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?
This is a hypothetical question and it has only hypothetical answers. There can be a bet with lower variance at one point of time but there can be none with no variance or that can stay protected from large variances always.
Monaco, good questions.
Variance can be quantified by mathematical formula, from there you take the square root and ascertain the standard deviation, which is usually more understandable than the variance. I mean, the value means nothing unless it can be interpreted and/or compared to some other benchmark. You are best off using just the SD or even the z-score (how many SDs above the mean), to self-interpret the so-called variance (rather than the variance itself).
There is a z-score excel calculator somewhere here on the forum. An SD or z-score of 3.0 is considered rare, therefore the probability of achieving that result by luck alone is remote. It's worth bearing in mind that I am talking about flat betting here, otherwise the z-score will always fall within normality, whether is it negative or positive. Where there is an edge, the z-score, like your bankroll, should always keep rising.
As ever, much is open to your own criteria. For example, to be sure whatever value is accurate, you really do need to have the results of many many placed bets, or keep testing until you reach a z-score of 3.0+ with level wagers. Also, you cannot trust the results of manual hand testing (if you're doing that). In these cases there is psychological and emotional bias in play, thus the results are open to deadly corruption and a large margin of error which is capable of accounting for a false edge.
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.
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).
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.
Yes, Monaco, these are all interesting questions.
Mostly the answers come down to personal interpretations and definitions. The problem is that if true independence exists between random outcomes then nothing can be defined until after the fact, and so even mathematical values cannot be counted on; they only apply to that single sample you tested (and even then the value applies from only two STATIC single points: A to B, where A and B could both be part of an even larger sample). The key lies in replicating these results time and again using the same logic. If results do not tally, then it can be concluded that there is no difference between that bet and a random selection.
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. 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.
As a sidenote, nothing can be gained from using fallacious triggers based on previous EC patterns (not saying you're doing that). 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.
Playing after a particular SD or z- score has no inbuilt advantage. It is only an attempt to get near "virtual limits" of randomness which is a fallacy than reality. Rather, waiting for such variance to occur, we miss winnings of "positive variance" whenever they occur in a session and gets very few opportunities to bet or win.
For instance, if we are betting an EC and get 1 hit in 9th spin, we have a Z-score of -2.33. If someone feels it advantageous to wait till this happens, statistically, he needs to wait till 250+ spins to get one such opportunity to bet.
There are a few so-called experts here who mislead all that playing after 3.0 STD has an advantage while there is no such thing, in reality.
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 eachindividual case, there is nevertheless a regularity of occurrence if thephenomena 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 :thumbsup:
My way to handle "extreme negative variance" is to avoid playing in the stretches where a bet goes above 2x of break even.
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLWWLWLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
wwwwwwwllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
you may still lose some bet but not losing your bankroll.
No money management except this can help.
Quote from: Albalaha on December 18, 2013, 02:15:58 PM
My way to handle "extreme negative variance" is to avoid playing in the stretches where a bet goes above 2x of break even.
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLWWLWLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
wwwwwwwllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
you may still lose some bet but not losing your bankroll.
No money management except this can help.
sick variance
Quote from: monaco on December 18, 2013, 02:07:38 PM
Does true independence have to exclude all definitions of knowledge of future facts?
The thing is, we aren't dealing with facts. They are observations, which lead to some kind of prediction about future events. You can define regression to the mean in your own way, there is no wrong or right answer; but it involves proving the premise beyond all doubt, and in a way that makes it economical to play.
It's not like regression just does not exist. You may have some sucess defining the event after the fact, but what you can't define, though, is its behaviour in real time. It may seem to be happening at a certain point, but how do you know it will continue in that way? The variance is just as likely to get worse at any point as it is to get better. For that reason you can't jump in at -3SDs and begin betting for regression from there. That's a fallacy. The house edge only applies to real money wagers. It's also impossible to bet through that degree of variance from the start. Even flat betting you would go bust in no time.
Which leads us back to a conclusion: regression to the mean is no different from a random selection. You seem to appreciate that; it is fallacious because it involves skipping spins and sitting out a portion of the game until "favourable" conditions appear. Once you step into the game the SD is 0 because you haven't even placed a bet yet. Most triggers are based on that same premise, and they are ineffective.
Quote from: monaco on December 18, 2013, 02:07:38 PM
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.
For sure, I agree. If you can prove it.
Quote from: monaco on December 18, 2013, 02:07:38 PM
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..
True. The variance would be much tighter than a random selection. You wouldn't even have to worry about that. More likely you would be busy compounding your profits exponentially with some kind of % betting.
Quote from: monaco on December 18, 2013, 02:07:38 PM
Are all triggers naturally fallacious? Are there any types that aren't?
Everything has to be defined and proved, that is the first step in making connections between seemingly random outcomes; past observations and future events. The premise of why a bet is different from a random selection has to be real. For example let's say you play in cycles of 37 spins. The cycle has to be defined and proved to be real rather than an illusion.
But consider: every outcome you record begins a new cycle, ends a cycle and forms part of every cycle in between. Outcome 1 begins Cycle 1, Outcome 2 begins Cycle 2 and is the second outcome of Cycle 1, Outcome 3 begins Cycle 3 and is the second outcome of Cycle 2 and the third outcome of Cycle 1. This goes on for ever and ever, in a constant state of overlapping. For that reason, on the surface, a cycle can only ever consist of one spin: the next spin.
So if you define a cycle of spins, how do you know it's making a difference. How do you know you're in it? Once the illusory nature of the game is past, you can argue that noting you do is a fallacy.
So tracking your worst losing runs to get the average doesn't give you any insight in the variance?
I'm currently working on something, here are the stats. Could you tell me if you think I have the variance under control?
1000 total placed bets
536 wins
Longest losses 8 in a row once
Average losing run is 3.6
This is tested on even chances no zero. If anyone cares to break it down for me I am not concerned about the 0/00 because I don't play with them.
I remember just recently PA did a post that stated if you can cut your losses to no more then 4 in a row you have an advantage.
As far as z-score and STD I have no idea how to do that, its like a different language to me
Big EZ - nice results. Hopefully others will be able to analyse them better than I could, but I can say they return a z-score of 2.28.
If your next 1000 placed bets return the same numbers, you'd be 3.22.
4000 placed bets & if you can keep the same win ratio, you're looking at 4.55. A score of 3 is rare, so...
I've added an 's' to the thread title from this point on, maybe I should add '& rtm questions' as well... these questions & points are all in the hope of better understanding so I appreciate the responses & hope no-one is banging their head against the screen. I know a lot of people have looked at regression to the mean before and come away believing it not to be usable or useful with regards to roulette, and that may well be true, but in all I've read I haven't really seen it talked about in its pure form – it always seems to be bundled up with the Law of Large Numbers or something like that. So please bear with me!
Quote from: Number Six on December 18, 2013, 04:29:17 PM
The thing is, we aren't dealing with facts. They are observations, which lead to some kind of prediction about future events. You can define regression to the mean in your own way, there is no wrong or right answer; but it involves proving the premise beyond all doubt, and in a way that makes it economical to play.
This second point is a problem I agree, but Regression to the mean is already proven beyond all doubt isn't it? There aren't any question marks still hanging over it as a real phenomenon are there?
Quote
It's not like regression just does not exist. You may have some sucess defining the event after the fact, but what you can't define, though, is its behaviour in real time. It may seem to be happening at a certain point, but how do you know it will continue in that way?
I agree you can't know for certain it will continue in that way, but you are in position where you know it is
more likely to continue in that way. I'm sorry if that sounds like splitting hairs, but I think if there is an advantage to something like rtm, it's going to be in some small details – it won't be something that hits you over the head like a hammer, but even a small advantage might be enough.
Quote
The variance is just as likely to get worse at any point as it is to get better.
Is this not one of the crux's of the matter here – the variance
isn't as likely to continue getting worse, it's more likely (those words again) to get closer to the average. That's the heart of rtm.
Quote
For that reason you can't jump in at -3SDs and begin betting for regression from there. That's a fallacy. The house edge only applies to real money wagers. It's also impossible to bet through that degree of variance from the start. Even flat betting you would go bust in no time.
Which leads us back to a conclusion: regression to the mean is no different from a random selection. You seem to appreciate that; it is fallacious because it involves skipping spins and sitting out a portion of the game until "favourable" conditions appear. Once you step into the game the SD is 0 because you haven't even placed a bet yet. Most triggers are based on that same premise, and they are ineffective.
But in this sense, rtm doesn't know if you are making real money wagers or not – it will act itself out whether you are betting or not. At whichever point you enter the game, rtm could be in action, just finishing or about to start, but you need to observe previous spins if you want to take advantage of it because you can only recognize it by looking at successive sets of spins..
Say I've been sitting at the wheel for a few hours, noting down the spins, and the previous 200 were 65 red & 135 black, & then you come & sit down at my spin 201. I
know that the next 200 spins are more likely to be closer to the average – you wouldn't know that. Whether I've got the skill to make anything of that knowledge is another matter of course, & I won't know the outcome of any individual spin with any greater accuracy than you, but I have some knowledge of the next set of 200 spins that you don't.
If you decide to play after a strong deviation, then I think what you are trying to do is change the terrain in which you play to one in which extreme events, both positive and negative, are less likely – certainly no positive edge to make you get more right than wrong, & I would also guess that some kind of negative progression would be needed.
Quote
Everything has to be defined and proved, that is the first step in making connections between seemingly random outcomes; past observations and future events. The premise of why a bet is different from a random selection has to be real. For example let's say you play in cycles of 37 spins. The cycle has to be defined and proved to be real rather than an illusion.
But consider: every outcome you record begins a new cycle, ends a cycle and forms part of every cycle in between. Outcome 1 begins Cycle 1, Outcome 2 begins Cycle 2 and is the second outcome of Cycle 1, Outcome 3 begins Cycle 3 and is the second outcome of Cycle 2 and the third outcome of Cycle 1. This goes on for ever and ever, in a constant state of overlapping. For that reason, on the surface, a cycle can only ever consist of one spin: the next spin.
So if you define a cycle of spins, how do you know it's making a difference. How do you know you're in it? Once the illusory nature of the game is past, you can argue that noting you do is a fallacy.
Here are 2 things – outcomes & cycles – different descriptions that can be applied to the same game. So you can look at individual outcomes, and you can look at individual outcomes as sets of individual outcomes - light described as both a wave and particle type premise; so does looking at the cycles, or sets, have any less validity than the individual outcomes?
(I hope this isn't coming across as just word games or semantics, it really is an attempt to understand something and see if it has any advantage...)
Quote from: monaco
Regression to the mean is already proven beyond all doubt isn't it? There aren't any question marks still hanging over it as a real phenomenon are there?
Yes, it is a normal behaviour of statistics, we know the outcomes will slide up and down from the mean all the time. I'm not so much saying RTM has to be defined, but rather, it has to be put into context so you can predict it more accurately in real time. Going back to the example of cycles of outomes constantly overlapping, by that logic, RTM has to be measured from constantly moving points in time. Analysing 100,000 spins is pretty pointless for RTM, we know it will happen, and even begin all over again in such a long sample. But how is RTM behaving between spin 20 and spin 250? What is happening between spin 5000 and spin 5729? There is a "trot" within a trot, and a trot within that, and a trot within that, there are as many or as few trots as you want, the shortest trot being one outcome. Does this make any difference to the bigger picture? The bigger the picture, the more diluted the premise becomes, until such a point that using it makes no difference to a random selection.
Quote from: monaco
but you are in position where you know it is more likely to continue in that way
Yes, but only if you have kept betting through everything, even negative variance. Only then do things like probability and standard deviation apply to your wagers. If there are no bets there is no expected value, and thus there can be no variance. You can't jump in and out of random outcomes and expect to ride the big upswings and avoid the downswings. The variance just stops when your wagers stop, and begins again when your wagers do. At that point, on the ECs, variance has a 1 in 2 chance of going either up or down. For example if you reached -2.0 SDs you might choose to stop betting, and begin again when the "virtual" SD is -3.0. The virtual SD is exactly that: an illusion. When you jump back in at -3.0 and expect it to regress, the real SD is still only -2.0.
Quote from: monaco
Is this not one of the crux's of the matter here – the variance isn't as likely to continue getting worse, it's more likely (those words again) to get closer to the average. That's the heart of rtm.
Same principle applies, you have to continue betting through everything, every spin, only then does "likely" and "unlikely" really mean anything. The problem then becomes, do you have a big enough bankroll to last through these dry patches?
Quote from: monaco
But in this sense, rtm doesn't know if you are making real money wagers or not – it will act itself out whether you are betting or not.
No it doesn't. But we can agree to disagree. The casino certainly knows, though, when you stop paying them tax. And where there is no wager, there is no probability of winning or losing, and hence no expected value. That skipped outcome can have no impact on you or your future. Bear in mind that mostly RTM is observed after the fact, in real time you can't really tell what is happening unless you have defined all parameters and proved them to yourself. I mean, there may be cases where you reach a scenario in which you're confident some regression will happen over, say, the next 50 spins, which will allow you to profit nicely. This is where putting things into context matters, including other popular ideas like hot numbers.
Quote from: monaco
I know that the next 200 spins are more likely to be closer to the average
Are they? Regression can happen over thousands and thousands of spins in total. And that is the one biggest problem with it, and what mainly makes it uneconomical in terms of both time and money. Plus, when you jump in at spin 201 and begin betting, there is no SD. Virtual tracking in this form is a fallacy.
Quote from: monaco
I would also guess that some kind of negative progression would be needed.
If you know when to play, positive would be better, do you think? It would keep you in the game longer and give a better chance of reaching the upswing. When you are losing, it's probably best to lose as little as possible.
Quote from: monaco
Here are 2 things – outcomes & cycles – different descriptions that can be applied to the same game. So you can look at individual outcomes, and you can look at individual outcomes as sets of individual outcomes - light described as both a wave and particle type premise; so does looking at the cycles, or sets, have any less validity than the individual outcomes?
Yes, it's pretty much spot on. As for validity, I couldn't possibly go into that. The concept of cycles of outcomes constantly overlapping suggests it is not valid at all, since the implication is that every outcome is totally independent. With that in mind, everything you do can only ever be defined as being random, unless is can be proved to make an actual difference.
Quote from: Big EZ on December 19, 2013, 01:33:33 PM
So tracking your worst losing runs to get the average doesn't give you any insight in the variance?
I'm currently working on something, here are the stats. Could you tell me if you think I have the variance under control?
1000 total placed bets
536 wins
Longest losses 8 in a row once
Average losing run is 3.6
If you look at an average, you can only ever get an average picture that ends up halfway between best and worst; that can still lead to ruin. It's best to know the single instance of the worst possible variance and how long it lasts, then you can make sure you have enough money to outlast it. 8 losses is OK, but if it's 8 losses, 1 winner, then another 8 losses, that's something else. They are nice results, probably you should test another 1000 and see if you can match them.
Number 6.....i really like your posts.
You say everything I know, that Im too scared to admit ;)
Dear Beat the wheel,
Please illustrate what u just shown step by step and better in an excelwith the progression that you are referring to.
Quote from: Number Six on December 19, 2013, 06:58:39 PM
Yes, it is a normal behaviour of statistics, we know the outcomes will slide up and down from the mean all the time. I'm not so much saying RTM has to be defined, but rather, it has to be put into context so you can predict it more accurately in real time. Going back to the example of cycles of outomes constantly overlapping, by that logic, RTM has to be measured from constantly moving points in time.
A problem in a live casino for sure, but software can overcome that online. I use Bayes' software which helps a lot, but I almost can't imagine any way you could play this way in a real casino.
Quote
Yes, but only if you have kept betting through everything, even negative variance. Only then do things like probability and standard deviation apply to your wagers. If there are no bets there is no expected value, and thus there can be no variance. You can't jump in and out of random outcomes and expect to ride the big upswings and avoid the downswings. The variance just stops when your wagers stop, and begins again when your wagers do. At that point, on the ECs, variance has a 1 in 2 chance of going either up or down.
I see the distinction between 2 separate SD's (your virtual and real) - you are saying they are mutually exclusive, one having no impact on the other?
Maybe come full circle with this now, but I think that question is better.
Quote
For example if you reached -2.0 SDs you might choose to stop betting, and begin again when the "virtual" SD is -3.0. The virtual SD is exactly that: an illusion. When you jump back in at -3.0 and expect it to regress, the real SD is still only -2.0.
Out of interest, do you agree with my point that where an SD (virtual or real) hits -3.0, it is more likely to decrease than carry on increasing? If it was 50/50 that the SD would go either up or down at -3.0 then you wouldn't be dealing with random independent outcomes – there would be a bias somewhere.
This isn't to say it can't carry on increasing, it might, but it is less likely to (I wish there was another phrase I could use).
The actual difference between the reds/blacks or singles/series or whatever you're measuring at this point might not decrease but the SD is likely to - I think this is where the difference between Regression and the Law of Large Numbers needs to be made explicit. Law of Large Numbers is useless to us, but unfortunately gets thrown in with rtm.
Quote
"But in this sense, rtm doesn't know if you are making real money wagers or not – it will act itself out whether you are betting or not"
No it doesn't. But we can agree to disagree.
I find it hard to see how you can disagree with my statement. How can a statistical phenomenon be affected by if I make a bet or not? It's completely indifferent to me & my gambling - nothing I do or any action I take can have the slightest effect on it. Ok, agree to disagree.
Quote
"I know that the next 200 spins are more likely to be closer to the average."
Are they?
Yes, I believe they are, that's what rtm states.. 1st 200 spins, 65/135 (extreme Event A), we know (Event B) next 200 spins are more likely to be closer to the average..
Quote
unless is can be proved to make an actual difference
People like yourself whose opinion I respect all seem to say no!
Quote from: monaco
A problem in a live casino for sure, but software can overcome that online. I use Bayes' software which helps a lot, but I almost can't imagine any way you could play this way in a real casino.
I agree, it is not suitable to play manually, at least not without some kind of tracker. Automation would be even better, if it was worth investing in.
Quote from: monaco
I see the distinction between 2 separate SD's (your virtual and real) - you are saying they are mutually exclusive, one having no impact on the other?
Only one of the SDs is exclusive: to its own existence in relation to your bet. The other one does not exist at all, it's just an illusion, therefore it can have no bearing on the future. It may not seem like a valid point to you, it depends on what you want to believe or what your own experience might tell you, but the SD and probabilities really do only apply to the results of outcomes where real money is wagered. If you stop betting at -1.5 SDs, when you begin again, at any point, the SD is still -1.5.
Quote from: monaco
Out of interest, do you agree with my point that where an SD (virtual or real) hits -3.0, it is more likely to decrease than carry on increasing?
Virtual, no; there is still a 50/50 chance it will go either way. Real, yes; it is more likely to decrease. But again the problem remains: how long will it take? And also, if you reach -3.0 SDs, where have you measured it from? Is it from the first ever wager you placed, or would you choose to measure it from constantly moving points? The overall SD for, say, red across 250 spins maybe -3.0, but for the last 50 spins it may be something else; which may suggest a flaw in your selection criteria.
This isn't a great example but it leads to the point: is it better to define an optimum distance between points of, say, 50 spins, and change your bet every 50 spins according to the last 50? Would that make a difference than just looking at the bigger picture? Is it even better to look at the bigger picture, combined with smaller pictures, compare them and then make a selection? These are the things that need to be defined using regression as the main example. Does
anything make a difference?
Quote from: monaco
I find it hard to see how you can disagree with my statement
"No it doesn't" meant, sure, it doesn't know you are not betting, not that regression will not act itself out. But in relation to your wagers, no it does not happen if you are not betting. There is no expected value, and no maths applies to a virtual bet. You might look upon that with disbelief, logically it should make sense, but on another note maybe you have to actually see it to believe it.
It is exactly the same fallacious approach as waiting for 5 reds and then betting black. The probability of winning is still .486.
Quote from: monaco
Yes, I believe they are, that's what rtm states.. 1st 200 spins, 65/135 (extreme Event A), we know (Event B) next 200 spins are more likely to be closer to the average..
No bets, no SD! When I have some free time, we could use this example scenario and run a sim of a few trials to see what happens.
Quote from: monaco
People like yourself whose opinion I respect all seem to say no!
Well, if you ask me there are some conditional situations that are effective.
This was my first run of 1k placed bets.........
1000 total placed bets
536 wins
Longest losses 8 in a row once
Average losing run is 3.6
And monaco had said I returned a z-score of 2.28
Here is my second run of 1k placed bets
1000 placed bets
549 wins
Longest losses 9 in a row once
Average losing run is 3.7
Could you please do the z-score for me again monaco....
Also I think this goes well with this topic because I am just experiencing a positive fluctuation or is there really an advantage? At what point can someone say OK that's enough testing, and consider the results as true?
6,
You said getting the average of the losing run will only tell you exactly that. But that in itself could be used to help strengthen the MM side of things don't you think?
Quote from: Number Six on December 20, 2013, 03:24:25 PM
"No it doesn't" meant, sure, it doesn't know you are not betting, not that regression will not act itself out. But in relation to your wagers, no it does not happen if you are not betting. There is no expected value, and no maths applies to a virtual bet. You might look upon that with disbelief, logically it should make sense, but on another note maybe you have to actually see it to believe it.
It is exactly the same fallacious approach as waiting for 5 reds and then betting black. The probability of winning is still .486.
I have to say that I DO look on it with disbelief. Why doesn't the maths apply to a virtual bet? In any case, it would be no great hardship even if it were true, because you could simply bet the minimum while waiting for the "trigger".
RTM doesn't say anything about the probability of the next (individual) outcome, only that given a strong deviation from the average, the next SAMPLE (and the larger the sample, the more likely this is to be true) is likely to be closer to the average. Actually, this applies whether or not the sequence is severe, but the way RTM is phrased ("given that...") makes it sound superficially like the gambler's fallacy.
QuoteRTM doesn't say anything about the probability of the next (individual) outcome, only that given a strong deviation from the average, the next SAMPLE (and the larger the sample, the more likely this is to be true) is likely to be closer to the average.
What is the difference between this "Likely" and "it is due to happen" of gamblers' fallacy? Both theories doesn't help in any way, in gambling. If it does, prove that through any clear example. Indeed, playing after certain SD is a kind of gambler's fallacy, a statistical veil upon your eyes. Playing after a particular SD moves you away from betting repeatedly and you get proportionally far lesser opportunities to bet and to earn. Nothing reduces the risk and reward ratio in gambling. All strategies are proportionally helpful and harmful. #3 of zumma book is a very fine example against these myths and there is no "smoothening" of variance even in 15,000 spins. Virtually, it should have gone smoother, in long run but the "long run stretch" is itself virtual and unpredictable. I know that people can use better scientific and mathematical terms to push their views but what I have stated is a harsh and undeniable reality.
The advantage lies in the fact that if starting to bet "cold" (that is, with no knowledge of past outcomes) you will encounter more severe losing runs. And it's not true that there are fewer opportunities, at least, not if you know what to look for and use ALL the information. There are always multiple aspects or probabilities in a sequence of outcomes, and none of them are less valid than the others. So to take the EC's, you can see them as a simple binary bet, or as streaks of varying lengths, or as groups of R/B taken 3 at a time etc etc. These multiple probabilities each have their own averages and SD's and must all work together, as it were, in order to produce the outcomes which fall within certain limits (the vast majority of the time). In other words, the multiple aspects are all connected, as they must be because they all arise from the same process.
The reductionist approach taken by most people simply isn't sophisticated enough to create a successful method. Nevertheless, RTM is a true phenomenon and it CAN help to reduce variance, if used as part of a package.
There are some ugly facts which we should not forget:
1. Every number has mathematically equal chance to appear but due to "law of small numbers" anything can happen in a limited playable session and "regression towards mean" can not help us in any way in that span. It is only good, theoretically.
2. There is nothing like a "fill in the gap" thing in a session. If a number is going very bad in its first run, there is no guarantee that it will improve in the next cycle. If RTM helps any way in playing, play number 3 of zumma and beat that with that or give us any example of how to use this concept practically that gives a "definitive edge". If it wins and loses randomly, it is not any better than playing any manner randomly.
3. Everything works in a particular condition be it RTM or martingale, when adverse runs like number 3 comes all these theories become laughing stocks. There is no mathematical theory that can make you a winner in gambling otherwise all maths professors would have been gambling in casinos making millions.
4. Every betselection is proportionally good and bad when it is random. There is nothing like "hot" or "cold" numbers and even some bet is looking like one, it may turn upside down any moment.
Quote from: Bayes
I have to say that I DO look on it with disbelief. Why doesn't the maths apply to a virtual bet? In any case, it would be no great hardship even if it were true, because you could simply bet the minimum while waiting for the "trigger".
Where there is no bet there is no probabilility of winning or losing, and there is no expected value. How can it be different? How can a virtual bet make any difference at all? It's a total fallacy. Yeah bet the minimum until there is some kind of trigger, up the bet size when the system is in play. All the maths applies only in relation to one's wagers and bankroll.
I'd be interested to know why you think virtual play holds any credence.
Quote from: Big Ez
You said getting the average of the losing run will only tell you exactly that. But that in itself could be used to help strengthen the MM side of things don't you think?
This is no zero, right? The z-score is 3.8. It's great; the problem is, if your results are hand tested they are open to corruption due to personal bias - it can happen subconsciously. Can you simulate your bet? It would be interesting to see the results of 10,000 placed and even if the 2,000 you have tested tally.
Knowing the average might be useful for academic purposes, but formulating MM around that average will increase your risk of ruin. You have to know that you can bet through the worst deviation; the average won't help with that. But if your results are unbiased you actually don't need any MM. You can compound your winnings flat betting with some % increments. I wouldn't use any progression, or at worst increase your wagers slightly as you come out of a drawdown. If there is an edge the longer you play the more you win.
Quote from: Number Six on December 21, 2013, 04:50:22 PM
I'd be interested to know why you think virtual play holds any credence.
So would I, even though I agree with Bayes point of view, I would equally like to see why you don't.
I don't mean,
lets agree to disagree....or,
no it doesn't, I mean explain please.
I would find both explainations interesting
( it may change my view)
Turner,
I am sure we can agree that virtual play is some kind of way of avoiding variance or simply just skipping spins until there is some sort of trigger or condition that's perceived to hold an advantage. It's an erroneous approach. It is, in short, gambler's fallacy. No matter how complex the bet selection might seem to be, it's essentially the same as betting black after 3 or 4 reds, or a virtual trot of similar deviation. In that case the probability of winning on black is still .486. If that was not true, we could all make millions and play with 95% edges. No maths applies to that, or any, virtual trot. In order for the maths to apply, there has to be a wager. The house edge cannot be avoided by not betting. With no bet, you take it, and yourself, out of the game. It's important not to overanalyse this or think of it in some complicated context.
I'm not sure I could explain it any more than saying that where there is no bet there is no probability of winning or losing. How can a virtual bet have an affect on anything: future results or your bankroll? It can't. It doesn't change anything, it makes no difference.
If that doesn't explain it, feel free to specify why or why you think the maths can apply to a non-wager.
Answer is not very straightforward. This is one of those things where there is no clear demarcation of right or wrong even if go by maths. For maths, it doesn't know whether you play virtual or real. It is dependent on only the outcome from the wheel. So it suggests you can use it to your advantage. But at the same time, math suggests these are all independent events, so house edge will remain and hence it doesn't matter whether you play virtual, there is no advantage. Confusing ain't it.
A more simplistic explanation. Consider a sequence of events in EC - WWLWWLWLWLWWWLWL
One is playing all real.
result - +4
One is stopping real play after a loss and after two virtual wins, continues in real mode.
Result - 0
Six,
Quotethe probability of winning on black is still .486.
No argument here.
But RTM isn't concerned with individual outcomes, because an individual outcome (one spin) cannot be an extreme event; RTM applies to a sequence - multiple outcomes. You can assign a probability to the outcome of a sequence of bets (using the binomial distribution), so for example the expected number of wins (the average) in a sequence of 10 EC bets is 5, or using standard results from the Normal Distribution, you could say that there is roughly a 70% chance that your number of wins will be between 4 and 6.
Now this result applies whatever your results were from the PREVIOUS 10 spins, right? (so no gambler's fallacy committed yet). In the same way that the probability of ONE win is 0.486, the probability of 4-6 wins in 10 trials is also fixed (the wheel has no memory).
This is really the key to why RTM "works". The long-run expectation is the most likely outcome for any sequence (even though you can't rely on it necessarily in the short term), and strong deviations (by definition) are rare, so there's no question of rare events "causing" a "correction" or past spins affecting future spins. If you're going to ask questions about cause and effect, it would be more pertinent to ask why the deviations occur in the first place, not why outcomes should NOT revert to the mean after deviations.
So, you may ask, if it makes no difference what has gone before, then why WAIT for a losing sequence before starting to bet? isn't THIS a case of GF?
And as Al has pointed out, I'm missing out on all the wins which I WOULD have gained by not waiting for the rare events, and when the rare event does occur, the odds of the next sequence haven't thereby changed - so it's a complete waste of time and a big fallacy!
Not quite. Firstly, waiting for the rare events is a non-issue because I use software which generates 1000s of bet selections, so I get a bet almost every spin (I'm always at the "edge" of the bell curve). Secondly, I'm not concerned about "missing out" on wins because my emphasis is not on winning, but on NOT LOSING. My priority is not to get as many wins as possible, but to eliminate as many losses as possible.
I do need to use a progression (albeit not an aggressive one), and the problem with progressions, as we all know, is that they can win very often but when you hit the run from hell they can wipe out all your winnings and then some. So I let the wins take care of themselves; my business is to cut down the length (not so much the frequency, which doesn't affect my profits, only the time it takes to get them) of the losing runs.
The only way I know how to do that RELIABLY (I've tried other approaches like following trends and switching from one bet selection to another, without any long-term success), is to "use" RTM. I wait for an extreme deviation (3 SD+) and then start betting when I see some indicators that the tide is turning, using a mild negative progression (it has to be negative, postive progressions don't work well at all).
Now at this point you might protest that this doesn't really solve the problem or shorten the losing runs at all, because there is no theoretical limit to them, and in fact, by seeking out the worst-case scenarios I'm actually making things worse for myself. The latter point does have some validity; you do see some shockingly bad losing sequences using this method (worst I've seen is 6 wins in 40 spins) and caution is needed, but it's very instructive to see just how bad things CAN get. As to the former complaint - that losing runs can continue indefinitely - I don't have much patience with that because it's simply false and a consequence of taking the maths too literally (an equation is only a model of reality, and the map is not the territory).
The fact is, outcomes run in cycles; losing runs come to an end, and the more extreme the losing run, the sooner it will end. I may have losses, but I have eliminated the majority of them before I start betting (virtual betting or not makes no difference to the maths - the wheel has produced those outcomes which are independent of any player). This is the simplest way I know of to reduce the losses to the point where you can use a progression without the stress of wondering when it's going to blow up. Even so, I don't play in a totally mechanical way, there is always some judgement involved, but it's a skill which improves with practice.
Dear Bayes,
I read your posts like a read a good quality book and rely upon them in similar fashion. If you say, "RTM" can give an edge than playing continuously and randomly, would you give me any working example of how it can best be used? I am talking of straight up bet.
Al,
I usually stick to the ECs in conjunction with RTM, and there's a reason for that. Betting one or two numbers (or even 3 or 4) would just take too long to find the rare events. For example, worst-case scenario for a single number could be 600 spins or more. Time is money, and not only that, boredom would a factor, and when you get bored there's a tendency to make stupid bets. A lower variance bet is more efficient from my point of view, and ECs hit the sweet spot ("odds on" bets like two dozens are just too dangerous because even a short losing run can cost a lot, and higher variance bets are too slow).
In principle, any bet can be used because the logic is the same. One approach I'm currently experimenting with is to track repeating numbers. The random variable in this case is the number of spins it takes for a repeat in the last X spins.Track the last say 5 spins on a rolling basis, then when the number of spins reaches 3 SD+, bet the last 4 spins (you only need to bet 4 because you're banking on a repeat in the last 5) again on a rolling basis. This is a simple idea, but it can be extended by simultaneously tracking the last 2,3... up to 8 or 9 numbers for repeats (each will have its own standard deviation) and then looking for correlations (i.e., did the number which is a repeat pair with a number which is 2,3...8 or 9 spins back? and what the is mean and standard deviation of this random variable?).
Bayes,
Say I chose to bet all three EC pairs in euro roulette and trigger being a z-score of -3.0. Do you feel such triggers will suffice to earn flat bet? How many bets should we place after that?
The question is how you do this in real life.
One loss is one event and one win is one event.
One loss has the value of 1 and one win has the value of 1.
So 40 loses and 6 wins as Bayes mention is 5.06 STD
One red is one event and have the value of 1.
One black is one event and have the value of 1.
As i understand it, so does Bayes software using patterns of certain length.
Then the software match or miss-matches does with the real results to find the worst or highest STD.
So how do you do that in real life in real casino?
No software and only pen and paper.
I think i have the solution for that using predetermined window of events (random bits).
Then the benchmark is set before you start playing.
Could be Bayes example with 40 loses and 6 wins or 5.06 STD ...
But it would be interesting to hear what Bayes say about the subject.
How would you charting by hand using RTM methodology.
Quote from: Bayes on December 22, 2013, 09:34:29 AM
I do need to use a progression (albeit not an aggressive one), and the problem with progressions, as we all know, is that they can win very often but when you hit the run from hell they can wipe out all your winnings and then some. So I let the wins take care of themselves; my business is to cut down the length (not so much the frequency, which doesn't affect my profits, only the time it takes to get them) of the losing runs.
Can you please elaborate concerning your progression how and why frequency of hits is less important then length of streak and how do you mean you let wins take care for themselves?
Drazen
Quote from: Sputnik on December 22, 2013, 11:13:03 AM
As i understand it, so does Bayes software using patterns of certain length.
Then the software match or miss-matches does with the real results to find the worst or highest STD.
So how do you do that in real life in real casino?
No software and only pen and paper.
I think i have the solution for that using predetermined window of events (random bits).
Then the benchmark is set before you start playing.
Could be Bayes example with 40 loses and 6 wins or 5.06 STD ...
But it would be interesting to hear what Bayes say about the subject.
How would you charting by hand using RTM methodology.
Not sure what you mean by "predetermined window of events". If it's predetermined, i.e., it doesn't use any history, then you run the risk that your predetermined sequence (or the opposite of it, depending whether you are betting for or against it) may show up, so to my mind this is no better than betting randomly.
Another option which could be used in a B&M casino is the old technique of betting the opposite of whatever sequence has just appeared. Norman Squire has a section on this in his book "How to Win at Roulette". He suggests betting the opposite of the last 37 spins, the rationale being that it would be virtually impossible for the exact same sequence to repeat immediately (You could suppose that you had been betting that same sequence over the last 37 spins, in which case you would have had 37 losses in a row). The flaw in that theory is that the sequence needn't repeat EXACTLY in order for you to still get substantial losses, and the longer the sequence is, the more likely you are to get bunched losses, which is what you're trying to avoid in the first place. I've tried this method in the past, and it isn't very effective.
Quote from: Drazen on December 22, 2013, 11:14:05 AM
Can you please elaborate concerning your progression how and why frequency of hits is less important then length of streak and how do you mean you let wins take care for themselves?
Drazen
The kind of progression I use is such that I will break even with something like LLWLLLWLWLLW which has twice as many losses as wins. So it doesn't matter how long this pattern continues because I won't LOSE (I won't win much either, but as I said, I'm not bothered about that). In that sequence, the losing runs are short between wins. Occasionally I win for quite long periods flat betting, but I never "chase" wins using positive progressions. If I'm on a winning streak, I'll ride it as long as it continues and break off after one or two losses (depending on how much profit I made). Long winning streaks aren't that common though, more often outcomes are choppy which is why positive progressions are dangerous.
Bayes
Would you please show in the above eg LLWLLLWLWLLW how you would bet using monetary amounts thanks.
Cheers
R
Quote from: Bayes on December 22, 2013, 01:36:43 PM
Not sure what you mean by "predetermined window of events". If it's predetermined, i.e., it doesn't use any history, then you run the risk that your predetermined sequence (or the opposite of it, depending whether you are betting for or against it) may show up, so to my mind this is no better than betting randomly.
Another option which could be used in a B&M casino is the old technique of betting the opposite of whatever sequence has just appeared. Norman Squire has a section on this in his book "How to Win at Roulette". He suggests betting the opposite of the last 37 spins, the rationale being that it would be virtually impossible for the exact same sequence to repeat immediately (You could suppose that you had been betting that same sequence over the last 37 spins, in which case you would have had 37 losses in a row). The flaw in that theory is that the sequence needn't repeat EXACTLY in order for you to still get substantial losses, and the longer the sequence is, the more likely you are to get bunched losses, which is what you're trying to avoid in the first place. I've tried this method in the past, and it isn't very effective.
Similiar toward what i was thinking, but ...
A match is one event and has the value of 1.
A miss-match is one event and has the value of 1.
Same as ...
Same is one event and has the value of 1.
Opposite is one event and has the value of 1.
This means ...
That if you have 37 past results you can aim for what is underrepresented, no matter if its is same or opposite.
And in the beginning of each sequence you will notice what is overrepresented.
With other words so can i get 5.00 STD with same as overrepresented or opposite as overrepresented.
Bayes,
I do not contest your original points; take the probability for one outcome or ten outcomes, it makes no difference, but even so the probability of events still do not exist unless you bet on it (or them). There is
always a probability, but unless there is a wager it's just theoretical. The probability applies directly to your wager, does it not? As oppose to the probability of observing some event.
It's not "there is a 18/37 chance it will be red".
It's "there is an 18/37 chance of doubling your money".
Betting black after five reds can be no different to regression measured over 1000 spins. In fact, betting black after fives reds is itself a regression bet; there has been a slight and fast deviation, now the player expects a slight and fast regression on the very next spin, so he bets with the erroneous belief he has a better chance of winning. And we already know the probability of winning the bet is .486. So, how is regression measured over many more spins different? Yes, you're considering multiple outcomes, but each outcome is still an individual. And you can even argue that where the outcomes are random, the SD is reset to zero on every new spin you record, so the whole idea of regression is an illusion until after the fact.
There is no expected value on a non-wager, the point cannot be contested even if put into any context. There is no probability of
you winning or losing a non-wager. Thus, it can have no affect at all on your personal variance.
Let's pose a simple question, to make this explicitly easy to grasp and find out what people do and don't truly believe. Anyone is free to answer it.
You are betting on red, every spin, now you're losing heavily. The SD for red from your first wager is -2.0. At this point you stop betting. Now you continue tracking the SD until it reaches a virtual -3.0. Now you decide it's a good time to start betting for regression. When you place your next wager what is the SD? Is it -2.0 or -3.0?
Quote from: Pockets on December 22, 2013, 08:14:13 AM
It is dependent on only the outcome from the wheel.
This is the point I would like to stress: it is dependent on the outcome of your wager. Where there is no wager, the outcome from the wheel is irrelevant.
QuoteYou are betting on red, every spin, now you're losing heavily. The SD for red from your first wager is -2.0. At this point you stop betting. Now you continue tracking the SD until it reaches a virtual -3.0. Now you decide it's a good time to start betting for regression. When you place your next wager what is the SD? Is it -2.0 or -3.0?
The classical playing model for RTM aim to find one window of overrepresented events - then attack.
If you search for windows on a rolling basis, so is the last present window the current state, so the answer to you question is 3.0.
Each window is independent with overrepresented and underrepresented events.
Its based upon what benchmark you use as reference point when playing and measuring the distribution.
Quote from: Sputnik on December 22, 2013, 02:50:36 PM
The classical playing model for RTM aim to find one window of overrepresented events - then attack.
If you search for windows on a rolling basis, so is the last present window the current state, so the answer to you question is 3.0.
Each window is independent with overrepresented and underrepresented events.
Its based upon what benchmark you use as reference point when playing and measuring the distribution.
For the benchmark, the SD is measured against your wagers, not the events you observe, it can never be measured against anything else. I would love for you to explain why the opposite is not gambler's fallacy.
Similarly distribution is measured against your wins and losses. How can the SD be -3.0 when you haven't even bet to that point?
Quote from: Bayes on December 22, 2013, 01:46:31 PM
So it doesn't matter how long this pattern continues because I won't LOSE (I won't win much either, but as I said, I'm not bothered about that). In that sequence, the losing runs are short between wins. Occasionally I win for quite long periods flat betting, but I never "chase" wins using positive progressions. If I'm on a winning streak, I'll ride it as long as it continues and break off after one or two losses (depending on how much profit I made).
Well I would definitely like to see in which way you are betting amounts and how much, same what Rouletta asked, but I have a feeling maybe you will keep that for yourself.
You have actually never talked on forums much about your MM and progression, except in quite general terms.
I find very interesting what you have said that you still wouldn't lose in no matter how much that pattern continues... So you can actually "hover" around breaking even with some % of wins all the time, and not getting into deep holes or increasing stakes drastically at the same time... As you said your progression is mild.
That sounds like a true art of MM...
My opinion is that this is much more worth to figure out then argue about RTM...
Drazen
Quote from: Bayes on December 21, 2013, 08:48:28 AM
it CAN help to reduce variance
This leads back to the first question from the beginning of the thread again - how do you measure that? Is there a figure in terms of smaller losing streaks, or narrower parameters between highest high & lowest low? If I'm searching for a lower variance bet, how can I be mathematically sure that I've got one? or is it subjective, you just
feel it's lower variance because of experience & through many spins of play & practice?
Quote from: Number Six on December 21, 2013, 04:50:22 PMWhere there is no bet there is no probabilility of winning or losing, and there is no expected value.... All the maths applies only in relation to one's wagers and bankroll.
but there is still the probability of red or black (or whatever you're measuring) and whether you bet or not doesn't invalidate or affect the maths of that probability and its significance in relation to something like RTM.
Quote
The probability applies directly to your wager, does it not? As oppose to the probability of observing some event.
I would say 'as well as', rather than 'as opposed to'.
Quote
The SD for red from your first wager is -2.0. At this point you stop betting. Now you continue tracking the SD until it reaches a virtual -3.0. Now you decide it's a good time to start betting for regression. When you place your next wager what is the SD? Is it -2.0 or -3.0?
...
SD is measured against your wagers, not the events you observe, it can never be measured against anything else.
You can measure your wins v losses with an SD value, & you can measure the outcomes that the wheel is producing with an SD value. They are different values but both exist, both can be calculated, & either or both can be ignored if you so wish, but both are still there and a figure can be put on either of them at any time. Quote from: Bayes on December 22, 2013, 09:34:29 AMThe only way I know how to do that RELIABLY (I've tried other approaches like following trends and switching from one bet selection to another, without any long-term success), is to "use" RTM. I wait for an extreme deviation (3 SD+) and then start betting when I see some indicators that the tide is turning, using a mild negative progression (it has to be negative, postive progressions don't work well at all).
RTM talks about the next event being more likely average, so why decide to take the side of, or wait for, the under-represented? Upon hitting that 3.0SD, why not bet for the side currently hitting? RTM says the next x spins will be more likely closer to the average, so why not bet the current 'hot' side (as a side must be chosen), and even if rtm began the moment you started betting, you're still likely to be in a period of 'average' which looks fine for your MM? It seems that you are waiting for another extreme event to a lesser or greater degree (the under-represented catching up) to happen. As long as you got out when you see the indicators you are currently waiting for begin to happen, is that not at least as efficient?
Quote from: Drazen on December 22, 2013, 04:21:50 PMWell I would definitely like to see in which way you are betting amounts and how much, same what Rouletta asked, but I have a feeling maybe you will keep that for yourself.Drazen
and I don't think we should put Bayes in that position of turning this into a 'Bayes show us exactly how to win' thread. This thread's not really about that, it's in the Maths & Statistics area, about variance, RTM & associated ideas, not really 'show us your exact MM'.
Quote from: monaco on December 22, 2013, 09:41:57 PM
but there is still the probability of red or black (or whatever you're measuring) and whether you bet or not doesn't invalidate or affect the maths of that probability and its significance in relation to something like RTM.
The ball can land in a red pocket, a black pocket or a green pocket. If you don't place a bet, it doesn't affect you then or at any time in the future; you can't win and you can't lose. So it is not significant to you in any way; even the regression itself is insignificant because there is no regression if there is no bet. At best you can define it after you have observed it between two points in time, but that provides no real life advantage.
Regression to the mean can be any length of spins taken at any time. Measuring it across 10 spins is no less valid than measuring it across 10,000. If your first wager is to bet black after 10 reds, is your chance of winning any better that 18/37? No. It is gambler's fallacy. You will always be playing catch up from the first wager, you'll always be expecting something that isn't going to happen by any means other than coincidence. The same applies regardless of the size of your sample and how complex the bet selection is.
Where there is no expected value there is no variance in relation to your bankroll. Where you don't bet the outcomes are simply irrelevant. Please tell me how there is an expected value in a non-wager, and how a phantom probability can possibly influence your future. The EV explicitly applies to your wager, nothing else.
Here is the formula for the EV on even chances. 1 or -1 represents your return or loss.
(18/37 * 1) + (19/37 * - 1) = 18/37 - 19/37 = -0.027 * 100 = -2.70%
You cannot reach the EV without a bet. It's that simple. I suspect you are bored of me going on about it, I guess you will have to figure it out in your own time.
Quote from: Marshall Bing Bell on December 23, 2013, 01:54:38 AM
you introduce a personal permanence
Makes sense to me. But I still believe it's a confusing topic.
If random outcomes follow the laws of regression, when you are playing virtually, the spins which are real creates patterns and will follow laws of regression and will have its own SD. This is my understanding of the whole issue and I think you cannot control variance using virtual bets. May be for the same number of spins, you might be better off, but if you consider the same number of
placed spins you will more or less be around the same mark, is my guess.
Virtual bets are more like hit and runs. Its just that instead of running every day after a hit, you will run after a short sessions within a bigger session. And we all know that HAR will not create an edge. A good explanation can be taken back to the day when Bayes challenged JL questioning HAR with a logical example. Same holds good for virtuals as well is MHO.
What Bayes does is a little more than virtual betting. Little more than HAR. There is a subtle difference. Read in his own words, even though it was in different context, it makes absolute sense and can be related here.
"I agree. I've tried to make this point several times but it seems people just don't get it. I play this form of HAR myself - look for "favourable" opportunities, get in then get out. There's a big difference between doing that and the kind of HAR JL recommends in PB and his other systems. Take PB: the "trigger" to bet is determined by random itself, not by any favourable conditions. The number of spins you have to wait when playing PB is a random variable, ie; anywhere between 21 spins and 60 or more.
Now someone might say that waiting for favourable conditions is a fallacy because roulette is a game of independent trials (unlike blackjack) so there is no such thing as a "favourable" condition, but that's irrelevant to the validity of the argument which only says that IF conditions are favourable, then bet and IF conditions become unfavourable, then stop betting. The logic of PB ignores any concept of favourable conditions because you enter the game at a random point in the stream and the random stream itself determines when you actually make the bet, so both "triggers" are randomly determined.
Playing short sessions (HAR) does nothing to change this, it just means you're entering at different points along the stream of data, but in both cases (either playing HAR or continuously) the trigger is selected randomly. Placing 100 bets in one mode or the other (HAR or continuously) thus amounts to the same thing in terms of favourable conditions, ie: they're not taken account of in either case because it's not part of PB's remit to find any favourable conditions; PB is supposed to be an absolute winning bet - the final pattern will materialize at a constant rate which is higher than 7-1 and this will guarantee you a profit. But this simply isn't the case." Drazen, we may not discuss it here. But you might be absolutely right. The MM is what is creating that edge and not the bet selection here.
QuoteDrazen, we may not discuss it here. But you might be absolutely right. The MM is what is creating that edge and not the bet selection here.
This is exactly what I have been emphasizing upon in all my challenges. If you beat persistent variance, you have a true Holy Grail. One who can not lose much even in extreme worst time, will be a real winner. If your MM doesn't give you an edge with flat bet and if it works in favorable conditions only and lose worse in adverse cases, you should not play this at all because loss will be your last outcome.
Quote from: Marshall Bing Bell on December 23, 2013, 05:59:53 AM
If your MM does give you an edge with flat bet then you don't need any MM other than flat bet. You will win and win and win without having to worry about MM.
that is what I said. Thanks for emphasizing my words. If you can win flat bet, u do not need MM and there is none that can win flat bet, for sure, in long run.
Just my sense of humour...don't all get offended....but this whole post reminded of a Mr Universe body building competition
Quote from: Albalaha on December 23, 2013, 07:52:16 AM
that is what I said. Thanks for emphasizing my words. If you can win flat bet, u do not need MM and there is none that can win flat bet, for sure, in long run.
--
Lately I do constantly...even posted idea,10000 DB spins,dealers involved/without reveling it all/on the other forum,for all to study it,but unfortunately Mr J./mod/thought it was against the rules so it was deleted......probably he will do the same here,so it wouldn't be point posting it.Am not,nor ever was against sharing...you wana it pm.me......now again some/mods/ might think am selling something....but they neverthought of the fact that DB stuff is reading this also.....therefore will only give this to these that I know.Don't forget your private mail.
Wow, this thread has turned into quite a debate! :P
Quote from: Marshall Bing Bell on December 23, 2013, 01:54:38 AM
The truth is sometimes you are better off playing the innate permanence, and sometimes you are better off playing the personal permanence. The problem is knowing when to play which, something that is very difficult to do.
I would say that the "personal" permanence informs the "innate" permanence. Roughly speaking, your bet selection (if derived from past spins) uses the innate permanence and your personal permanence gives you the results of that bet selection. So you need both in order to know whether the bet selection has any merit or not.
If Six is correct and all probabilities are meaningless unless accompanied by actual wagers, this would mean that any statistical hypothesis tests (which form a big part of statistics and are based on standard deviations) would also be meaningless. Let me put this in a concrete context: suppose you suspect that a particular wheel in your local casino is biased, so you collect some data. Having collected the data, you need to analyze it in order to determine whether the wheel is in fact biased, and the result of this test forms the basis of your decision to play and subsequent bet selection (if the test comes out positive). Although there are many types of hypothesis test, what they all basically have in common is the comparison of the actual data collected in terms of expectations and standard deviations. So if for example a particular sector shows hits above 4 standard deviations (say), then you might decide to go ahead and play that sector (using ACTUAL wagers).
Six,
QuoteBetting black after five reds can be no different to regression measured over 1000 spins. In fact, betting black after fives reds is itself a regression bet; there has been a slight and fast deviation, now the player expects a slight and fast regression on the very next spin, so he bets with the erroneous belief he has a better chance of winning.
But 5 reds is not an extreme event, which is necessary for RTM. You need at least 9 reds to get 3 SD. And betting a single black after these 5 reds cannot be considered a valid case of RTM because RTM should compare sequence with sequence. So if you considered 5 reds to be your extreme event, the chances of the next FIVE outcomes also being red would be small. Sorry to keep repeating myself, but this doesn't mean that the prior extreme event CAUSES the succeeding not-so-extreme event, nor does it mean that the succeeding event will necessarily "balance out" or "correct" the extreme event, because that would violate the principle of independent trials. I get the feeling that most people are fixated on this, and so reduce RTM to gambler's fallacy.
Quote
Regression to the mean can be any length of spins taken at any time. Measuring it across 10 spins is no less valid than measuring it across 10,000. If your first wager is to bet black after 10 reds, is your chance of winning any better that 18/37? No. It is gambler's fallacy.
Agreed, but that's not what RTM claims. It only says that the event following an extreme event will be less extreme. You can't have the following event consist of one spin if you're comparing it with a sequence of spins, that's comparing apples with oranges. To make a comparison both events need to be of the same length, but in that case the prior extreme event would also need to consist of one spin, but to call a single spin "extreme" is absurd.
Pockets,
QuoteThe MM is what is creating that edge and not the bet selection here.
No. I thought the same for a while, so I tested the MM using a random bet selection over several thousand spins. Time after time it floundered, but that has never happened using the RTM bet selection. I won't post the MM here because it would take the thread too far off-topic.
Quote from: monaco on December 22, 2013, 09:41:57 PM
This leads back to the first question from the beginning of the thread again - how do you measure that? Is there a figure in terms of smaller losing streaks, or narrower parameters between highest high & lowest low? If I'm searching for a lower variance bet, how can I be mathematically sure that I've got one? or is it subjective, you just feel it's lower variance because of experience & through many spins of play & practice?
monaco, there are several statistical tests which are designed to compare variances. The most well known is the F-test.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-test_of_equality_of_variances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-test_of_equality_of_variances)
In that article there are links to some of the other tests which measure the same thing.
Quote from: Pockets
If random outcomes follow the laws of regression, when you are playing virtually, the spins which are real creates patterns and will follow laws of regression and will have its own SD.
You don't appear to be that confused; your assumption is right. The results of real and virtual bets both have their own SD; but only the real SD is meaningful. Following the virtual SD is a fallacy. Phantom probabilities cannot influence future results.
Quote from: bayes
suppose you suspect that a particular wheel in your local casino is biased, so you collect some data
People worry about things like this becoming a matter of semantics or accuse people of being pernickety. My opinion, the definitions are most important. The wheel is not biased until you start to win money off it.
Quote from: bayes
You can't have the following event consist of one spin if you're comparing it with a sequence of spins, that's comparing apples with oranges
I'm sure you can see it was a rudimentary example, focussed only on the first bet after the extreme event; however long you bet for is not really the point. For the record, I am not saying RTM is a fallacy. The fallacy is betting for regression on the back of virtual spins.
Bing Bell,
Don't you think the PP is definitive to your wagers only? Otherwise there can be no variance from skipped spins. That spin ceases to have significance if you don't try to beat it individually or part of some other sequence.
Quote from: Bayes on December 23, 2013, 10:37:46 AM
monaco, there are several statistical tests which are designed to compare variances. The most well known is the F-test.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-test_of_equality_of_variances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-test_of_equality_of_variances)
In that article there are links to some of the other tests which measure the same thing.
Cheers :thumbsup:
Quote from: Number Six on December 23, 2013, 12:46:14 AM
You cannot reach the EV without a bet. It's that simple. I suspect you are bored of me going on about it, I guess you will have to figure it out in your own time.
It's all I'm trying to do still - figure it out - can only say thanks again for your replies & posts in doing that..
Quote from: monaco on December 22, 2013, 09:41:57 PM
RTM talks about the next event being more likely average, so why decide to take the side of, or wait for, the under-represented? Upon hitting that 3.0SD, why not bet for the side currently hitting? RTM says the next x spins will be more likely closer to the average, so why not bet the current 'hot' side (as a side must be chosen), and even if rtm began the moment you started betting, you're still likely to be in a period of 'average' which looks fine for your MM?
Good question. When I first started playing this way the same thing occurred to me, and for a while I experimented with betting for the SD to continue (following the trend). What I found was that although this often worked (especially early on in the attack), eventually the outcomes would even out and I would find myself on the wrong side. Then when I tried to anticipate the change I would get whip-sawed. In the end I decided it was simpler just to monitor the flow of outcomes until there was some indication of "normality", make a couple of bets, then move on to another opportunity at the end of a winning run. If things get really tough, I'll just "fix" that marquee (you'll know what I mean by that if you've used my tracker, although these days I use software with a graphical display in the baccarat style except that it shows the streaks on either side of a horizontal line).
Another change from that old tracker is the method I now use to select the poorest performing pattern, which may make it more advantageous to choose the under-represented side to bet on. Now, instead of picking the sequence which (if played "virtually") resulted in the highest percentage of losses, I use a type of scoring system based on various factors like number of spins since a double win, a triple win, number of spins since at least one win in the last 3, 6, 9, and 12 spins. This gives me a more fine-grained picture of how the losses are distributed, which can make the attack (length and selection) more targeted.
Quote from: Number Six on December 23, 2013, 11:15:39 AM
The fallacy is betting for regression on the back of virtual spins.
Six, it seems we've failed to persuade each other on this issue, so we'll have to agree to disagree. :)
Bayes,
If you're talking about betting on trends on the outside then you might be falling for a bit of the gambler's fallacy there.
I suppose that if you're taking into account the wheel's fitness, then betting with the trend would make the most sense. Especially if you're betting on the numbers straight up, rather than on the outside. The reason is because if a wheel was biased, then there's a greater chance that you could be on one of the biased numbers. If so, then the house edge for such a bet could be slightly lower than playing the coldest numbers.
Playing the coldest numbers on a live wheel, is probably the best way, that I know of, to actually lose at a rate that could exceed the normal house edge.
Quote from: Turner on December 23, 2013, 08:14:13 AM
Just my sense of humour...don't all get offended....but this whole post reminded of a Mr Universe body building competition
Turner, I'm not offended, but don't you think that your comment reflects a rather cynical worldview?
i.e., we're all merely posturing egos strutting around on a stage and flexing our muscles. What about debate and discussion for the purpose of finding the truth? or do you think that all truth is relative, or that there is no such thing?
There can be two kind of bias on a number-negative i.e. hitting lower than its mathematical expectation and positive one that is just opposite the negative bias.
If there is a negative one, playing RTM will kill, no doubts. In EC bets, I do not think it is possible to have a bias since numbers are allocated on the wheel differently.
Quote from: Turner on December 23, 2013, 08:14:13 AM
Just my sense of humour...don't all get offended....but this whole post reminded of a Mr Universe body building competition
Turner mate,
Fair dinkum,ausies would say...debate with no end/futile as far as roulette is concern/so many times heard
before,which nobody makes a winner.Just my 2 chips.
Quote from: Bayes on December 24, 2013, 09:00:51 AM
Turner, I'm not offended, but don't you think that your comment reflects a rather cynical worldview?
i.e., we're all merely posturing egos strutting around on a stage and flexing our muscles. What about debate and discussion for the purpose of finding the truth? or do you think that all truth is relative, or that there is no such thing?
Yes I'm cynical....terribly so....and perhaps it was churlish of me to seemingly try to upset the post...
Having said that....I always admire how you back up your views with some quite awesome explanations...I'm just frustrated that the "noes to the left" don't explain their view equally as well....or at all.
Ill leave you guys to debate.
I'm (self admission) out of my league on this subject
Turner,
Thanks for that very gracious apology. You do have a point, though, and I can't blame you for being cynical. Much of what passes for debate and discussion here does resemble a Mr Universe competition, because most posters don't even attempt to back up their views with reasoned argument or explanation.
Happy Christmas!
Quotemost posters don't even attempt to back up their views with reasoned argument or explanation.
Because they do not have any, they only have fallacies and they love to pamper them day by day.
Quote from: Albalaha on December 25, 2013, 09:54:10 AM
Because they do not have any, they only have fallacies and they love to pamper them day by day.
I assume you are one among them or am i wrong ?
I hate fallacies and fallacy mongers as well. I can test what I presume or "sense" having some value and through simulating random sessions I reach any conclusion. If I believe something to be workable I will test not less than 1000 sessions of 1000 spins each. Had I been on these fallacies I wouldn't have beaten 10 million spins.
Quote from: Albalaha on December 25, 2013, 10:44:58 AM
I hate fallacies and fallacy mongers as well. I can test what I presume or "sense" having some value and through simulating random sessions I reach any conclusion. If I believe something to be workable I will test not less than 1000 sessions of 1000 spins each. Had I been on these fallacies I wouldn't have beaten 10 million spins.
I don't understand.
I assume you use past results that has no effect on future spins and that is Gamblers Fallacy, so why are you not basing your game on fallacies like all others.
I don't understand your argument passing 10 million spins.
I have never read any method by you that perform better then any other method, but if you think i am wrong, then feel free to show me.
Quote from: Albalaha on December 25, 2013, 10:44:58 AM
I hate fallacies and fallacy mongers as well. I can test what I presume or "sense" having some value and through simulating random sessions I reach any conclusion. If I believe something to be workable I will test not less than 1000 sessions of 1000 spins each. Had I been on these fallacies I wouldn't have beaten 10 million spins.
I can't disagree with this statement The weight on my shoulders is that I believe nothing on face value....I have to go see it for my self. Not always possible...like the height of Mount Everest. Sometimes you just have to go with what's written...or set off to Nepal with a tape measure. Not always practical
Quote from: Sputnik on December 25, 2013, 10:55:35 AM
I don't understand.
I assume you use past results that has no effect on future spins and that is Gamblers Fallacy, so why are you not basing your game on fallacies like all others.
I don't understand your argument passing 10 million spins.
I have never read any method by you that perform better then any other method, but if you think i am wrong, then feel free to show me.
If you are really not aware, have a look here: http://betselection.cc/ophis'-mst/holy-grail-randomness-can-be-beaten-even-in-the-longest-run/ (http://betselection.cc/ophis'-mst/holy-grail-randomness-can-be-beaten-even-in-the-longest-run/)Quote.or set off to Nepal with a tape measure.[/size]
[/size]Funny. :D
Really it's the observer that assigns value to a rare occurrence. If we walked up to a wheel and witnessed 25 reds in a row, we would be bragging about the rare freakish streak that we had just witnessed. However, everyone over looks the rare streaks every time they look at the reader board. For example, consider the last 25 spins. If you were looking for that particular patter of red and black, then you would have just witnessed something just as unusual. How about the last 25 or 100 numbers that you just played at the wheel? What if someone was looking for that extremely rare pattern of those exact numbers in that exact order of occurrence? My point to all of this, is that randomness really has no limits other than those that relate to the degrees of freedom and the number of spins witnessed on the wheel. (For example you can't witness a run of 20 reds if you're only going to look at 10 spins. And you can't witness the number 39 hit.)
For the record, the longest streak of red that I have witnessed, first hand, was 26 in a row at the Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City, NJ 2007. (No, it's not an Indian Casino. And yeah, I don't know why that's relevant either. ;) ). There were people foolishly chasing the black with up as you lose progressions, and there were people riding the streak on red. It was a mix. Interestingly enough, red did continue hitting quite well the entire night. I never did witness any strong streaks on the black. But then again, why should I have? There's nothing that says that black will eventually catch up. Black would not be expected to make up for it's large deficit.
And no, the Guinness Book of World Records didn't show up to record the event. To my knowledge, such records don't really even exist.
-Xander
Even if you see 10x of break even (say a single EC bet hitting 20 times in a row) getting clustered in a sequence, it is merely another layer of randomness. All limits are only virtual limits and there is no absolute limit of randomness. What is looking extreme to you will be surpassed a day. In real, only one pocket among the 37/38 has caught the ball and looking at the color of the paint the pocket has or its nature by high/low or even/odd is a fallacy in itself and holds no good.
It appears that we agree.
Quote from: Xander on December 25, 2013, 07:42:37 PM
It appears that we agree.
I will always agree with logical and scientific things unless it is merely a hypothesis.