QuoteI disagree. If the house edge doesn't exist you will still lose, assuming that the casino has a much larger bank than you do. That's because it will outlast the losing runs (variance), whereas the player's comparatively puny bank will be lost. Conversely, if the house edge is present, but the variance is reduced enough, then the player can win (although maybe not flat betting). If consecutive losing bets are limited to a few (say between 6 and a standard martingale will do the trick.-Bayes

I didn't bring up a game with no house edge.  .  You are for the most part, correct, but not entirely.  Because the casino has the most money, they could withstand the most variance in a very long game, so they would likely be the winner.  However, the player could still experience a large enough variance to bankrupt the casino!  (In a game that would reach outward towards infinity).


-Xander

Quote from: Bayes on December 27, 2013, 09:50:44 PM

Yes but the solution to this problem is not to go home or switch tables after making a limited number of bets (hit & run) but to find a bet selection which reduces the variance. Hit & run, as a strategy, is not a bet selection at all, but just a different way of breaking up your betting in time.


What is "too long" anyway? at precisely what point in your betting does the house edge or variance begin to bite? The house edge is present on every spin, and if you don't have a decent bet selection the variance could get you at any time, maybe from the very first bet.

I agree but if you look at mit blackjack Players once the decks are cold they move on and I'm not saying roulette is the same but you need to know when to leave .Bet selection is every thing and I keep saying this you need to play close to 50 /50  that's the best your going to do in this game .Runs and changes happen all day long ,my bet selection wins out of 40 ,39 times.I think that's pretty good on a so called random game.

Quote from: Bayes
What is "too long" anyway? at precisely what point in your betting does the house edge or variance begin to bite?

Most people tend to resort to the "experience or instinct" card that supposedly tells them when to stop. Why not just quantify it into a number that actually means something, and to yourself can actually tell you that, yes, now is the best time to stop? Surely we can all agree that players stop because they feel they are losing, or they feel it is not possible to hit their target.

If you play online, it is easy to track the risk of ruin bet by bet as long as you are also tracking the standard deviation - and I mean the SD of your placed wagers At some point the risk of ruin is bound to tell you it is pointless carrying on. Or similarly if it seems that that session is becoming difficult, the risk of ruin might tell you there is still an acceptable chance of getting where you want to be.

Any game can be defined in one of two ways: the player is trying to survive until he gets lucky, or the player is actually trying to hit a goal based on degrees of confidence. Whether either of those things can be achieved can be calculated in the risk, according to bankroll, base bet and/or progression, and win goal. Where the aim is to survive, the win goal can be removed and replaced with a timeframe, i.e. you'll play for two hours. The risk of ruin can still tell you the probability of hitting that beloved lucky streak in that exact time.

Quote from: Xander
However, the player could still experience a large enough variance to bankrupt the casino!

It's not beyond the realms of possibility to believe this has actually happened with rogue online casinos, which then simply refuse the payout because they can't actually afford it. Most of their maths is probably based on long term models, which factor in the house edge on the games and leads them to believe they can't lose. What they probably don't account for is extreme good luck in the short term, which leads to colossal volatility on the player's bank.

I do think it's a good test, to test personal permanence


I picked 3 tables at a casino, picked 4 simultaneous numbers from table 1, then table 2, then table 3


This makes 12....then repeated (one being 5) moving down the list each time.


It kinda simulates moving from table to table and coming back to other tables.


The resulting 37 spins has 21 hit, 7 repeats and 16 un hit.


perfectly normal result from 37 random numbers.


Its not like there are less repeats, or more, or more distributed numbers, or less distributed.


I can't see any advantage in these mish mash numbers, compared to 37 straight on 1 table.


Just a thought

Quote from: Turner on December 28, 2013, 12:18:11 PM
perfectly normal result from 37 random numbers.
Its not like there are less repeats, or more, or more distributed numbers, or less distributed.
I can't see any advantage in these mish mash numbers, compared to 37 straight on 1 table.
Just a thought

Bang on Turner. Everything is random and random has its own rules. So whether you pick up 1 number from 37 tables, 37 spins from one table continuously or randomly, any kind of mix and match you do, I have tested and seem to adher to this rules. Once Winkel mentioned that you pick up one number random from multiple tables, or playing only certain amount of spins and continuing from where you left, GUT will work. This is a clear consideration of personal permanence. So essentially there is no mathematical advantage whether you play continously or virtual plays which is a superset form of hit and run.

However, the advantage is more psychological. Superman has exhibited nicely how to do this. He mentions that the longer he plays, he gets tired and loses his mind in his intuitive play. So he tries to keep his sessions, progressions shorter so that he approaches every session with a fresh mind. I surely think this is an advantage of any form of hit&run. There are merits.

HAR is a viable strategy, not because it's going to make a difference in randomness, law of averages, or intuitive betting. I would love to sit a one casino for hours on end. The problem lies in the attention that I would draw by making a large sum of money.

HAR, therefore, is an effective way to make a decent amount per session per casino, rather than a large amount at one casino.

HAR by definition is absurd.

Kimo Li

Do you guys ever think how much concentration goes into gambling. Dealers take a break every 30 mins. It's taxing on the brain so players go through the same so hit and run is realistic way to play not because it changes random or there is an advantage it makes sense.to take a break.

Quote from: warrior on December 30, 2013, 05:42:20 PM
Do you guys ever think how much concentration goes into gambling. Dealers take a break every 30 mins. It's taxing on the brain so players go through the same so hit and run is realistic way to play not because it changes random or there is an advantage it makes sense.to take a break.

Well said that is one of the main reasons I like to play Baccarat, each session takes about 45 minutes so you have a natural break between shoes.

But when playing Roulette I have sometimes been at the table for well over 4 hours which is very taxing and makes you prone to making mistakes.

Quote from: Kimo Li on December 30, 2013, 05:01:02 PM
HAR is a viable strategy, not because it's going to make a difference in randomness, law of averages, or intuitive betting. I would love to sit a one casino for hours on end. The problem lies in the attention that I would draw by making a large sum of money.

HAR, therefore, is an effective way to make a decent amount per session per casino, rather than a large amount at one casino.

HAR by definition is absurd.


Kimo Li

Nice input ...

QuoteThe problem lies in the attention that I would draw by making a large sum of money.-Kimo Li

Don't worry, I don't believe that will be a problem if you're playing the Global Pie.

heres the rub though.....with personal permanence.


I sit at table 1. I look at the marque and see 4 repeats. lets say they are 2,10,17,33


I play them for a several spins, and 2 hits, since then 13 has repeated.  Everyone will agree this way of betting has some merit.


I stand up and walk over to table 2 with my personal permanence......and bet 2,10,17,33 and 13.


Does this make sense?......


well if they are all cold, on table 2....it doesn't...and if it does make sense, what's the point of playing a system of any kind.

QuoteEveryone will agree this way of betting has some merit.-Turner

Please explain what you mean and why. 

Quote from: Turner on December 30, 2013, 10:33:19 PM
I stand up and walk over to table 2 with my personal permanence......and bet 2,10,17,33 and 13.
Does this make sense?......
well if they are all cold, on table 2....it doesn't...and if it does make sense, what's the point of playing a system of any kind.

Turner, again bang on. You are indeed trying to checkmate with every post. To understand this, I will have to go back a couple of posts.

If you remember the post name was "There is no truth, only perception". You have quoted a valid example of it.

---

ran·dom/ˈrændəm/ [ran-duhm] adjective
1. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.
2. Statistics. of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.

---

Imagine a scenario where there are no biased tables, no cheating dealers and machines. Everything is random. In this scenario, every spin you get from a single table is random. Everything you get if you combine spins from multiple tables is random. Are these two randoms different? No, they are just RANDOM.   

With that in mind, the truth is you are just combining a random sequence of numbers. Perception is there are hot and cold numbers on a table. Truth is no, there doesn't exist hot and cold for a table, it is only for the random sequence that you observe/play. There goes the answer to your first question.   

Coming to your second question "Does any of the betselection then makes sense".

All the statistical concepts including regression to the mean, law of third etc comply with two things:
1. They apply to a random set of outcomes. These concepts do not know how your outcomes have been put together. As long as there is no external factor influencing these outcomes (like a biased wheel), they don't distinguish on how you got those outcomes.
2. They are not certain. You know 1+1 will always be 2. But these concepts are not certain. Take an example of RTM. The theory just suggests that in a set of two samples the likelihood of second set of sample showing extreme results is less if the first sample set showed extreme results.  No one is saying it is certain.

So yes, playing the system of any kind complying to these statistical concepts definitely makes sense. Its just that your personal permanence is the actual probability of outcomes and that is what the bet selections should be based on and not on "let it pass" kind of plays.   

See this example video. Two parts to the session. One playing continuous spins. One playing a new session with newly generated keys and numbers in BV everytime you get a repeat in your personal permanence. Bet selection is repeats of 2 moving to repeats of 3. Its all the same. So on a lighter note, don't worry if your better half wants you to leave the table as its boring, don't worry if BV cuts you off. Continue from where you left, on a fresh day, fresh table. Your personal permanence is omnipresent.

   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K0ZSYZ27kA

Quote from: Xander on December 30, 2013, 11:38:39 PM

Please explain what you mean and why.

I did carefully say...some merit.
I used the method of betting on repeats so most quickly get what i am doing and why and you can quickly take numbers to the next table. It was so hopefully....no one would get fixated with what I was actually doing..and talk about the point I was discussing
Ok..I sit at table 1 until I see 3SD for red...then I go to table 2 and play for red to regress to the mean. Its my personal permanence.

Thanks pockets.
Me and the wife went to the casino last night. I took £30.
I played an idea on table 1 . I won once which put me £5 up.....then changed to table 2.
I started fresh tracking but carried on monitoring  my old numbers...which duely hit.

I like something new hitting me in the face