Quote from: Xander on January 02, 2014, 11:33:38 PM
None.

Even if you're playing on live wheels, tracking the outside ECs is rather futile.  Tracking the inside numbers on a live wheel is of course all together something different.

But only if the wheel is biased, which is not the norm, but the exception.

Bayes,

There could be either one of two approaches to your personal style of play. Play to survive, or play to win. Both are quite different. But in either way, the true risk of ruin must be calculated by accounting for the deviation of the results of your actual wagers. So, if you factor in virtual results into your risk of ruin, the risk can only increase because the deviation measurement would be incorrect, the longer it goes on like that the more woefully inaccurate it becomes. It's a simple corruption of data, the more corrupt the more dangerous. At first the true risk might actually be less than what you think it is, but at some point there'll be a role reversal; a test may well show that at the point of reversal the true risk will accelerate beyond control. Of course, the player wouldn't know this, and when he's placed his last chip he'll leave the table wondering where it all went so wrong.

Xander,

Quote from: Number Six on January 03, 2014, 01:26:51 PM
Bayes,

There could be either one of two approaches to your personal style of play. Play to survive, or play to win. Both are quite different. But in either way, the true risk of ruin must be calculated by accounting for the deviation of the results of your actual wagers. So, if you factor in virtual results into your risk of ruin, the risk can only increase because the deviation measurement would be incorrect, the longer it goes on like that the more woefully inaccurate it becomes. It's a simple corruption of data, the more corrupt the more dangerous. At first the true risk might actually be less than what you think it is, but at some point there'll be a role reversal; a test may well show that at the point of reversal the true risk will accelerate beyond control. Of course, the player wouldn't know this, and when he's placed his last chip he'll leave the table wondering where it all went so wrong.

Xander,

One  slight flaw in your reply no.6

Turner, glad I'm not the only one who noticed.


You go first. 

Oh, just put me out of my misery 

Quote from: Xander on January 02, 2014, 11:33:38 PM


@Number Six,

I like your post.

I was already at DEFCON 3.....until this.....and after this latest faux pas.....my  pistol is cocked

By the way Number 6......nice ars*!

Turner,

I am fairly confident Xander has won more at roulette than I have.
We happen to agree on a point or two, it's all just part of a friendly discussion....

Quote from: Number Six on January 03, 2014, 04:34:17 PM
Turner,


We happen to agree on a point or two,

Number 6....Im sure you do lol


Now you are scaring me.... Im not sure you even know what me and Bayes are talking about......lol


Read right to the very...very end.


Bayes,There could be either one of two approaches to your personal style of play. Play to survive, or play to win. Both are quite different. But in either way, the true risk of ruin must be calculated by accounting for the deviation of the results of your actual wagers. So, if you factor in virtual results into your risk of ruin, the risk can only increase because the deviation measurement would be incorrect, the longer it goes on like that the more woefully inaccurate it becomes. It's a simple corruption of data, the more corrupt the more dangerous. At first the true risk might actually be less than what you think it is, but at some point there'll be a role reversal; a test may well show that at the point of reversal the true risk will accelerate beyond control. Of course, the player wouldn't know this, and when he's placed his last chip he'll leave the table wondering where it all went so wrong.
Xander,   <<<<<<<<<< you-hooooo.....this bit !!!!

QuoteBut only if the wheel is biased, which is not the norm, but the exception.-Bayes

Actually, every wheel is biased to some extent.  Rarely is it enough to overcome the house edge.   

Drop zone biases are more common and do allow for some dealer influence.  This is why I said that, "Tracking the inside numbers on a live wheel is of course all together something different."

-Xander

Quote from: Turner on January 03, 2014, 05:10:13 PM
Xander,   <<<<<<<<<< you-hooooo.....this bit !!!!

Did you miss the upside down bit after Xander. It is not signing off as xander, it was like Dear Xander, am upside down My two cents when i read the post first.

Does Turner think that I'm Number Six?

Just wanted it explaining.....anyhow.....enjoying Xander and No.6 posts....even if they are the same (joke)    


Got me thinking about PP. Got me thinking about lots of things.


Needed a new thing to get excited about....so thanks

I understand now.

It didn't mean anything, Turner, what's the point of an upside down smiley if no one ever uses it? Plus it was addressed to Xander, I wasn't signing off as him. I guess you thought I had slipped up....?

Anyone here who has been around the forums for a long time, including the moderators, knows us both and could vouch that we are not the same.

OK.....back on yer 'eds