Thanks again for the replies.

Quote from: Number Six on December 18, 2013, 01:04:44 AM
The problem is that if true independence exists between random outcomes then nothing can be defined until after the fact

Does true independence have to exclude all definitions of knowledge of future facts? Albalaha alludes to regression to the mean - notwithstanding whether it has an advantage or not, but a phenomena like that does give us knowledge of future events. Surely that is undeniable?


If Event A is an extreme event, we can 'depend on that for knowledge' about the following Event B, namely that it is more likely to be closer to the average. I'm not saying we can beat roulette with that information, but it seems undeniable that we have gained some knowledge of future events by looking at past events & there's nothing fallacious going on..
It seems a common enough mundane phenomena, no magic or crystal ball needed, and it doesn't seem to contradict the fact that all spins are still independent and the wheel still has no memory because Event A doesn't cause Event B.


Keynes -
"..there are certain classes of phenomena,
in which, though it is impossible to predict what will happen in each
individual case, there is nevertheless a regularity of occurrence if the
phenomena be considered together in successive sets.."


Is it not an advantage to know that the next set of x spins is more likely to be closer to the average? So future questions could be how to take advantage of it, thinking in terms of 'the next x spins'. 'What is the best value of x?' etc.


(Albalaha - I think your sentiment is that RTM cannot lead to winning more than you lose, and I agree - I've seen experiments with positive progressions, attempts to flatbet after a deviation etc, but I don't see how they fit in at all with regression to the mean. It makes no mention of 'catching-up' so why should you be able to win flatbetting? Similarly, why would a positive progression work any better? They seem to go beyond the information that RTM gives.)

Quote

As for lowering the variance in relation to the edge, techincally yes, they are connected of course. Where you play in a state of low variance, you are actually at or reducing the house edge, or even gaining an edge. The bigger the edge, the lower the variance. Unfortunately, mostly any positive variance is simply due to luck.

In my mind, aiming for lower variance (or I should say lower volatility), this would also imply lowering positive variance, as I don't imagine it would be possible to lower one side of the equation without affecting the other..

Quote
The variance can actually be calculated for each bet and if you can consistently play in that low variance state, yes you could also win long term without an edge while using a soft progression. The drawdowns would still be big though, huge even; you would need a big BR to get through them and be prepared to sit many hours at the wheel to get to a new high. Not everyone has the stones for that. In fact even with a edge, it's still possible to go bust in some circsumstances (due to unforseen volatility). With perfect expectation you should win 1 in every 2 ECs, with a loss every now and then on green. The variance comes into play when the gaps between winners gets longer, and sometimes consistently remain unusually long for hundreds or thousands of spins.

The more you play the more likely you are to encounter worse-than-before variance. There is no low level or high level, you can just never test enough to find them, it's like trying to reach the edge of the universe (if you believe that the universe expands faster than you could ever travel). But if you have an edge or a bet that even reduces the edge in some way then the worst variance would be much lighter than a random selection for sure. All random selections would, on the other hand, be identical.

Thanks for this - I think it helps to have even a vague idea of what you're looking for just in case you happen to bump into it, but wouldn't actually recognize it.

Quote
As a sidenote, nothing can be gained from using fallacious triggers based on previous EC patterns (not saying you're doing that).

Are all triggers naturally fallacious? Are there any types that aren't?

Quote
But if you want my advice and you're still looking for a solution, you're best to look at straight up numbers, that is what the game is after all. All the other bets are just there for convenience. Becoming au fait with the individual numbers may open up a new world where conditional situations can be proved to be effective.

Thanks 

Thanks for your replies.




Albalaha - you don't believe any selection can have any impact on variance in any way, shape or form?

Quote from: Number Six on December 17, 2013, 06:11:23 PM

An SD or z-score of 3.0 is considered rare, therefore the probability of achieving that result by luck alone is remote. Where there is an edge, the z-score, like your bankroll, should always keep rising.

Do you think the task of lowering variance (in the sense that you say in your post of lowering the SD's from the mean) has to necessarily be linked to gaining a positive edge? If hypothetically, someone managed to limit the extremes of their bet to between +20 and -20, there would be no increase in their bankroll, but they would be playing a lower variance game than a normal random bet selection.. so in that sense, you would have an edge on the game, but not the edge that allows you to win flatbetting or increase your z-score..

Quote
If you're looking for your worst losing streak, the results would have to be dissected bit by bit and each trot of variable length to be analysed in order to find the driest area of the system (this might not simply be the most number of consecutive losers). Once you have a z-score for that you will know what your worst variance is. If there's an edge the variance should be negligable and should not so much as even dent the overall return.

In this regard, after finding your z-score for this worst part, I wonder if you would expect the driest area of this system to have a lower value than that of a normal random bet selection?
Maybe they wouldn't be comparable.. then again, theoretically, shouldn't all say EC bet selections exhibit the same z-scores for the worst times?

Quote
The largest drawdown is something else. In that case, you're looking at the volatility of the bet i.e. how adversely the bet's losing streaks affect your bankroll (in short, how much you need to get through the bad times).

Lower volatility is probably closer to what I should've said in the beginning, and is probably closer to what i was originally thinking of. The answers help clarify what are the best questions to ask next sometimes.

Thanks Number Six, very helpful & interesting.

How would you recognize if you had a bet selection that produced lower variance than a random bet selection?

Which parameters would it have to beat? For example, would it need to be able to avoid an x losing streak? Or would it need to avoid an x drawdown from a highest point?

In the search for lower variance, I wonder how you could even be sure when you've got it? Which figures can quantify it?

Malcop – it's every 4 years, so you've got time to build up a bit of support for 'Wolverhampton 2021' - It's got a nice ring to it 

Quote from: 6th-sense on November 27, 2013, 03:34:22 PM
i worked away years ago in beverley in hull..nice place

Yes Beverley's nice – that's where people used to dream of retiring to.

That's right [smiley]aes/lol.png[/smiley] I'm glad someone likes it!


I've actually got a bit of a hybrid Hull/Lancashire accent if you can imagine that - a bit Peter Kay impersonating Geoff Boycott[smiley]aes/joking.png[/smiley]

Hull is going to be the UK's City of Culture in 2017 -


It's been voted the worst place to live in the UK in the recent past – it's listed as 1 of the UK's 'decaying towns', I'm not sure what effect 'City of Culture' type things have in the long term, but it can't do any harm I suppose. Londonderry was the last place (it's every 4 years) & they seem to have benefited with the extra investment it brought.

Anyway, just a bit of fun, 'Where the Hell is Hull'??
http://toys.usvsth3m.com/hull/



You just have to click to start, click where you live, then click where you think Hull is.


How close were you?


I was 15 miles away, and I was born there!

Congratulations, & best wishes to you & your family... 




[mod]Mod test for a YouTube video addition[/mod]


Clive Dunn - Grandad [totp2]

Thanks Esoito, I'll take a look.

I had my first go last week at a matched bet – had a layout of £120 for a guaranteed £18 return on any outcome on a football match. Could've been more if I'd been prepared to layout more but wanted to take things easy for my first go.
This was a signing-on freebet, so obviously there's a finite amount of these available.

My question is more about the additional Bonus Bets on offer to already-registered members, as they seem slightly different to the free sign-up bets & they don't seem playable in the same way.

For example a lot of bookies offer money back/free bets on Correct Score markets if the game ends 0-0...– just wondered if anyone here had ever used them, or whether it's really worthwhile looking into further?


Cheers

hi Bally


I do remember a few similar type experiments on the old Baccarat forums.


I don't think they were exactly like yours, where you follow the 1st hand out, but more like 'see which side reaches 5 first, and as long it's at least 2 (or 3 - I can't quite remember) ahead of the other, play that side'.


There were some figures produced showing that if a side is ahead after say 10 hands, then a high percentage will remain ahead by the end of the shoe. The problem of course was that if you were ahead 8-2 after 10, by the end you could still be ahead fulfilling the premise, but maybe only by 2.


For your way, you could maybe use a trailing stop in case you picked a winning side? & I agree, grinding along on Banker can be a real pain with the commission.

Quote


following an extreme random event, the next random event is likely to be less extreme

If a bet had an extremely bad strike rate (say, -3STD), it is less likely to continue getting worse at that extremely bad rate.


'Evening out the gap' between 2 sides is different & not really the aim.
Like Drazen implies, 'evening-out' & 'due' are the fallacies.

In your example Albalaha, wouldn't you rather be the player playing the 2^nd 100 spins though, where there are 53 reds & 44 blacks? With a bit of MM you could make a profit from those numbers. 

Playing after a strong deviation is not (only) to play for the catch-up of the least-showing side, but to play in a period of lower variance.

Well done Drazen    I'm happy to hear your successes my friend.


Long may it continue 

Thanks ADulay


1952

Yep, think it's finally sinking in.

 
So amongst other things, you could maybe 'fix' a box for a few spins while you bet on a particular selection, then untick it after you've played it out & move on to look for another opportunity..

There's a lot of useful information there – thanks.