What is the difference between the "law of averages" and the "law of large numbers".
Thanks
The law of large numbers is a mathematical theorem which says that as you take more trials, the average value approaches the expectation. So betting one number, the "theoretical" expectation is 1/37 or 0.027, and the LLN says that after say 100 spins, the average might only be 0.015, but after 1000 spins, it will be closer to 0.027, and after 10,000 spins, it will be closer still.
The "law of averages" isn't a theorem, but more of a fallacy, and you could say it's akin to the gambler's fallacy. i.e., a gambler might think that "red has hit 10 times in a row, therefore, by the law of averages, black is now more likely to hit". Basically, it's saying that what is true in "the long term" is also true in the short term, which isn't the case.
"Law of averages" is expecting"law of large numbers" to work in short span, which is of course a fallacy. I must say that "law of averages" has caused the biggest losses to lesser educated gamblers than anything else. This fallacy is mainly responsible for unwise money management techniques like martingale, labouchere etc in gambling wherein one can risk entire money on earth to win just 1 unit and still without any guarantee to win back that 1 unit.
To understand both concepts clearly, you may refer to this:- http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/17231561/Reality-of-Law-of-large-numbers#.VIaoD9KUdA4
Quote from: Bayes on December 03, 2014, 06:27:10 PM
Basically, it's saying that what is true in "the long term" is also true in the short term, which isn't the case.
Long term may or may not happen in the corresponding long term results record being recorded as you play. Likewise the short term results may or may not happen according to previously recorded short term results while you play the short term.
I still say play 2,000 or 5,000 or 10,000 shoes and the results will always be different. In random games, they factually have to be.
@alrelax,
Buddy. You might consider "long run" as a hypothesis and a long stretch of thousands or hundreds of thousands of spins that you may think that you will never face but in reality, you can face the worst of millions spins in your very first hour of play or you may not see that ever.
We consider long run simulation as standard simulation because long run is made of many small sessions. If you have seen 3 millions spins of German casinos, they are not collected in a stretch but upon different tables over years. When we talk of analyzing the games with any given "logic", statistics and probability (physics too, for "advantage players") come to guide us. They need not make us big winners but surely saves us from losing foolishly with ideas based upon fallacies like "law of averages".
Thanks Bayes. So basically we can disregard the "law of averages" and concentrate on the "law of large numbers".
Quote from: GodOfThunder on December 13, 2014, 03:05:21 AM
Thanks Bayes. So basically we can disregard the "law of averages" and concentrate on the "law of large numbers".
Forget about the "law of averages" and the "law of large numbers". Consider the coincidences of characteristics and sequences of random events.
Quote from: Gizmotron on January 30, 2015, 11:35:07 PM
Forget about the "law of averages" and the "law of large numbers". Consider the coincidences of characteristics and sequences of random events.
I know this sounds smarmy and possibly condescending. So, let me elaborate. I know many of you have been searching for an advantage or an edge to take into the casino. I have searched for decades to find such an advantage. Coincidences that occurred more than twenty five years ago put me on the path I'm on now. I'm giving clues because that is the way that I decided to share this. Nobody, but one other person, has given me any clues. Many of you know who that person was over the past ten years. Spike was right regarding one thing that I was doing differently. Spike saw advantage in the short term. I saw advantage in the longer "Global Effect" range of spins. In the past year I have discovered that Spike was on to something that I have ignored for decades. I have since utilized the big picture combined with the shorter term to force the exposure of characteristics that I prefer to take advantage of. Please don't ask what those characteristics are. Figure it out for yourself. When you work for something you will value it more.
Please don't complain. Nobody gave me any clues but Spike. That hint took me from doing very well to an almost level of astonishment that I find far more amusing. Perhaps you are not amused by my comment? Roulette has been around for more than two hundred years, and in all that time, it has never been taken advantage of. I know that I have it. I just want to exploit it some more before I fully disclose it. Anyone here can take what I have already disclosed, add their own take on what I have hinted at regarding three triggers, and take advantage themselves. This is the best way to do this. If you have questions about what I have already written I will try to direct you to the answers that have already been given.
Enjoy
705 posts is going to take some reading and it won't be my first time to read all your posts, digesting it all correctly and using it is another matter. Any direction would be much appreciated. Where do we start ?
Quote from: klw on November 13, 2015, 10:19:34 PM
705 posts is going to take some reading and it won't be my first time to read all your posts, digesting it all correctly and using it is another matter. Any direction would be much appreciated. Where do we start ?
I would start with these:
Here is where I put some stuff that is not exactly in my section of sub-forums:
http://betselection.cc/meta-selection/the-simple-explanation-attacking-trends
Here is the global effect:
http://betselection.cc/gizmotron/the-global-effect-what-is-it
I put hints in other threads on purpose. They are hard to find by design. It's easier to find my clues here than it is to find them out by the school of hard nocks, on your own, the way I learned them.
Thanks for those links.
I have read them , again. I have had Nick code me a couple of excel sheets to assist me with your ideas in the past , maybe I am just not clever enough,maybe just simply not " getting " it but I couldn't make it pay. It's not as if I havn't put the hours into this.
Where do I go from here ?
Quote from: klw on November 14, 2015, 10:18:38 PM
Thanks for those links.
I have read them , again. I have had Nick code me a couple of excel sheets to assist me with your ideas in the past , maybe I am just not clever enough,maybe just simply not " getting " it but I couldn't make it pay. It's not as if I havn't put the hours into this.
Where do I go from here ?
I'm sorry but I'm keeping that to myself.
You can't make it pay, as you say. You have to let opportunity come to you. You must find a way to wait for the time to attack. One of my posts shows how long you have to wait for sleepers to line up just right. You need a method to recoup your tries, while waiting for the attack. Try to stay even. Don't descend into deep losses. Get out at a reasonable amount for your effort. You can become a millionaire with just three units ahead for each session.
Quote from: Gizmotron on November 18, 2015, 04:16:31 PM
I'm sorry but I'm keeping that to myself.
Awwwwww! And here I was holding my breath!
QuoteYou can't make it pay, as you say. You have to let opportunity come to you. You must find a way to wait for the time to attack. One of my posts shows how long you have to wait for sleepers to line up just right. You need a method to recoup your tries, while waiting for the attack. Try to stay even. Don't descend into deep losses. Get out at a reasonable amount for your effort. You can become a millionaire with just three units ahead for each session.
Giz is going a LONG way around just to say, "Let the force be with you." "Get in the zone."
Millionaire? That's a stretch ain't it, Giz. You got ask yourself if you got the kind of risk bank to make millions with just 3 units a session WHY ARE YOU GAMBLING? Aren't you better off using a price cost averaging algorithm in a diverse portfolio?
Serious question, Giz. How long is a session? 1 hour? 5 hours? 3 units per how much time?
J
Session length is 1 of my questions as well. I am of the opinion that something is always setting up in a dozen spins or so a la Kimo Li and know when to quit so that is where my focus is at the moment.
3 units is fine by me, consistency is the key so that you can move up the bet sizes.
Quote from: Jimske on November 18, 2015, 09:54:41 PM
Giz is going a LONG way around just to say, "Let the force be with you." "Get in the zone."
Millionaire? That's a stretch ain't it, Giz. You got ask yourself if you got the kind of risk bank to make millions with just 3 units a session WHY ARE YOU GAMBLING? Aren't you better off using a price cost averaging algorithm in a diverse portfolio?
Serious question, Giz. How long is a session? 1 hour? 5 hours? 3 units per how much time?
J
Here it is, right in front of you, from another thread:
Quote from: Gizmotron on November 10, 2015, 10:57:29 PM
| X | X | X | X |
|-------------------| X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
|-------------------| X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X | 25 -- W
| X | X | X | X | 1 -- W
| X | X | X | X | 2 -- W
| X | X | X | X | 19 -- W
| X | X | X | X | 24 -- W
| X | X | X | X | 8 -- L
| X | X | X | X | 20 -- L
| X | X | X | X | 11 -- W
| X | X | X | X | 20 -- W
| X | X | X | X | 16 -- W
| X | X | X | X | 10 -- W
| X | X | X | X | 9 -- W
| X | X | X | X | 13 -- L
| X | X | X | X | 20 -- W
| X | X | X | X | 25 -- L
| X | X | X | X | 30 -- W
| X | X | X | X | 15 -- W
| X | X | X | X | 24 -- W
| X | X | X | X | 26 -- W
| X | X | X | X | 22 -- W
| X | X | X | X | 31 -- W
| X | X | X | X | 11 -- L
| X | X | X | X | 23 -- W
| X | X | X | X | 2 -- L
| X | X | X | X | 6 -- L
| X | X | X | X | 34 -- W
| X | X | X | X | 35 -- L
| X | X | X | X | 26 -- W
| X | X | X | X | 18 -- W
| X | X | X | X | 26 -- W
| X | X | X | X | 32 -- W
| X | X | X | X | 22 -- W
| X | X | X | X | 10 -- L
| X | X | X | X | 25 -- W
|-------------------| X | X | 0 -- L
| X | X | X | X | 6 -- L
| X | X | X | X | 16 -- L
| X | X | X | X | 25 -- W
| X | X | X | X | 24 -- W
| X | X | X | X | 17 -- L
Can you see it phasing in and out of winning dominance streaks? I can. This is typical of what I see, using my three triggers.
3 X $350 = $1,050 per session. This is an amount low enough to not attract too much attention. Do this on average of three years, one session per day, and you are a millionaire. Of course you will need to go to a lot of different casinos so as to not attract a lot of attention.
You could take a few months to work your way up to a bankroll that supports two $350 bets for each attacking spins.
Quote from: klw on November 19, 2015, 10:57:09 AM
Session length is 1 of my questions as well. I am of the opinion that something is always setting up in a dozen spins or so a la Kimo Li and know when to quit so that is where my focus is at the moment.
I often start sessions that break straight down as LLLLLwLLL, a total dominance of losses. That's across all three of my triggers too. I'm either betting on one of the even chance bets at the table minimum, or on Airball or Rapid Roulette I'm sitting these losing streak bets out. So sessions take as long as they take. At 30 spins per hour, on real tables, it can take as much as 60 spins. I'm monitoring four sets of dozens. So something is happening in the characteristics of randomness somewhere in all that.
Quote from: Gizmotron on November 19, 2015, 06:39:03 PM
Can you see it phasing in and out of winning dominance streaks? I can. This is typical of what I see, using my three triggers.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Quote from: Mike on November 20, 2015, 08:50:46 AM
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Teaching anyone that can see out of their backside is wonderful too.
Mike, we all know that you are an absolutist with regards to probability, to the point of being obnoxious that is. Answer this, or I will delete your postings in this thread. When does probability say that a dozen numbers will sleep for at least 15 spins in a row, the same dozen not hitting 15 times that is, in the next 300 spins? It's simple to calculate the odds that it will happen some time in the next 300 spins, but what about it happening in the first, second, or third hour. Probability can't predict anything in just 300 spins.
Quote from: Gizmotron on November 19, 2015, 06:39:03 PM
Here it is, right in front of you, from another thread:
See, that wasn't so hard was it Giz?
I'm always willing to entertain different perspectives. Why not? I use a visual perspective of what one might call triggers myself. I'll have to take a look at what you posted to see if there is anything I might recognize as dominance phasing. But first I'm not sure I understand the formatting. There are two columns separated by "----------------" I assume these are from Roulette spins. Why are there two columns side by side? Difficult for me to figure the order of the spins. Why do the dotted lines cross over to the next column?
And please don't tell me to go back to the Roulette Forum. You came to this forum. IMO, the onus is on you to give at least a modicum of explanation of what you post.
J
Quote from: Jimske on November 20, 2015, 03:41:32 PM
See, that wasn't so hard was it Giz?
I'm always willing to entertain different perspectives. Why not? I use a visual perspective of what one might call triggers myself. I'll have to take a look at what you posted to see if there is anything I might recognize as dominance phasing. But first I'm not sure I understand the formatting. There are two columns separated by "----------------" I assume these are from Roulette spins. Why are there two columns side by side? Difficult for me to figure the order of the spins. Why do the dotted lines cross over to the next column?
And please don't tell me to go back to the Roulette Forum. You came to this forum. IMO, the onus is on you to give at least a modicum of explanation of what you post.
J
Jim, once I saw that Gr8player respected your play I knew that you had to be a real player. If you download my teaching software you will see the dozens and the columns and how I chart them.
http://betselection.cc/gizmotron/tracking-software-for-practice-real-play/
"--------------" signifies that zero or double zero hit in that spin.
I have new software that charts two other sets of dozens made up of shaped sections of the American (double zero) wheel. That's what this posting is from. You see 12 total columns in the chart. Each set uses three columns to define that set. There are four sets. The point was to show the wins and losses. The wins cluster for a while in parts. In other parts the wins don't cluster. I play the results of actual bets. The charts only give me a mechanism for bet selections. They produce the randomness characteristics I'm looking for in the win/loss results. My secret triggers cause the thing I'm looking for. With only three net wins per session, this is easy for me.
Gr8player uses variance and odds to make bet selections. I said a long time ago, that you can use anything you want for bet selections. I recommend anything consistent so that you can discover the normalization of the win / loss phasing. That's why I now just focus on those 12 dozens.
Quote from: Gizmotron on November 20, 2015, 02:49:08 PM
Probability can't predict anything in just 300 spins.
Gizmo,
I hear this a lot from system players. The suggestion is that probability doesn't "work" in the short term so is useless. Here's the thing though: what do you propose as the alternative? presumably you have found some way of "cracking" the short term, otherwise you wouldn't be making the claims you are. So how have you found these triggers which yield a positive expectation? numerology?, astrology?, the magical ether?
If you reply that you've found them from analysis and research of actual roulette numbers, then how is this not probability? Suppose you choose not to call these results "probabilities" but something else, say "propensities". OK, so these "propensities" hold in the SHORT term, but if that's the case, how can they NOT hold in the long term, since the long term is just a succession of short terms? And if they hold in the long term then they must behave just like "regular" probabilities. And if they ARE regular probabilities why is it mathematically impossible to find them and the events to which they are attached?
The simple answer, of course, is that there are NO such events or probabilities. You are inevitably led by
reductio ad absurdum to this conclusion.
And I'm not an "absolutist" but a rationalist. All I'm asking for is a reason why any of these systems or methods should work, given that past spins do not indicate future spins. Absent advantage play and physics, why should I expect any group of numbers to continue "trending" or not?
I think it's a reasonable question.
Quote from: Mike on November 20, 2015, 05:29:48 PM
Gizmo,
I hear this a lot from system players. The suggestion is that probability doesn't "work" in the short term so is useless. Here's the thing though: what do you propose as the alternative? presumably you have found some way of "cracking" the short term, otherwise you wouldn't be making the claims you are. So how have you found these triggers which yield a positive expectation? numerology?, astrology?, the magical ether?
I agree with you Mike, there must be an alternative, even if it is in using probability as a base-line value. Deviation from the norm, such as Variance, suggested by Gr8player perhaps. I had Spike telling, endlessly, that he made his guesses in the very short term. I've always hunted for the big deal streaks and the global effect reinforcing them for my winning stratagem. I decided to look at the math and the characteristics of randomness in the very short term. And there it was, just staring me in the face.
Quote
If you reply that you've found them from analysis and research of actual roulette numbers, then how is this not probability? Suppose you choose not to call these results "probabilities" but something else, say "propensities". OK, so these "propensities" hold in the SHORT term, but if that's the case, how can they NOT hold in the long term, since the long term is just a succession of short terms? And if they hold in the long term then they must behave just like "regular" probabilities. And if they ARE regular probabilities why is it mathematically impossible to find them and the events to which they are attached?
They are coincidences and nothing more. Gambler's Fallacy does not make coincidences occur, neither does statistics. Coincidences and how to exploit them are easily programmable by me, a highly experienced research programmer. My algorithm would end up being mathematical proof of concept.
Quote
The simple answer, of course, is that there are NO such events or probabilities. You are inevitably led by reductio ad absurdum to this conclusion.
"Simple" is your forte. You are the one asking questions and popping off like a Peacock.
Quote
And I'm not an "absolutist" but a rationalist. All I'm asking for is a reason why any of these systems or methods should work, given that past spins do not indicate future spins. Absent advantage play and physics, why should I expect any group of numbers to continue "trending" or not?
I think it's a reasonable question.
Keep asking. I don't care if you ever discover that the earth is not flat. You said: "why should I expect any group of numbers to continue "trending" or not? " Anyone must acquire knowledge and experience on how characteristics act to have a clue what it is that I claim I can do. You only have your excuse and your one-manned advocacy to grand stand on a soapbox with for why you won't confirm anything for yourself.
I'm kinda surprised that more cats don't use the Jack Kennedy roulettes style, hey hey.
Quote from: Gizmotron on November 20, 2015, 08:17:57 PM
Keep asking. I don't care if you ever discover that the earth is not flat. You said: "why should I expect any group of numbers to continue "trending" or not? " Anyone must acquire knowledge and experience on how characteristics act to have a clue what it is that I claim I can do. You only have your excuse and your one-manned advocacy to grand stand on a soapbox with for why you won't confirm anything for yourself.
I have confirmed it for myself, I'm just interested in why system players continue to believe that past spins indicate future spins. And it has nothing to do with math, just simple logic.
As usual, I get nothing but evasion and obfuscation, or irrelevant waffle like "everything is connected". Sure it is, but not in a way that helps you predict future spins from past spins.
Quote from: Mike on November 21, 2015, 12:38:17 PM
I have confirmed it for myself, I'm just interested in why system players continue to believe that past spins indicate future spins. And it has nothing to do with math, just simple logic.
As usual, I get nothing but evasion and obfuscation, or irrelevant waffle like "everything is connected". Sure it is, but not in a way that helps you predict future spins from past spins.
You are the one that thinks that I'm claiming "predict future spins from past spins." That's your delusion. Projecting your fallacies on me makes you dependent on your control of your own self made up argument. Try to listen. I'm taking advantage of circumstantial coincidences that naturally occur. You live in a protected world where ignoring objective thinking is preferred over your own version of Post Modern Relativisms. Need proof of that? Read "Telling the Truth" by Lynne Cheney. Need proof that you are reacting as a codependent personality. Look up reacting to disagreement and interpretation that disagreement is a personal attack like criticism or correction. Try to listen. We at this forum would appreciate it.
"Manipulators often voice assumptions about your intentions or beliefs and then react to them as if they were true in order to justify their feelings or actions, all the while denying what you a say in the conversation. They may act as if something has been agreed upon or decided when it hasn't in order to ignore any input or objection you might have."
http://www.amazon.com/TELLING-THE-TRUTH-Culture-Country/dp/0684811014
http://www.whatiscodependency.com/spot-manipulation/
Quote from: soxfan on November 20, 2015, 10:59:16 PM
I'm kinda surprised that more cats don't use the Jack Kennedy roulettes style, hey hey.
Ref: http://www.roulette30.com/2014/04/positional-roulette.html
Do you think that Positional Roulette is a good way to win?
Gizmo,
How about actually staying on topic instead of resorting to psychobabble and personal attacks?
You said:
QuoteI'm taking advantage of circumstantial coincidences that naturally occur.
Then why the need for "triggers"? A trigger is not just "taking advantage of coincidences", it's an indicator which signals that a supposedly "favorable" event is imminent.
QuoteMy secret triggers cause the thing I'm looking for.
And actually, this makes no sense. A trigger cannot "cause" anything.
I've been waiting since 2007 to read something from Gizmo which made
sense. The wait is over. It's never going to happen. He has a language
all his own. There is no dictionary. There is no point. Just ignore it.
Quote from: Mike on November 21, 2015, 03:31:15 PM
Gizmo,
How about actually staying on topic instead of resorting to psychobabble and personal attacks?
Then why the need for "triggers"? A trigger is not just "taking advantage of coincidences", it's an indicator which signals that a supposedly "favorable" event is imminent.
And actually, this makes no sense. A trigger cannot "cause" anything.
One: You can't hide your traits behind accusations and attempted control. I will allow you to make a fool out of yourself if that is what you want. You demand that I answer your questions while all along ignoring mine.
Two: My three triggers indicate which trigger is currently working the best among each. There is still no concern that this information predicts the future or what will happen from a bet. I'm just probing for things that continue while placing or not placing bets. It's nothing more than guesswork. Why are you so upset over me guessing? Does that somehow intimidate you or your fascist / fundamentalist values? That's the way I see you. You have always been a demanding controlling person to me.
Three: My three triggers can cause the evidence to appear that at least one of them is outperforming the others. I'm betting that these actualities will continue. There are no mathematical statistics for short term continuation of positive results in the very short term. Your sophistry is only a manipulation technique to avoid acknowledging that you have been answered. Please stop regurgitating your perception of disagreement here. I have no interest in fortune telling claims. Deal with it.
Quote from: bjb007 on November 21, 2015, 04:23:11 PM
I've been waiting since 2007 to read something from Gizmo which made
sense. The wait is over. It's never going to happen. He has a language
all his own. There is no dictionary. There is no point. Just ignore it.
Randomness characteristics - explained in detail along with definitions and examples
Elegant Patterns - explained in detail along with definitions and examples
Free software illustrating charting system - located exclusively at this forum
Global effect - explained in detail along with definitions and examples
Topic of reading randomness - explained in detail along with definitions and examples
It's all here.
Exposing illiterate behavior - explained in detail along with definitions and example, thanks to you.
15 straight practice sessions using my private practice software. This took about twenty minutes. My triggers and knowledge of characteristics is working better than I have ever done before.
I'm using $25 chips, one chip for each, on 24 - 26 numbers per spins that I bet on.
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X | 18 -- W ( $ 300 )
| X | X | X | X | 26 -- W ( $ 550 )
| X | X | X | X | 04 -- W ( $ 850 )
============================ session
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
|-------------------| X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X | 22 -- L ( $ -600 )
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X | 14 -- W ( $ -300 )
| X | X | X | X | 23 -- L ( $ -900 )
| X | X | X | X | 36 -- W ( $ -650 )
| X | X | X | X | 03 -- L ( $ -1250 )
| X | X | X | X | 20 -- W ( $ -950 )
| X | X | X | X | 26 -- W ( $ -650 )
| X | X | X | X | 17 -- W ( $ -350 )
| X | X | X | X | 08 -- W ( $ -50 )
| X | X | X | X | 06 -- W ( $ 250 )
| X | X | X | X | 17 -- W ( $ 550 )
| X | X | X | X | 06 -- W ( $ 850 )
============================ session
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
|-------------------| X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X | 36 -- W ( $ 250 )
| X | X | X | X | 13 -- W ( $ 550 )
| X | X | X | X | 18 -- L ( $ -50 )
| X | X | X | X | 29 -- L ( $ -700 )
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X | 19 -- W ( $ -400 )
| X | X | X | X | 27 -- W ( $ -100 )
| X | X | X | X | 15 -- W ( $ 200 )
| X | X | X | X | 09 -- W ( $ 500 )
| X | X | X | X | 18 -- W ( $ 800 )
============================ session
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X | 16 -- W ( $ 300 )
|-------------------| X | X | 37 -- L ( $ -300 )
| X | X | X | X | 08 -- W ( $ 0 )
| X | X | X | X | 24 -- W ( $ 300 )
| X | X | X | X | 19 -- W ( $ 600 )
| X | X | X | X | 01 -- W ( $ 900 )
============================ session
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
|-------------------| X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
|-------------------| X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X | 32 -- W ( $ 250 )
| X | X | X | X | 29 -- W ( $ 550 )
| X | X | X | X | 25 -- W ( $ 850 )
============================ session
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
|-------------------| X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X | 22 -- W ( $ 250 )
| X | X | X | X | 18 -- W ( $ 500 )
| X | X | X | X | 31 -- W ( $ 750 )
============================ session
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
|-------------------| X | X | 37 -- L ( $ -600 )
| X | X | X | X | 10 -- W ( $ -300 )
| X | X | X | X | 18 -- W ( $ 0 )
| X | X | X | X | 11 -- L ( $ -600 )
| X | X | X | X | 02 -- W ( $ -350 )
| X | X | X | X | 22 -- W ( $ -50 )
| X | X | X | X | 14 -- W ( $ 250 )
| X | X | X | X | 36 -- L ( $ -350 )
| X | X | X | X | 23 -- L ( $ -1000 )
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
|-------------------| X | X | 37 -- L ( $ -1600 )
============================ session
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
|-------------------| X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
|-------------------| X | X |
| X | X | X | X | 07 -- W ( $ 300 )
| X | X | X | X | 04 -- L ( $ -350 )
| X | X | X | X | 12 -- W ( $ -50 )
| X | X | X | X | 25 -- L ( $ -650 )
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X | 30 -- W ( $ -400 )
| X | X | X | X | 14 -- W ( $ -150 )
| X | X | X | X | 19 -- W ( $ 150 )
| X | X | X | X | 30 -- W ( $ 450 )
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X | 34 -- W ( $ 750 )
============================ session
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
|-------------------| X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X | 35 -- W ( $ 300 )
| X | X | X | X | 19 -- W ( $ 550 )
| X | X | X | X | 28 -- W ( $ 850 )
============================ session
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X | 14 -- W ( $ 250 )
| X | X | X | X | 30 -- W ( $ 500 )
| X | X | X | X | 35 -- W ( $ 750 )
============================ session
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
|-------------------| X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X | 34 -- L ( $ -600 )
|-------------------| X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X | 23 -- W ( $ -300 )
| X | X | X | X | 15 -- W ( $ 0 )
| X | X | X | X | 18 -- W ( $ 300 )
| X | X | X | X | 03 -- W ( $ 600 )
| X | X | X | X | 02 -- W ( $ 900 )
============================ session
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
|-------------------| X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X | 22 -- W ( $ 300 )
|-------------------| X | X | 37 -- L ( $ -300 )
| X | X | X | X | 35 -- L ( $ -900 )
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X | 12 -- L ( $ -1550 )
============================ session
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X | 02 -- L ( $ -600 )
| X | X | X | X | 24 -- W ( $ -300 )
|-------------------| X | X | 38 -- L ( $ -900 )
| X | X | X | X | 32 -- W ( $ -600 )
| X | X | X | X | 19 -- W ( $ -300 )
| X | X | X | X | 28 -- W ( $ 0 )
| X | X | X | X | 34 -- W ( $ 250 )
| X | X | X | X | 06 -- W ( $ 500 )
| X | X | X | X | 02 -- W ( $ 750 )
============================ session
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
|-------------------| X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X | 08 -- L ( $ -600 )
| X | X | X | X | 26 -- W ( $ -300 )
| X | X | X | X | 08 -- W ( $ 0 )
| X | X | X | X | 33 -- W ( $ 300 )
| X | X | X | X | 25 -- W ( $ 600 )
| X | X | X | X | 08 -- W ( $ 900 )
============================ session
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X |
| X | X | X | X | 06 -- W ( $ 300 )
|-------------------| X | X | 37 -- W ( $ 600 )
| X | X | X | X | 06 -- W ( $ 900 )
============================ session
Years ago there was a cat on the gambling glen who claimed he was winnin regular using the jack kennedy roulettes style. He did say he was usin a progression with it, hey hey.
Quote from: Gizmotron on November 21, 2015, 01:22:22 PM
Ref: http://www.roulette30.com/2014/04/positional-roulette.html
Do you think that Positional Roulette is a good way to win?
Quote from: Gizmotron on November 21, 2015, 04:33:39 PM
I'm betting that these actualities will continue. There are no mathematical statistics for short term continuation of positive results in the very short term.
Fine, you can bet that they continue all you like, but it IS possible to calculate the probability that they will continue, and the calculations show that the trend will break just as often as it will continue, so there is no advantage in following the trend.
Quote from: soxfan on November 22, 2015, 11:03:18 PM
Years ago there was a cat on the gambling glen who claimed he was winnin regular using the jack kennedy roulettes style. He did say he was usin a progression with it, hey hey.
Claims like that are easy to make (and highlighting them in red doesn't make them true, LOL), but impossible to prove. Those who make them are either being fooled by randomness or have some agenda which is served by fooling the gullible.
Quote from: Mike on November 23, 2015, 09:14:19 AM
Fine, you can bet that they continue all you like, but it IS possible to calculate the probability that they will continue, and the calculations show that the trend will break just as often as it will continue, so there is no advantage in following the trend.
Now I get it. You are saying that without an advantage you can't leave the casino with your winnings enough to make up for your eventual losses. Is that right?
Quote from: Mike on November 23, 2015, 09:19:16 AM
Claims like that are easy to make (and highlighting them in red doesn't make them true, LOL), but impossible to prove. Those who make them are either being fooled by randomness or have some agenda which is served by fooling the gullible.
It's not randomness. This guy, back then, thinks that certain numbers are more magical than others. He was just selling books. That was his edge.
Quote from: Gizmotron on November 23, 2015, 04:08:15 PM
It's not randomness. This guy, back then, thinks that certain numbers are more magical than others. He was just selling books. That was his edge.
The Jack Kennedy never sold hi roulettes style. He gave it away for free so profits was not his motivation, hey hey.
Quote from: Gizmotron on November 23, 2015, 04:05:06 PM
Now I get it. You are saying that without an advantage you can't leave the casino with your winnings enough to make up for your eventual losses. Is that right?
Correct. Have you actually done any simulations to test your theories in the long run?
And if you say "I don't play in the long run", I'm going to scream.
Regression to the mean, law of large numbers, law of averages... nonsense in the system player's world. (Random walk)
Let's say the wheel has only two possible outcomes, red or black. No zeros.
Our expectation moving forward is that black will hit about half of the time, and that red will hit about half of the time.
After ten spins our results with a little variance thrown in is as follows:
RBRRRRRBRB
30% Black (3 hits)
70% Red hit. (7 hits)
Now that there's an imbalance, what do you suppose our expectation is moving forward for the next set of 20 spins? Is black due to hit more frequently than red? Does black have to hit more than red for "system player's regression to the mean" or "system player's law of averages" to occur?
Moving forward, we have 20 more spins below. Our expectation once again is that each color will hit equally. But with a little variance thrown in the results are as follows.
RBRBBRBRBBRRRBBRRRBR
45% Black (9 hits)
55% Red (11hits)
Now take a close look at the grand totals for all 30 spins below.
40% Black (12 hits)
60% Red (18 hits)
Because black went from hitting only 30% of the times to hitting 40% of the time in the larger sample, here's where some of you will say that "regression to the mean" is taking place. (Some of you are probably also saying that it's the "law of averages".)
It's true that black hit more frequently, but it's still a net loser! In order for it to appear to "regress to the mean" or for the "law of large numbers" to work, it didn't have to hit more than red in order to appear to catch up, all that needed to really take place was the spin sample had to grow larger!
In small spin samples, the difference between how often the red and black hit can be quite large...percentage wise. moving forward, our expectation should always be just expectation, not that one color will hit more than the other to even out the imbalance! Again, as the spin samples grow exponentially larger, regression to the mean appears to happen, even if the losing color never catches back up!
The law of large numbers, and regression to the mean doesn't, can't, won't, will not make anyone's system work! Not in small samples, big samples, wide samples, short samples, short term, near term, long term. Ever!
(http://growingleaders.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/my-brain-is-full.jpg)
-Xander
Quote from: Mike on November 24, 2015, 01:50:55 PM
Correct. Have you actually done any simulations to test your theories in the long run?
And if you say "I don't play in the long run", I'm going to scream.
I've made a major breakthrough in that regard. It's now easy for me to apply a pseudo AI layer that mimics my three triggers mechanically. Sharing that openly at discovery at this time is another story all together.
QuoteI've made a major breakthrough in that regard. It's now easy for me to apply a pseudo AI layer that mimics my three triggers mechanically. Sharing that openly at discovery at this time is another story all together.-Gizmotron
Oh, I'm sure you have. I'm sure you have. ;D
"Far better not to actually post the details because then nobody can show that it doesn't work. Just stick to no. (5) and make grand claims. Someone's bound to pm you and make an offer." -written by Mike
Quote from: Xander on November 27, 2015, 07:21:21 PM
Oh, I'm sure you have. I'm sure you have. ;D "Far better not to actually post the details because then nobody can show that it doesn't work. Just stick to no. (5) and make grand claims. Someone's bound to pm you and make an offer." -written by Mike
Being mathematically fundamentalist you must know basic arithmetic. Let's say that I bet $1 per chip on double dozens ($24) per spin while in all losing dominances. Let's say that I bet $3 per number ($72) per spin during all winning dominances. It doesn't matter what I bet during neutral times because those bets cancel each other out. For the house to beat me it must win three times more than the balance point of two wins for every loss. That's three net losses during any losing streak for every two net wins during a winning streak. Mind you, that is in a strategy/game that has an almost two-thirds chance of winning every bet.
I've already told everyone how to win at this game. I did so at least two years ago. I just like yanking your chain.
Now go ahead and tell us all about that river in Egypt, the Denial I think it is.
You have to prove it, mathematically, that it impossible to know when anyone is in a winning or in a losing streak.
Gizmo,
I have no idea what it is that you're trying to say. And..I suspect that you don't either.
Quote from: Xander on November 28, 2015, 06:20:22 PM
Gizmo,
I have no idea what it is that you're trying to say. And..I suspect that you don't either.
I'll do the math for balance points for you then:
3 losses at $1 each number ($24) = $72 ; 2 wins at $3 each number ($72) = $72
I assure you that I will lose most of my spins during a losing streak. And conversely, I will win most of my spins during a win streak.
I noticed this though. You didn't respond with any proof. All you have is your very lame accusations, never needing to back up your self righteous indignation. This fundamentalism of yours is becoming a type of predictable behavior, much like your mother ship, probability. You are fast becoming a magnet for bad vibes. I'll bet secretly, in your grandmothers basement, you have a spandex jumpsuit with a cape and a full length mirror to check yourself out with, don't you?