BetSelection.cc

Please login or register.

Topic: Conditional Probability + Substitution into the live stream of the moving window  (Read 13576 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline XXVV

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1697
  • Gender: Male
  • Legio XX Valeria Victrix LVX
    • View Profile
In roulette, future outcomes are not conditional on past outcomes.

Thanks Mike and I encourage your participation.  With regard to the above statement I find myself in a difficult position, because in a sense I agree of course, but also in a practical sense, on the basis of long extended empirical testing with regard to a particular methodology responding to immediate past outcomes in cluster analysis of short cycle (5-7 spins) which I utilise which brings consistent positive returns, I disagree. How can this be - two positions at once. Can you comment?  It would appear to me that there are exceptions or the picture is bigger, or more complex than conventional theory would dictate. Also, rather than my illustrations, consider the work of Gizmotron that harnesses trend analysis for  successful outcomes.


Offline Gizmotron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1487
    • View Profile
Conditional probability can only apply to roulette in the sense of some one particular outcome having a characteristic conditional on another being assumed. In other words, you can speak of the conditional probability of an outcome being for example red, given that it's in a particular street. In that case the chance of it being red does depend on whether it's a particular street or not.

But since outcomes between successive spins are independent, conditional probability cannot apply to that scenario. For example the "conditional" probability of 5 reds in a row given that 5 reds in a row has just occurred is the same as that in the case where any other pattern has just occurred.

In other words, P(A|B) = P(A). Where B is some prior event. That is in fact the definition of independence. In roulette, future outcomes are not conditional on past outcomes.

Mike, please consider this; "conditional probability," used by me earlier somewhere, is just a metaphor for linguistically expressing an idea. I never meant it to be used as the actual mathematical process. Probability itself is the inference of what will happen in the future. An idea for an inference of what could happen in the future might be described as a condition, "conditional probability." There is no way for mathematics to tell you in the next 200 hands / spins when a favorite coincidence will occur. Mathematics can't prevent it from occurring also. So, mathematical inference has no effect on future coincidences.
 
 
Quote
"But since outcomes between successive spins are independent..."

 
  Is that really the truth? I mean, where is the context for this. It's like some kind of fundamentalist belief or something like it. It sounds more like theory to me. I know that sounds harsh but you have been unrelenting in past discords. I just don't want to be confrontational. Do you have any proof, because I'm at the verge of a major prolific breakthrough. It will force the frequentist camp to open their minds, like it or not. That suggests that it's possible to find the best randomness feature for the moment.
 
"...IT'S AGAINST THE LAW TO BREAK THE LAW OF AVERAGES." 

Offline sqzbox

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Just a little quote I came across recently.

Quote
"Probability theory is nothing but common sense reduced to calculation" — Laplace, 1819

Offline Gizmotron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1487
    • View Profile
Just a little quote I came across recently.
"Probability theory is nothing but common sense reduced to calculation" — Laplace, 1819"

That would imply throwing out common sense of course, because we all know that probability dictates that you can't win. If you want to win, throw out some people's idea of common sense.
"...IT'S AGAINST THE LAW TO BREAK THE LAW OF AVERAGES." 

Offline sqzbox

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
I'm sure your response must have been tongue-in-cheek Gizmo, bringing a little humour to the table perhaps, because I'm also sure you know that probability doesn't dictate that you can't win - it is the odds on offer or the vigorish that determines that.

Offline Gizmotron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1487
    • View Profile
I'm sure your response must have been tongue-in-cheek Gizmo, bringing a little humour to the table perhaps, because I'm also sure you know that probability doesn't dictate that you can't win - it is the odds on offer or the vigorish that determines that.

Yes, I was joking around with it. This argument will never go away until someone proves they can win long term and big. Something that everyone will hear about is what's needed. One just has to to ask themselves this question first. Why would anyone deliberately sink the boat they are in?
"...IT'S AGAINST THE LAW TO BREAK THE LAW OF AVERAGES." 

Offline XXVV

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1697
  • Gender: Male
  • Legio XX Valeria Victrix LVX
    • View Profile
Yes, I was joking around with it. This argument will never go away until someone proves they can win long term and big. Something that everyone will hear about is what's needed. One just has to to ask themselves this question first. Why would anyone deliberately sink the boat they are in?

Indeed. We will keep schtung, and merely hint and hide clues in the garden, behaving like annoying guardians, assuming there is something to guard and how will the sceptical know?

I think there are ways and ways to provide trails, and it is up to the seeker to ask the tough questions which probably will not be answered in public. That's okay there are lots of ways to do this. But how will we know the questioner is sincere?  I have had this problem, and I can say it would always be better to meet. That is what I did with my two best mentors. Unforgettable meetings.

Some professionals are  hyper sensitive about revealing winning bets, and for good reason.

So that is why there are limits to making information public. I want to see roulette remain a celebration and highlight within the casino environment.

Haven't heard back from Mike yet.  He must be carefully wording his next statement or will it be just another re-hash out of the freezer.

As a player, a frequent player I have seen so many short cycle events that are astounding and as such am not particularly intimidated by 'constraints' of 'most likely', possible or probable.  Too many team football games played as a possible, not as a probable perhaps.

Look at these pretty patterns ( short cycle stuff)...

Cols

1
2
3
1
3  ( possible symmetry ahead)
2  yes - so what is next - independent spins -lol   max units on col 1

1  yes hit !!!

----

also today - why this  in 250 spins casino RNG !!!   Over 250 spins ( screen data) 13 hit 11 times  12  hit 10x  32 hit 10 x   this sequence from 45 mins ago live at the casino

12
32
13
12
21
12
31
33
32
13     some reversals, penultimate cycles, and hot number clusters - euro wheel

then the hots started cooling as neighbours started hitting 27,0,6,36 -signal to quit.  End of a cycle of trending clustering hots.

-----

was with a colleague who played with a 40 unit bank and made +120 unit profit while I was sitting beside him in a 20 minute sequence
his skills now include key timing/ patience as well as more accurate bet selection

----

Mathematicians need to research short cycle behaviour and the differences with medium and long cycle outcomes. I believe it is a uniquely performing sub set.

If there is a suitably qualified professional mathematician reading this Forum or who might be invited to read this Forum by an existing member, and who would like to research into cluster analysis/ short cycle behaviour in roulette, please note that  I might  be prepared to work and share existing knowledge/ data, subject to strict confidentiality and academic protocols. Responses through PM only.

One of my mentors actually worked with a University Mathematics Department in UK, and was associated also with an early BBC documentary on professional roulette play.  That work has strictly no relation whatsoever with my current personal private work.

As GreenGuy so aptly commented recently 'making one's own luck' would be a great PhD Thesis in Applied Psychology and Mathematics. You will be aware of Sunil Padiyar and 'Psychic Gambling Supersystem'.

I would like to take the formal analysis and research to a formal definitive proven level although maintaining total legal privacy and ownership.

This is one of my goals within my 5 year commercial plan, and is very exciting as there will be several bets and applications involved. It is my personal view that all bets can be refined and refined ever further, and that there may be varying levels of efficiency among several.

It would be disastrous to have public access to this material.

Offline XXVV

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1697
  • Gender: Male
  • Legio XX Valeria Victrix LVX
    • View Profile
Just a little quote I came across recently.

'Common Sense'

Common Sense is just not good enough because it really is the mass response. In order to break through and access better fresh and innovative solutions we must look outside of 'Common Sense', because it is that which holds us back.

Just as Science should always be challenging and questioning, often, especially in a previous generation, complacency set in and so much was accepted passively because men in white coats with a clipboard under their arm, and wearing glasses to look more intelligent ( sounds like a toothpaste or washing powder commercial) pronounced the truth. Politics was just below the surface.

We have a broader Forum now to question, challenge and progress.

Specialised Knowledge is not necessarily within the scope of Common Sense, and to most may appear counter intuitive or odd. However Specialised Knowledge acquired at expense of time and money by definition is effective, and is known to few. This is not necessarily elitist or immoral because it has been hard won and is valuable, extremely valuable. That is what we are working to access here. and as discussed, partially revealed in order to help others ( help themselves). How it is revealed is important and I agree that hints and clues can be a pain.

Offline XXVV

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1697
  • Gender: Male
  • Legio XX Valeria Victrix LVX
    • View Profile
I was trying to find and reference a recent post by Gizmotron over his 'search for gold'. It was so well described and clear, but I think has been deleted. I will attempt to paraphrase it in due course because it is so very clever, clear and modest, yet effective. I quoted a recent post of his though in the baccarat MM or BS section today.

Offline Gizmotron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1487
    • View Profile
I was trying to find and reference a recent post by Gizmotron over his 'search for gold'. It was so well described and clear, but I think has been deleted. I will attempt to paraphrase it in due course because it is so very clever, clear and modest, yet effective. I quoted a recent post of his though in the baccarat MM or BS section today.

Prospecting for gold is like knowing that if you look in the places where gold is found, combine that with hard work, you stand a better chance of finding it than if you don't target the better opportunities to begin with. I know it's not in any context of whatever it was that got deleted, however this much of prospecting holds mostly true. The thing I like about prospecting is that you have a chance of finding a big nugget or a glory hole only if you set out to find one. That's what the advantage players do. They look for the opportunity, grasp it, then leave. There's no point hanging around after the deck has cooled.
"...IT'S AGAINST THE LAW TO BREAK THE LAW OF AVERAGES." 

Offline XXVV

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1697
  • Gender: Male
  • Legio XX Valeria Victrix LVX
    • View Profile
Prospecting for gold is like knowing that if you look in the places where gold is found, combine that with hard work, you stand a better chance of finding it than if you don't target the better opportunities to begin with. I know it's not in any context of whatever it was that got deleted, however this much of prospecting holds mostly true. The thing I like about prospecting is that you have a chance of finding a big nugget or a glory hole only if you set out to find one. That's what the advantage players do. They look for the opportunity, grasp it, then leave. There's no point hanging around after the deck has cooled.

Okay, thanks that is most helpful and this can now be added to what is becoming a master recipe cookbook for roulette truffles.

Add to that the timing aspect from that detail recently mentioned in the Baccarat Forum BS or MM thread. What we call it does not matter but I can certify that in roulette anyway because of the wide number of variables/ assignations available, and thus the number of set groupings that can be handled, that clear short term patterns can be read and extended for rapid gain, through the generous payment terms offered by the casino. Mind you we know this is an 'unfair' bet in objective terms at 35-1 for real 37-1 or worse, but that is still ample when you can target a set of numbers and win +27 units if hit on the first attempt. When for example this cycle of the ecart can be accurately read by the player the SuperBet becomes possible - fast and efficient.

As one writer on the Bac thread noted (Jimske I think), when you have great BS (Bet Selection) and play is short and efficient MM ( Money management is secondary. Smart players will get out quick when profit is offered. If the player stays on the likelihood of failure grows exponentially through a cocktail of risks.

That you know in your heart and head that there is 'Gold' out there, is also a strong incentive for a longer more controlled style of pkay which is of course equally valid because the size of compounded multiple wins can be the trophy and reward for many hours invested. This principle was stated also very clearly by the true roulette professional (and full time gambler) Louis Holloway and he had patiently had collected the statistical data to know the expectation/ frequency for a string/streak of EC outcomes. He was patient and extremely successful.

Offline Mike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 361
    • View Profile
'Common Sense'
Common Sense is just not good enough because it really is the mass response.

Except on gambling forums, apparently.

Offline Mike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 361
    • View Profile
Do you have any proof,
 

Yes. Each and every pocket on the wheel is "available" on every spin.

Sorry if that's just a "rehash", but remember Occam's Razor: Don't entertain unnecessary hypotheses.

Offline XXVV

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1697
  • Gender: Male
  • Legio XX Valeria Victrix LVX
    • View Profile
Yes. Each and every pocket on the wheel is "available" on every spin.

Sorry if that's just a "rehash", but remember Occam's Razor: Don't entertain unnecessary hypotheses.

Thanks Mike - I particularly appreciate the principle of Occam's Razor that you have defined here. This is a really powerful priority to bear in mind constantly.

Offline Mike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 361
    • View Profile
You might be interested in reading this exchange between gambling author R.D.Ellison and mathematician Greg Leibon at Dartmouth.

https://math.dartmouth.edu/archive/m5f02/public_html/files/ellis.htm

The root of the disagreement between them comes from Ellison's persistent failure to accept or understand that his definition of "independent" is altogether different from a mathematicians. This is what Ellison understands by "independence":
 
Quote
Independence, as I understand it,

means free from influence. Conversely, probability implies

predestination; that is, that a certain behavioral pattern is expected

to occur. How can an event that is considered to be predictable also be

described as „free from influence‰? The two concepts conflict.

And on this basis, he argues that roulette outcomes cannot possibly be independent because if they were then there would be no such thing as an "expectation" of anything in roulette; a number could hit 20 times in a row, red could hit 100 times in a row, etc.

It appear that Ellison's "argument" has been quite influential in certain quarters, but it's based on nothing but semantics. Leibon tries hard to get this across to Ellison, who will have none of it. His final email hopefully makes it clear:

Quote
About the hypothesis: You are FREE to reject this hypothesis (of independence) and of course in many situations it will fail.

For example,  if the spinner is utilizing a roulette wheel or a spinning technique that is rigged in some way then this hypothesis fails.   It is justified  in standard gaming situations in two steps.  The first is that it is believed, with very compelling physical evidence,  that the final position of the ball is INCREDIBLY sensitive to the initial

position and velocity of the spin; and it is also believed that any  spinner you would choose to deal with would not put in the effort necessary, or naturally be consistent enough, to reproduce such sensitive initial conditions.  Secondly, via an application of Occum's razor, if the initial conditions cannot be replicated then  all the outcomes should be viewed as equally likely with respect to a given spin, and the outcome of any spin should be viewed as independent of  the outcomes of any other spins. As any application of Occum's razor,  this is not a precise argument but rather a commonly accepted and wildly beneficial vantage point.   Namely utilizing the next CONCLUSION one find that real numbers behave as if this hypothesis is true. Note: Since such an argument is based on Occum's razor, I have NO URGE  to argue this hypothesis unless there is DATA suggesting that the following conclusion  is false in a setting where the hypothesis seems reasonable to me.

CONCLUSION: The laws of probability (like the law of large numbers, the central limit theorem, etc...)  can be applied to  numbers derived from  gambling experiments that satisfy the above hypothesis.

The step from the  HYPOTHESIS to the  CONCLUSION  CANNOT be argued without changing accepted definitions or abandoning logic, and I invite you once a gain to look into Laurie's book to see how this accomplished.  In particular, LIKE IT OR NOT,  the HYPOTHESIS alone is CAUSE enough for the number to obey there known laws and satisfy the CONCLUSION.  You can feel free to debate the hypothesis, but any debate which does not lead to a different conclusion (namely a testable difference in the laws of probability  that come from the above CONCLUSION) would not interested me.   

Gregory Leibon