+ Register

[esoito]

A contrarian investor is one who deliberately decides to go against the prevailing wisdom of other investors.

Let's use this thread for exploring bets that go against ' conventional wisdom '.

Brainstorming will be a useful approach. It's a group problem-solving technique in which members spontaneously share ideas.

NB:  When brainstorming there are no "right" and no "wrong" ideas. 



Hopefully this thread will soon contain contrarian approaches proposed by others that can be tested, debated and refined.

Filtering and refining takes place during testing, of course.


ANY NEGATIVE POSTS, RUDE POSTS OR POSTS THAT RIDICULE OTHERS WILL BE DELETED (So if you're tempted to then -- don't...)

AND THE POSTER WILL QUITE LIKELY BE SHOWN THE DOOR. (No room for that sort of person here.)


So come on, folks, let's post our ideas without fear or favour. 


(If we get enough interest I'll make it a sticky, and open up a sister thread for posting test results of contrarian ideas)

[Albalaha]

This will be great. Let crude brainstorming ideas come, apply your tweaks, put different money management tricks and we may find a polished and beautiful Gem.

[Proofreaders2000]

Ok, hot topic for you...

Let's say 3rd Dozen hit twice in a row.  While any dozen or zero may hit on the next spin, is it possible by looking at past percentages (from say 200, 300 or more spins) one dozen may have an advantage over the other two? Law of the Third? or Gambler's Fallacy?

[NoBody]

Let's say 3rd Dozen hit twice in a row.  While any dozen or zero may hit on the next spin, is it possible by looking at past percentages (from say 200, 300 or more spins) one dozen may have an advantage over the other two? Law of the Third? or Gambler's Fallacy?


My view on analyzing past spin to predict future spin will only work if the dealer, wheel, ball and other factors related to the table has no major change.

Same dealer, ball, wheel...the trend/prediction can only relate.

However, back to your question, past percentage of 200, 300 or more spins? The dealer most probably will not be the same, thus my view is that the trend or future spin may defer due to the change in the factor.

Regards,

NoBody ^.^

[ArickVegas]

When playing Catch The 8 Train... I have had a new dealer come on and immediately hit the same numbers that the other dealer made "HOT"


I am NOT saying a dealer change DOES'NT have any effect, just saying...

[NoBody]

Ok, hot topic for you...

Let's say 3rd Dozen hit twice in a row.  While any dozen or zero may hit on the next spin, is it possible by looking at past percentages (from say 200, 300 or more spins) one dozen may have an advantage over the other two? Law of the Third? or Gambler's Fallacy?

Coming to think of it, I believe I have misunderstand Proof's question.

Analyzing 200, 300 or more spin will show the trend/ statistic of the table irregardless of the dealer.

Not sure if 200 or 300 data is sufficient to show a bias.

Yes, advantage play does exist.

Sorry for the confusion I made in the previous post. 

Regards,

Nobody ^.^

[Albalaha]

Proof,
    You are asking whether past bad performance be compensated later of a dozen and by coming more frequently can it recover.


My answer: not necessary in short run but for sure in long run.


I have analysed thousands of sessions ranging from 50 spins to 3 million spins.


In long run, all numbers will balance out and they can differ only by 1% max (the difference of the best performed number and worst performing one, in a million spin)
    But the trouble is, we play short sessions, not more than 200-300 spins in live casinos/live dealers/slingshot roulette online and max 1000 spins if we play RNG. In such situation, it is not necessary that every set of numbers will occur very evenly, as a whole be it a dozen, an EC or any betselection that you can opt in roulette.

[TwoCatSam]

When playing Catch The 8 Train... I have had a new dealer come on and immediately hit the same numbers that the other dealer made "HOT"


I am NOT saying a dealer change DOES'NT have any effect, just saying...

Arick

I have many, many times seen the same thing.  I once screen shot it and posted.  Also, on BV, I've seen the same patterns emerge as I do at Dublin.

Here is what I think:  I think the dealer change affects your play if you think/expect it to.  I strongly believe in the subconscious and I feel we sometimes do things we are totally unaware of.   I know for sure I do as my videos prove.  Others may not be so careless.

Sam

[Bayes]

Hi esoito,

I assume you're talking about roulette?

It's just that I thought the notion of  "contrarian investing" only really applies to stocks and shares, or possibly sports betting. Here's what it says in the Wiki entry on "Contrarian investing":

In finance, a contrarian is one who attempts to profit by investing in a manner that differs from the conventional wisdom, when the consensus opinion appears to be wrong.
A contrarian believes that certain crowd behavior among investors can lead to exploitable mispricings in securities markets. For example, widespread pessimism about a stock can drive a price so low that it overstates the company's risks, and understates its prospects for returning to profitability. Identifying and purchasing such distressed stocks, and selling them after the company recovers, can lead to above-average gains. Conversely, widespread optimism can result in unjustifiably high valuations that will eventually lead to drops, when those high expectations don't pan out. Avoiding (or short-selling) investments in over-hyped investments reduces the risk of such drops. These general principles can apply whether the investment in question is an individual stock, an industry sector, or an entire market or any other asset class.

Since roulette outcomes (roulette being a game of fixed odds) don't depend on the choices other players make, I don't think the concept applies?
But if you're just calling for original ideas with regard to systems, well that's a different matter. 

[esoito]

The first line in my thread clearly showed I was aware of the conventional meaning of "contrarian" but perhaps that Wiki quote will help others.

I'm on about a bit of lateral thinking by looking at the spirit behind contrarian approaches to see if that spirit can be applied here, along the lines of:

   
• running contrary to "normal" practice
• going against the flow
• being different
• thinking "outside the box" etc etc etc

So, yes, that same spirit of enquiry can be applied to roulette (or just about anything else in life), to answer your question.


But this forum is not just for roulette.  Bet Selection has a wider application.


By starting the topic I'm simply trying to be a catalyst, an encourager, a facilitator for others to express alternative views, opinions and approaches.

I've just  prodded it one more time to see if it would get up on its own legs. But if it now dies through neglect, laziness or indifference then so be it. 


The world will still sail through space until either we destroy it, or the sun does -- whoever gets there first...

[Gizmotron]

I'm a firm believer in the concept of understanding a concept by the simplest of basics and in the simplest of terms.

The most basic of the understanding regarding an advantage caused by a contrary reaction is to first acknowledge the conditions that currently exist.

I've been saying, for more than six years, "test as you go."

Now I never explained why I suggested it. BUT it was always about the use of observation of the current conditions.

You must have a valid reason for using a contrary  bet selection.

A discussion of why might reveal those that understand these things and those who don't.

[Bayes]

But this forum is not just for roulette.  Bet Selection has a wider application.

Indeed. As I see it, the purpose of bet selection is to find an edge. But sticking with roulette for the moment, how is that best done? (excluding physics based approaches) Since you can't get better odds other than what's given (unlike sports betting, for example), you have to find a way to "increase the accuracy of predictions", as Steve says. If you know the initial conditions, which in a physics based approach consist of wheel speed, ball size, etc, then the laws of mechanics will predict in what area of the wheel the ball is most likely to land, but if you're not using physics, the only thing you can use to increase the accuracy of predictions (so it seems to me) is probability and statistics, which do have predictive power (up to a point), although it's not so immediate and deterministic as the laws of physics.

So I agree with Gizmo in that you have to be aware of current conditions. But Gizmo, I'd like to hear your definition of what "current conditions" means.

It might not seem a very radical idea (more like common sense actually) but IMO you have to adapt and be flexible in your bet selection. However, most systems posted on forums are of a simple nature, and don't have the needed flexibility built in. The only constant in random outcomes is that of change, so how can you expect a rigid, mechanical bet selection to increase the accuracy of predictions? as soon as outcomes deviate from the usually narrow range that the system is designed to "trap", you start to lose. So IMO, you either need a portfolio of systems (and of course, have some valid reason for selecting a particular system for current conditions), or one complex system which is flexible enough to adapt whatever the current conditions may be. I think the latter is a tougher proposition.

[monaco]

So I agree with Gizmo in that you have to be aware of current conditions. But Gizmo, I'd like to hear your definition of what "current conditions" means.

It might not seem a very radical idea (more like common sense actually) but IMO you have to adapt and be flexible in your bet selection. However, most systems posted on forums are of a simple nature, and don't have the needed flexibility built in. The only constant in random outcomes is that of change, so how can you expect a rigid, mechanical bet selection to increase the accuracy of predictions? as soon as outcomes deviate from the usually narrow range that the system is designed to "trap", you start to lose. So IMO, you either need a portfolio of systems (and of course, have some valid reason for selecting a particular system for current conditions), or one complex system which is flexible enough to adapt whatever the current conditions may be. I think the latter is a tougher proposition.

I like the idea of 1 thing leading to another. This can come from knowing your bets well & trying to come up with complimentary systems.
For example, if I'm losing on my System 1, I know what it loses to, & I therefore know which other system it's taking me to, which is triggered to play under the circumstances that make System 1 lose.
If System 1 is winning, you have System 3 which can be used to push it a bit etc.