Philosophy or dream?

I thought the debate to be over with nice inputs from a few of us and locked the debate for the sake of brevity and conciseness.


Best of luck to all of you for further debates. 

I found some of the replies either not concerned with the topic,repetitive or rhetoric and preferred to trim down off my topic. No offense meant. Good luck with a new topic.

I got some good, some average and some great answers.  Let me simplify the answer of this query, in my own way to sum up.


Let's take a coin flipping game. I enter a game of coin flipping, not being aware that in past 15 flips they were all heads. Now, if I want to make one decision/ one bet, betting head or tail would be equally wise or unwise because both have 50-50% chance to appear in this flip but if I need to make 5 bets to get a net win, it will be wise to bet that a tail will come in next 5 trials,  considering both the sequential probability of 20 hits of heads in succession and 5 consecutive failures of tails(after you start betting). Getting 5 consecutive failures of Tails is 1/32 and getting 20 wins of heads is one in a million probability. Now, if someone loses here, he is an unlucky gambler who just saw a one in a million probability working against him.
           Say, I lost. Now, a guy looking at this, started a 10 step martingale that a tail will hit is next ten flips. Now, if we consider a sequential probability of 1 hit in 30 attempts of an EC bet, the last man doesn't only have a probability of 1 hit in 10 trials working for him but also 1 win in 30 trials sequential probability at run. If he loses his 10 bets, it would be an almost impossible 1 in a billion event but if he just tries to win in 1 single flip after even 20 losses, he is having only 50% chance to win then and there.


        Just to clarifying, I am not advocating playing after so many losses, because:
1. Say, if you decide to bet after 20 runs of an EC, against that, u may need to wait one million spins to get an opportunity to bet once
2. Every limit of consecutive win or lose of any bet is a virtual limit, we can't guarantee that there will be no 31st consecutive win of an EC or loss of an EC bet.


  To clarify further, I am not advocating playing Martingale either, in any form or condition because I consider it to be the most foolish approach to try to win the least (1 unit is the max we can earn) risking the max we can afford or that table allows.




We haven't seen 36 reds in a row ever or maybe we will never see this because it will be a once in many billions event.  Every single spin is free to deliver anything but if we talk of succession, it is a very part of a running sequence and has a virtual limit. I think 1 in a billion event can be safely presumed to be the virtual limit of the bet.

Quote from: iggiv on August 21, 2014, 01:59:35 AM
Things in world work in certain order. There has never been in history of the world for example case that in 10 minutes  temperature changed from +20 to -20 degrees. Roulette also behaves in certain order. it's not a matter of memory. It's not like any combination of numbers can hit. If this was a case we would see combinations of spins hit like 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 for hours or days. But it's simply impossible. Things just can not work this way as temperature can not change from + 20 to -20 in 10 minutes. Just nature won't allow it.

@Iggiv,
           Buddy, you are getting a bit philosophical here. All combinations that are of same length are equally likely and they almost happen equally too. For example, chance to get 1-2-3 and 26-0-32 are same, i.e. 1/37x1/37x1/37=1/50653.


        If we look and believe in "sequential probability", we can not say the same time that, future has nothing to do with past. Every spin is a part of a sequential probability and future comes out of the womb of the past. It is the past so many reds that puts a virtual limit to a sequence going infinite, otherwise reverse martingale player will kill casinos every day.

Quote from: Turner on August 20, 2014, 02:20:08 PM
Its just probability isn't it?
0.0000000005% chance of 36 reds in a row.
Once every 185 billion spins

Why such minuscule chance to happen if it is no way connected to past spins and results? Are you trying to redefine probability? I have heard that if there are 10 reds in arrow, 11th is equally likely and roulette wheel or ball can't recall past happenings. There should even be 100s of hits in succession, this way. Is there a boundary that roulette looks at without eyes and mind?
   All past events are unconnected and every spin is having same chances to hit red or black. Are we missing something?
                Mathematically, I am hearing two things, first say even 100s in a row possible since we should not take past into account, other saying 36 in a row is once in billions. Which one is correct?

Roulette has no memory, it  has  no eyes, brain or calculator. I heard it, read it, debated it and agree too. Further, this universal rule says that previous spins have absolutely no impact on spins to come. If it is true, why in the entire history of roulette, worldwide, there has not been any successive hit of an EC even 36 times. With 18 different pockets for every EC bet, innumerable permutations and combinations are possible that can do so. Why it did not happen ever?
                                            Those who has any solid reasoning or reference are most welcome to comment. No jokes or chit chats here, please. I am missing Bayes here.

I was once playing a dozen that came before the last one spin(it could be same to the last or different) and got 12-13 hits in a row on 2nd dozen. It was a kind of super rider positive progression(riding by amount of win, kind of martingale). My winnings went sharply high spin by spin. In about 7-8 spins, croupier got frustrated as table limit reached. It was something like:
bet 1: Np=2 unit, keep 1 unit back and bet 2 units further
bet 2: NP=4 units, keep 2 units and bet 4 units further
bet4:NP=8 units, keep 4 unit as profit and bet


and so on. So I was slowly keeping a bit of earnings and pushing hard on them with a major chunk of winning. Fortunately, I got a once in million streak and I had nothing to lose. My first experience of winning till table limit in a real casino. Had it been a no limit table and I used all my winnings+capital even 10 times, casino would have lost about 59k chips. In my 13th win, casino would had to file for bankruptcy. 
            Rare cases happen too.

QuoteIt was great - 1st session have won 20 units in about 10 spins- 2nd session have won 16 units in about 100 spins- 3rd session have won 24 units in about 50 spinsSo in about 30 minutes I have won 60 units.

               You have been lucky, so far.

Update:

Got this reply yesterday:

QuoteDate[/size]: 15.08.2014 15:48:24
Project: BetVoyager
From: Support
Subject: RE: Are you turned deaf, unintelligent and shameless?
Dear albalaha31,

We would like to inform you that your withdrawal request has been cancelled due to our technical reason, your funds has been credited to your account on August 12 th.

For you loyalty your account credited with 10 euro as a free money, You can find how to use Free money following this link:

http://www.betvoyager.com/promotions/casino-free-money/

Regards,

[/size]The BetVoyager Support Team.[/size]

@Leapyfrog,
              Are u placing bets in all 3 samples of 100k spins that you claim to win? If not, in how many u do? It is the number of placed bets that counts and not the number of spins. If you did not reverse engineer a data to use your method and it still wins 300k placed bets with an EC bet, it is amazing. If you bet every spin and still win, I am more than impressed. While if you bet on certain condition or "trigger", you may get misleading results in 100k spins since bets placed are not sufficient to conclude, in that span. They may still be affected from "temporary bias".
      Regarding your rigidity with "why 100k placed bets", I am not Van-Klein to answer this but this confirms to my own experiments too. A system winning over 100k placed bet without "reverse engineering" or "cherry picking" of betting favorable cases only, it is indeed very solid. I prefer to test any method of mine with the help of a tracker in excel having 1000 spins to atleast 100 times. If I say place bet in say half of the spins, I conclude only after assessing 200 random sessions.
I hope all these helps a bit.

QuoteA meter does not have 100 cm; a meter is divided into 100 cms.

Oh, I never knew both things have different meanings. Do we argue for the sake of arguments or we wish to learn something?
Do you have any doubt that a method that does nothing to house edge, in long term can not  be profitable? Do you want to challenge the theory propounded by Van-Klein? Any hypothesis or assumption can win or lose in short run. It is the long run that matters. If a method has nothing to do with long run, it is a sure loser.

There has to be a standard to measure something. Why do we use centimeter or millimeter to measure? we can use our fingers too. When Van Klein wrote this theory he must have reasoning to ask for 100k placed bets to determine the effectiveness of any method. If a method defies the house edge even slightly, it is worth trying.
               Have you ever thought why a meter has 100 cm or why a dozen have 12 count. Mathematician who used them first has logic for them and if we do not know those logic we can't question them either. By the way, if you are happy with testing 90k or 110k, do that.

The basis of the claim is mathematical. Shorter periods usually can suffer from negative or positive variance and can give misleading results.
If you can't test a method by 100k bets, in a row, do 100 sessions of 1000 bets each. If a method can even reduce the house edge, in long run, it is playable and it has the edge. Coincidence, won't let you win for 100,000 bets.

When Victor started rf.cc, there was a guy with username "compa". He was given an exclusive section too. He wrote a holy grail telling when u see A,B,C numbers bet  red and when u see X,Y,Z numbers bet black. I asked him what is the relation between them he answered you don't understand roulette.
            In playing betvoyager I often noticed that 0, 26 and 32 seem to come together but if we try to utilize any of such self-earned fallacies, we get to know it was merely a coincidence or a random dance looking predictive. Obviously when we test more, we learn from our mistakes. Please do not take otherwise but this topic doesn't deserve more debate.