i would like to ask cleaverer people than me a question about z score, say i bet 33 numbers for 10 spins and then i drop 2 numbers from those 33 so start betting 31 numbers for 10 spins all together i made 20 bets but amount of numbers were different so how can i calculate my z score for spins i bet since numbers vary...thank you

Hi Maestro,


It's bit complicated to explain but I wrote a little stats tracker program back in 2010 which you can find on rouletteforum.cc here. You just enter the quantity of numbers you're playing from spin to spin and the z-score will be calculated automatically.

Quote
I would like to ask cleaverer people than me a question about z score, say i bet 33 numbers for 10 spins and then i drop 2 numbers from those 33 so start betting 31 numbers for 10 spins all together i made 20 bets but amount of numbers were different so how can i calculate my z score for spins i bet since numbers vary...thank you -Maestro

33 numbers?  Why not bet all 37 or 38 of them?

My point is betting so many number is a really bad idea.  You're just going to reach the point of no return that much sooner.  (The point at which you will lose your entire bankroll, never to break even again.)

In the random game of roulette, you actually want variance, since it's really the only way that you can get lucky and win for extended periods of time.

For example, if you look at a sample of 5000 spins, you'll find that there simply aren't 33 numbers that are above break even.  As a matter of fact, usually both the red/black odd/even are all losers by then. (00 wheel)

(An example below.  OO wheel) 37      133   0   133   37.59   0.13 27      129   0   129   38.76   -0.23 10      136   0   136   36.76   0.39 25      132   0   132   37.88   0.04 29      132   0   132   37.88   0.04 12      143   0   143   34.97   1.01 8      125   0   125   40.00   -0.58 19      111   0   111   45.05   -1.82 31      150   0   150   33.33   1.63 18      129   0   129   38.76   -0.23 6      135   0   135   37.04   0.30 21      150   0   150   33.33   1.63 33      144   0   144   34.72   1.10 16      126   0   126   39.68   -0.49 4      120   0   120   41.67   -1.02 23      139   0   139   35.97   0.66 35      123   0   123   40.65   -0.76 14      111   0   111   45.05   -1.82 2      139   0   139   35.97   0.66 0      133   0   133   37.59   0.13 28      118   0   118   42.37   -1.20 9      110   0   110   45.45   -1.91 26      122   0   122   40.98   -0.85 30      116   0   116   43.10   -1.38 11      116   0   116   43.10   -1.38 7      132   0   132   37.88   0.04 20      142   0   142   35.21   0.92 32      113   0   113   44.25   -1.64 17      153   0   153   32.68   1.89 5      143   0   143   34.97   1.01 22      137   0   137   36.50   0.48 34      138   0   138   36.23   0.57 15      135   0   135   37.04   0.30 3      134   0   134   37.31   0.21 24      140   0   140   35.71   0.74 36      150   0   150   33.33   1.63 13      143   0   143   34.97   1.01 1      118   0   118   42.37   -1.20                    Total      5,000   0   5,000                          High      153   0   153      1.89 Low      110   0   110      -1.91                    Chance of                   random (1/x)      3.158E+00      3.158E+00       Chi square      40.55      40.55                          Average      131.58   0.00   131.58       Break even      138.89   0.00   138.89                          80% hi conf.      159.88   0.00   159.88       95% hi conf.      165.54   0.00   165.54       80% low conf.      103.28   0.00   103.28       95% low conf.      97.62   0.00   97.62

                  
Best ratio      32.68      32.68      
Worst ratio      45.45      45.45      

thank you very much Bayes i did what you told me ...you are very good


@xander  look mate when i asked  question was intended for Bayes and some other cleaver people that is why said cleverer people than me and i do not think that is you...sorry  p.s and do not tell me what is good idea or bad like some roulette guru..

Maestro,

Yes, Bayes is very clever and intelligent.  He is going to great lengths to help you guys.  However, yOu may still be greener than you know.  So pay careful attention to him, because a fool and his money are easily separated.

that is exactly i never get separated from my money

Maestro, you're welcome. But you're wrong about Xander, he's a very smart guy. It takes a very special talent to do what he's been doing for so long (and not end up with broken knee-caps) 


@ MBB,


There is more than one interpretation of your question, but I can tell you that the largest variance for a given probability in the Binomial distribution is 0.5 - the even chances.


I'm interested to see Xander's response though.

@Xander  i am sorry, i do apologize

Quote from: Marshall Bing Bell on February 03, 2014, 05:51:08 AM
Thanks Bayes,

18 would seem the obvious answer but I was curious to see if perhaps it might be something more related to the law of third, like 24 or something.

For instance, the table supplied by Xander shows 25 numbers performing above expectation, which is exactly what I'm looking for when attempting to "lasso" the random variance.

I have typically seen 28 numbers performing above expectation.

QuoteI have typically seen 28 numbers performing above expectation-Pockets

I've never seen this in larger samples. 

QuoteIt would seem the obvious answer but I was curious to see if perhaps it might be something more related to the law of third, like 24 or something.

For instance, the table supplied by Xander shows 25 numbers performing above expectation, which is exactly what I'm looking for when attempting to "lasso" the random variance.
Marshall Bing Bell

The number of numbers that are above break even is actually what matters.  Above expectation can still lose. Unfortunately, as we get into larger samples, the number of them that are above break even dwindles.  In the above sample of 5k spins, there are only 12 numbers that are above break even.  (The sample is a typical random looking wheel)

Even if you knew in advance, which even money bet was going to hit the most, you'd still likely lose.  (Assuming that you were betting the same EC over and over.)  If you're bet changed at each spin, it would still take several lucky guesses to become a winner on the ECs. (Remember, the data above is from a 00 wheel).

Here's what my experience has shown to be the most efficient bet, given limited information about the wheel.  It is NOT an advantage play:

Simply bet the last number(s) to have hit.  The last number to have hit, and up to but no more than the last five numbers to have hit, based on spin direction. The fewer, the better.  If you have advanced knowledge as to what the hottest numbers on the table are, then chase the top few.  It's unlikely that a wheel will be biased enough to overcome the house edge, but every wheel is biased to some degree.  By betting on the most recent/hottest numbers, you're slightly increasing the likelihood that you will be on a potential long term winner. 

Simulations have show that this childishly simple method slightly decreases the house edge.  On some wheels it will produce an edge for extended periods of 10 to 20k spins or more.  Most of the time, it slightly cuts the house edge a tiny bit.


Xander

QuoteSimply bet the last number(s) to have hit.  The last number to have hit, and up to but no more than the last five numbers to have hit,

[smiley]aes/lol.png[/smiley] Never heard funnier statement. What a way to reduce the house edge!!!!!!!!!!


Anybody having even a slight knowledge of excel programming can test it, on excel. Such betting is as good or as bad as betting just any number randomly. It may lose, it may win, like anything, in any given random session. In long run, a loser, for sure.


Preaching something like this is like a blind man telling other blind man, how a flower could look like.
Here is a simulation of playing the last number in 10k live spins with excel sheet and bankroll graph.[attachimg=1]

Quote from: Archie on May 07, 2014, 11:22:23 PM
You won't live long enough to see a streak of 40 reds.  So, even if there's a slight physical bias to 30 reds, double up on black until you win.  Even after 15 reds, it's a good idea.


The difference between practice or the finite, and the theoretical or infinite.

      Another funny suggestions. Waiting for 30 reds/blacks to come before starting to bet may cause one's entire life to try to win one unit.
Waiting for even 15 successive hits is not as easy. Statistically, you get to see such thing once in a few thousands spins.

Why wait for 15 reds or blacks?  The last 15 outcomes has exactly the same probability of appearing as 15 reds or blacks.  Just bet against the last series - it has the same z-score after all. Only if that is your game of course. Or just make up a series yourself - again, any series is just as likely as any other series - there is nothing special about 15 reds or blacks.

Quote from: sqzbox on May 08, 2014, 12:50:33 PM
Why wait for 15 reds or blacks?  The last 15 outcomes has exactly the same probability of appearing as 15 reds or blacks.  Just bet against the last series - it has the same z-score after all. Only if that is your game of course. Or just make up a series yourself - again, any series is just as likely as any other series - there is nothing special about 15 reds or blacks.

Or even if you'd bet for the last 15 outcomes to be the same it has exactly the same probability with betting opposite of the last 15 outcomes.

You might think I need only one to be different/same but this means that you'd gain many lesser wins and also lose few times great amounts.
The more you extend the progression series the less times you will lose, but in overall more money.
By waiting you would not make the situation any better because you could avoid some lost bets but you'd also miss winning bets, all in all the only  difference between waiting and extended progression series is an exchange in time/money ratio.

It would only make sense to wait if we could take care somehow even the most extreme situation (virtual limit).