+ Register

[Blood Angel]

Best thread in a long while

[Drazen]

There are different ways to look at exposure to the wheel. Another is not to expose too much BR during a session or cycle.

Turner I really like this what you have said.

By waiting for a strong deviation from my point of view we just want to reduce length of a losing streaks, nothing more nothing less. As deviation is becoming higher and higher, losing streaks will be shorter.

But we must study the game enough to understand the "limits" and how bad something can get.

For example we start after we see 10 reds in a row. Ok we know that we can get much worse then that. So we start slowly but carefully with our staking, being prepared to handle the worst if it strikes. We are not intersted in some big profits, only 1 or 2 units per trigger is enough, but it is important that we still don't need to bet big sums even if we face tornado, and that we don't need to bet big to recover those losses.

So as RTM says as deviation over some sequence is stronger, RTM will be stronger in next sequence.

Lets say we started after 10 in a row and we lost next 9. That would be first stage of staking. If W/L in those 9 spins are around 50:50 we will made at least 1 unit and as we HIT we RUN!

But suppose we got 9 losses in a row after initial 10 and now we have 19 losses in a row. That can cost as 20 units. If betting 0.1 we would be 2 € in down. But now we are at -4.24 std and know that losing sequence will become shorter from now on by RTM definiton. So we want to use that.

Ok can we now "buy" those losses for 1 unit? So only 1 unit plus from now on will break even for our all previous losses? Sounds fair. And we know that from now on we won't have so long losing streaks and we start to bet 2€. If we hit on first we break even and immedietaly can lower our stakes to the first stage. If next after that is won we earned +1 and as we HIT we RUN.

But let say we face very nasty deviation and even after that we got 6 losses in a row which would brings us to incredible 25 losses in a row.  That would bring us to DD of -20 units in 2nd stage and total DD of 220 units with -4.87 std (it isn't too much concerning that we know that from now on losing streaks will be even shorter and that we are on far end of the worst what can hit us, so some wins will come and we are certian that nasty losing sequences like those before can't happen in next sample) So again we can buy that DD for only one 1 unit. And if that 1 unit is earned in next few spins we break even in total and lower our stakes to the first or second level again....

Of course we don't have to take 1 unit to recover all previous level losses. We can take like 2-3 and bet even less but of course need to earn 2-3 units to break even for that level...

Now it is everyone to his own how much he feels comfortable to bet at which stage in exchange to recoup how many losses before that...

RTM works, if you know how to deal with it 

Happy new year!!

Drazen

[Blood Angel]

Please can someone show me in easy terms, how to work out STD?

[Pockets]

now we have 19 losses in a row. That can cost as 20 units.

Thanks Drazen. Are you able to explain this bit? Yes, am asking for the progression you use , which you may chose not to reveal.

[Pockets]

Please can someone show me in easy terms, how to work out STD?

Is that what you are looking for Bloodangel?
http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=1093.0

[Turner]

BA....


Bayes did a whole post in CC roulette


But, if you have RX......show statistics, say even money, show summary, and press help.


Help actually explains what all the calculations are...mean, SD ETC.


I learned from Bayes and RX help.


I learned some SD's by heart. So, 14 reds and 2 black is SD3 etc.


(I prefer to remember positions.....yes Chess again!)

[Pockets]

I like something new hitting me in the face

Whether it is your passion wiht streaks and toggles when you started out or with the pivot ideas that followed or your addiction to math and straight bets that followed it. Then a complete change of perspective to catch the fish with a net or innovative ideas on quads and lines as ECs that followed, just a jist of those new things that have hit you always in the face and your passion to take that all in had made reading your posts very interesting for me. I might have read close to 500-600 of your old posts Turner. Good reading and great ideas for me.

So, keep goin in 2014, may this year bring you lots of more innovative pursuits in the fascinating game of roulette.

[Turner]

Pockets....I blush before you


(I wasn't aware that I had posted anything of interest)

[Drazen]

Thanks Drazen. Are you able to explain this bit?

Ok just a bit

It originates from martingale. In highest concentration it is a pure venom, but in smaller it is a medicine

Cheers

[Blood Angel]

Thanks for your answers guys. I knew there was a large piece by Bayes somewhere but I did a search on this forum. Doh!

[Xander]

I see 3SD for red...then I go to table 2 and play for red to regress to the mean. Its my personal permanence.- Turner

For example we start after we see 10 reds in a row. Ok we know that we can get much worse then that. So we start slowly but carefully with our staking, being prepared to handle the worst if it strikes. We are not intersted in some big profits, only 1 or 2 units per trigger is enough, but it is important that we still don't need to bet big sums even if we face tornado, and that we don't need to bet big to recover those losses.
-Drazen

Calculating the standard deviation so you know when it's due?  Triggers?  Seriously?

Guys, this is straight up gambler's fallacy.   It doesn't work. 

There is no expectation that a current offset from expectation will ever even out. If you currently have 10 more reds than black, then your future expectation is that you will be 10 reds over EV forever. Your expectation from this point forward is always just the mean no matter what already happened. The future random walk is about the point where you are now, not about zero.


Read more below, and study the link.  It's important that you understand this stuff before you waste anymore time and lose your entire bankroll.  There are several more articles, just like the one below on gambler's fallacy.



Exposing the Gambler's Fallacy



You're playing roulette, and red has just come up eight times in a row! Is black more likely on the next spin? No, it is not. Both red and black are equally likely. If you thought otherwise then the casinos love you, and you need to read this article right now.

http://vegasclick.com/gambling/fallacy.html

[Drazen]

Xander I don't want to argue with you as obviously you don't understand what I am talking about at the first place.

No one here talks that if 9 reds come out win is due on the next spin. You can't compare sequence of 9 bets and only one after that. That doesn't makes any sense.

There is no expectation that a current offset from expectation will ever even out.

True. It doesn't have to even out for many many spins after some point but, decisions must start going out more evened as deviation is more severe. That is not the same what you are talking about.

Drazen

[Xander]

NO!  That's where you're quite wrong.

A common gamblers' fallacy called "the doctrine of the maturity of the chances" (or "Monte Carlo fallacy") falsely assumes that each play in a game of chance is not independent of the others and that a series of outcomes of one sort should be balanced in the short run by other possibilities. A number of "systems" have been invented by gamblers based largely on this fallacy; casino operators are happy to encourage the use of such systems and to exploit any gambler's neglect of the strict rules of probability and independent plays. — Encyclopedia Britannica (look under "gambling") -Source Wizard of Odds
-----------------

The topic doctrine of the maturity of the chances is discussed in the following articles:

...be used in interpreting the phrase on average, which applies most accurately to a large number of cases and is not useful in individual instances. A common gamblers' fallacy, called the doctrine of the maturity of the chances (or the Monte-Carlo fallacy), falsely assumes that each play in a game of chance is dependent on the others and that a series of outcomes of one sort should be...  -Source below

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/369846/doctrine-of-the-maturity-of-the-chances
-----------------

The Gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy (because its most famous example happened in a Monte Carlo casino in 1913)[1] or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independent trials of some random process then these deviations are likely to be evened out by opposite deviations in the future. For example, if a fair coin is tossed repeatedly and tails comes up a larger number of times than is expected, a gambler may incorrectly believe that this means that heads is more likely in future tosses.[2] Such an expectation could be mistakenly referred to as being due. This is an informal fallacy. It is also known colloquially as the law of averages. -Source below

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Gambler_s_fallacy.html


Watching for "triggers", and "calculating the deviation from the norm" on the outside ECs is a complete and utter waste of time.  Don't get sucked into the fallacy.  It's a dead end.

[Drazen]

A common gamblers' fallacy called "the doctrine of the maturity of the chances" (or "Monte Carlo fallacy") falsely assumes that each play in a game of chance is not independent of the others and that a series of outcomes of one sort should be balanced in the short run by other possibilities.

I am not talking about balanicng, but starting to go more balanced... Can you understand the difference?

[Xander]

I understand that you think that there's a difference, but you're still falling prey to the  "the doctrine of the maturity of the chances" (or "Monte Carlo fallacy") There are tons of articles going into great detail on it.  If you read some of the articles, you'll likely feel like they're talking specifically  about you.  Don't feel bad though, people have been falling into that trap since the beginning of the game.  People have been wasting time calculating the std  of red/black imbalances since the game was invented.  There's nothing new or novel about it.


Gambler fallacy description

Imagine a person who tries to predict the outcome of the game in the long-run online casino betting. The player is sure that this departure may be easily corrected in a short term games. This is the gambler's fallacy of the plays. Let's analyze the formula:
•Something has occurred.
•Something diverges from what is waited to happen on average (or on the long term).  An imbalance.
•Thus, something will be finished soon.


-Xander