No you don't. 

In statistics, regression toward (or to) the mean is the phenomenon that if a variable is extreme on its first measurement, it will tend to be closer to the average on its second measurement... And as more extreme measurement is, stronger RTM effect is.

Pay attention to the bolded word. It means measures have to be the same, right? So it is not that ONE (next) spin of yours which you are talking about. That is fallacy, I agree, but we are not talking about probability only for the very next spin here.

Offset, right?

Khm...

After 10 reds in a row RTM says that next ten spins have better chance to be closer to the average (then without it), which means 5 hits for each EC as we are dealing with 50:50 situation (mind HE for a moment)...

Let say that happened. And after initial 10 reds in a row, our offset is negative, -10. We have 10 more reds then black. In the next 10 spins we got 5 reds and 5 blacks. So in total now we have 15 reds and 5 blacks.

Is offset the same? 

RATIOS will tend to balance, but not absolute numbers, which will "stretch" as you get more results.

Drazen

QuoteSo it is not that ONE (next) spin of yours which you are talking about.-Drazen

Quite wrong.  You need to read on the Monte Carlo Fallacy. " is the belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independent trials of some random process then these deviations are likely to be evened out by opposite deviations in the future."


Notice how it's not just talking about the next trial, or the next spin of the wheel.  It says, "in the future".


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

having your head in the sand isn't the best way to welcome new year...

I wish you all the best, and even more to understand what I am talking about.

Best of all

Drazen

"In the 17th century mathematician Jacob Bernoulli created the Law of Large Numbers, and asserted that even the stupidest man understands that the larger the sample, the more likely it is to represent the true probability of the observed event. For betting, this is known as the Gambler's Fallacy, and can be a very costly misconception.
The Law of Large Numbers
Using a fair coin toss as an example (where the chance of hitting heads and tails has an equal 50% chance), Bernoulli calculated that as the number of coin tosses gets larger, the percentage of heads or tails results gets closer to 50%, while the difference between the actual number of heads or tails thrown also gets larger.

As the number of tosses get larger the distribution of heads or tails evens out to 50%It's the second part of Bernoulli's theorem that people have a problem understanding – which has led to it being coined the "Gambler's Fallacy". If you tell someone that a coin has been flipped nine times, landing on heads each time, their prediction for the next flip tends to be tails.

This is incorrect, however, as a coin has no memory, so each time it is tossed the probability of heads or tails is the same: 0.5 (a 50% chance).

Bernoulli's discovery showed that as a sample of fair coin-tosses gets really big – e.g. a million – the distribution of heads or tails would even out to around 50%. Because the sample is so large, however, the expected deviation from an equal 50/50 split can be as large as 500.

This equation for calculating the statistical standard deviation gives us an idea what we should expect:

0.5 × √ (1,000,000) = 500

While the expected deviation is observable for this many tosses, the nine-toss example mentioned earlier isn't a large enough sample for this to apply.

Therefore the nine tosses are like an extract from the million-toss sequence – the sample is too small to even-out like Bernoulli suggests will happen over a sample of a million tosses, and instead can form a sequence by pure chance.

Applying Distribution
There are some clear applications for expected deviation in relation to betting. The most obvious application is for casino games like Roulette, where a misplaced belief that sequences of red or black or odd or even will even out during a single session of play can leave you out of pocket. That's why the Gambler's Fallacy is also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy.

In 1913, a roulette table in a Monte Carlo casino saw black come up 26 times in a row. After the 15th black, bettors were piling onto red, assuming the chances of yet another black number were becoming astronomical, thereby illustrating an irrational belief that one spin somehow influences the next.

Another example could be a slot machine, which is in effect a random number generator with a set RTP (Return to Player). You can often witness players who have pumped considerable sums into a machine without success embargoing other players from their machine, convinced that a big win must logically follow their losing run.

Of course, for this tactic to be viable, the bettor would have to have played an impractically large number of times to reach the RTP.

With an understanding of the Law of Large Numbers, and the law (or flaw) of averages consigned to the rubbish bin, you won't be one of Bernouilli's 'stupid men'."  -Source http://www.pinnaclesports.com/online-betting-articles/10-2012/law-of-large-numbers-gamblers-fallacy.aspx

Quote from: Xander on December 31, 2013, 03:42:51 PM


Quite wrong.  You need to read on the Monte Carlo Fallacy. " is the belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independent trials of some random process then these deviations are likely to be evened out by opposite deviations in the future."


Notice how it's not just talking about the next trial, or the next spin of the wheel.  It says, "in the future".

Xander, no-one is saying that there will opposite deviations in the future. You've totally missed the point.


The point is to eliminate long strings of losses, not to overturn the house edge. For this to be a fallacy, you need to summon up your mathematical dogma that there is no limit to losses. i.e., that waiting for 10 losses is pointless because this will be offset by the chance that another 10 losses will somehow be added to the future outcomes, so that no matter how many losses you wait for, there is an infinite "horizon" of further losses waiting for you. Simple common sense will tell you that this is absurd, and indeed, it makes a nonsense of all hypothesis testing, which is a major part of statistics.


If I wanted to statistically test a wheel for bias, I would have to rely on standard deviations, but by your "infinite horizon of losses" theory, these would be meaningless and couldn't tell you one way or the other whether the wheel was biased.


Happy New Year!

QuoteXander, no-one is saying that there will opposite deviations in the future. You've totally missed the point.-Bayes

No, I don't believe that I have.

Quoteso that no matter how many losses you wait for, there is an infinite "horizon" of further losses waiting for you. Simple common sense will tell you that this is absurd, and indeed, it makes a nonsense of all hypothesis testing, which is a major part of statistics.-Bayes

Well, at least we agree on that part. 

Quote from: Drazen on December 31, 2013, 03:41:42 PM

After 10 reds in a row RTM says that next ten spins have better chance to be closer to the average (then without it), which means 5 hits for each EC as we are dealing with 50:50 situation (mind HE for a moment)...

Drazen, that's not quite right. It's not that the next 10 spins have a better chance to be closer to the average (than without it). That actually IS the gambler's fallacy.


The average in 10 spins is ALWAYS the same, no matter what has gone before (independent trials, remember?)


The point is that if you go into a game "cold" (i.e., without the 3 SD+ trigger) the chance of you encountering a severe run of losses is higher. With the 3 SD trigger, you have already "used up" as it were, 3 SD's "worth" of losses. The only way you can deny this is if you insist that losses can be infinite, which is a purely mathematical assertion.

QuoteThe point is to eliminate long strings of losses, not to overturn the house edge.-Bayes

I hope I haven't misinterpreted what you've just written above.  Try as you might, you can't eliminate long strings of losses.  And if you can't overturn the house edge, then why play? 

QuoteWith the 3 SD trigger, you have already "used up" as it were, 3 SD's "worth" of losses.-Bayes

After having observed a 3 sd loss, you have no way of knowing if you're on your way to a 4 sd loss.  This is, again, a form of the Monte Carlo Fallacy.

Again, I hope I haven't misinterpreted what you've just written above.

Happy New Year! 


-Xander

Quote from: Xander on December 31, 2013, 05:22:32 PM

After having observed a 3 sd loss, you have no way of knowing if you're on your way to a 4 sd loss.  This is, again, a form of the Monte Carlo Fallacy.


-Xander

And having observed a 4 sd loss you have no way of knowing if you're on your way to a 5 sd loss.
And having observed a 5 sd loss you have no way of knowing if you're on your way to a 6 sd loss.
And having observed a 6 sd loss you have no way of knowing if you're on your way to a 7 sd loss.
And having observed a 7 sd loss you have no way of knowing if you're on your way to a 8 sd loss.
And having observed a 8 sd loss you have no way of knowing if you're on your way to a 9 sd loss.
etc, etc. and so it goes....

But, I've never observed much over a 5 sd loss. So effectively, the most severe loss I can expect is around 2 sd.

The theory isn't borne out by my experience; what's a guy to do?

Randomness sucks, doesn't it?   

Bayes, let's talk on Skype sometime. 




Happy New Year!

Quote from: Xander on December 31, 2013, 06:21:51 PMRandomness sucks, doesn't it?    Bayes, let's talk on Skype sometime.  Happy New Year!

Xander....probably best you talk on skype


You wouldn't want to be seen fraternizing with Bernouilli's stupid men, would you 

Turner,

I have question.  Why would you track at one table, and then expect those results to carry over to another table?
(I believe that I read that you did something like that in an earlier part of the thread.  Or were you just using it as an example?)

Quote from: Xander on December 31, 2013, 10:56:10 PM
Turner,

I have question.  Why would you track at one table, and then expect those results to carry over to another table?

Xander....


I have no beliefs in that theory. I have to see it for myself, or its just a good read.


Either I explain things badly, or you arnt so interested in what I say and read between the lines.


I hear "personal permanence" bandied about...so i investigate.


I would never say never. I would never say....no it isn't.


I am trying, by experiment, to find out what people mean by PP.


To answer your question, If PP exists, then I should be able to have an idea at one table, and walk to another and continue my PP.


Like i said, I don't believe it or disbelieve it. I just try to get to the bottom of things myself, and not just jump on a bandwagon purely by reading it.


I read a lot of books on Quantum Theory and Astrophysics. You have to forget what seems real or unreal in the real world to understand. You have to relax and accept the proposal as a proposal.


that's what I am doing here. Seeing it for my self.






if you like, "Man didn't land on the Moon" is classic. One argument for "Man didn't land on the moon" is the Van Allen belt would of killed the Astronauts.


Did these conspiracy theorists actually discover the Van Allen belt by experimental proof? No.


They just read it, like people who believe we did land on the Moon read that.


In many ways, man did land on the Moon, and didn't. Its just about opinion.

Quoteif you like, "Man didn't land on the Moon" is classic. One argument for "Man didn't land on the moon" is the Van Allen belt would of killed the Astronauts.-Turner

In short, the astronauts weren't in the belt long enough to suffer harm.  The scientists knew that they could make it through.


"The van Allen belt is a region of energetic charged particles trapped by Earth's magnetic field. Partcile radiation is best shielded by light metals, plastic, and water, all abundant in the Apollo spacecraft. Additionally, they were sent out on a trajectory that avoided the most dangerous areas of the belts and carried them through the unavoidable regions in less than two hours, not long enough to receive anything close to a dangerous radiation does in that environment. Dr James van Allen himself specifically denies that they pose any barrier to manned space flight." -Jason T.


I don't really understand why you talked about our trips to the moon.  But we most certainly did go.

QuoteLike i said, I don't believe it or disbelieve it. I just try to get to the bottom of things myself, and not just jump on a bandwagon purely by reading it. -Turner

Turner,

When it comes to most of these roulette systems, you should already be able to look at them and instantly determine whether they're mathematically sound.  If you read on the history of the game a bit more, you'll find that several people have already been down the same road and have already made all of the same mistakes that many of the people on this board have made.  It's best to learn from the mistakes of others, since you won't live long enough to make them all yourself. 


-Xander

If PP exists, then I should be able to have an idea at one table, and walk to another and continue my PP.


........very interesting!