose at a rate that could exceed the normal house edge.

[Bayes]

Just my sense of humour...don't all get offended....but this whole post reminded of a Mr Universe body building competition

Turner, I'm not offended, but don't you think that your comment reflects a rather cynical worldview?


i.e., we're all merely posturing egos strutting around on a stage and flexing our muscles. What about debate and discussion for the purpose of finding the truth? or do you think that all truth is relative, or that there is no such thing?

[Albalaha]

There can be two kind of bias on a number-negative i.e. hitting lower than its mathematical expectation and positive one that is just opposite the negative bias.
        If there is a negative one, playing RTM will kill, no doubts. In EC bets, I do not think it is possible to have a bias since numbers are allocated on the wheel differently.

[FLAT_IN_O]

Just my sense of humour...don't all get offended....but this whole post reminded of a Mr Universe body building competition

Turner mate,
Fair dinkum,ausies would say...debate with no end/futile as far as roulette is concern/so many times heard
before,which nobody makes a winner.Just my 2 chips.

[Turner]

Turner, I'm not offended, but don't you think that your comment reflects a rather cynical worldview?


i.e., we're all merely posturing egos strutting around on a stage and flexing our muscles. What about debate and discussion for the purpose of finding the truth? or do you think that all truth is relative, or that there is no such thing?

Yes I'm cynical....terribly so....and perhaps it was churlish of me to seemingly try to upset the post...


Having said that....I always admire how you back up your views with some quite awesome explanations...I'm just frustrated that the "noes to the left" don't explain their view equally as well....or at all.


Ill leave you guys to debate.


I'm (self admission) out of my league on this subject