Quote from: Gizmotron on June 10, 2014, 03:02:44 PM
Mathematical fundamentalism and probability can't predict when a win streak will occur and how long it will last. Those are two things that happen every day, and they do this without any need for prediction to make them happen.

Actually, probability can predict those things, that's what expectation is. The expectation is an average, but of course you have to factor in the variance, so events are predictable only within certain limits. You can predict events like the number of spins it takes to get a run of 3 even chances in a row, or the number of spins on average before all numbers on the wheel have hit at least once.


So reading randomness is confirming continuing situations? OK, but unless you can predict better than the expectation says you will, how can you hope to gain an edge? You can lose a lot of bets before your situation continues as you hope it will, and the math says that over time those losses will outweigh the wins.

Xander is wrong to say that every event is a rare one, but you have to define what "rare" means. Often in statistics it's taken as less than a 1 in 20 chance, but in any case you're looking at 2+ standard deviations from the mean (the outer reaches of the bell curve).


He is right, though, in saying that there's no way of exploiting rare events, and there's no way of "reading" randomness either. The very idea is an oxymoron. How is it possible to predict the unpredictable? which is what random outcomes are.

Quote from: XXVV on May 10, 2014, 03:38:52 AM
But to at least make a start, let us question your statement which I have highlighted in red. Why must there be (only) an 'external' cause? Is there some law in this? Why close down that sphere of exploration in your search.

XXVV,

As far as I'm concerned there are 3 possible approaches for anyone who is seriously interested in making a success at playing roulette.

I'm assuming, even if you don't take this avenue, that you recognize that the physical approach to roulette is a viable one? The game consists of a number of physical components which all contribute to which pocket the ball ends up in. If you know at least some of the 'initial conditions' (as Physicists call them) of these components, then you can predict with better than random accuracy where the ball will land. That's cause and effect. If you knew every initial condition perfectly then you would be able to predict the exact number every time. There is nothing random about roulette for someone with that kind of knowledge, although it's admittedly theoretical. It's just an application of physical laws (Newton's laws and dynamics) which have been known and used for centuries and which apply to any physical system, including roulette. The mathematics is complicated but a rough approximation is good enough for practical purposes.

Secondly, there is probability and statistics, or using what is understood statistically about the game either from gathering your own data or using the laws of probability and various statistical techniques. 

I know there are some who also believe in numerology, astrology and the like. Your mention of 'inner derivation' and 'force' makes me think that perhaps you are signing up to this? If so, I don't see much benefit in continuing the discussion, but I wish you all the best.

I'm just trying to get an idea of where you're coming from, because it's not clear to me at the moment.

@ Xander,

'why should it work?' Yes that seems like the natural question to ask anyone who proposes a method. I'd like to hear XXVV's answer to it. The physics approach seems best because it works for everything else, that's how we got to this modern technological world. That doesn't make me closed-minded, just practical. Why try to reinvent the wheel (excuse the pun) and posit some strange 'force' as the explanation?

@ XXVV,

QuoteDon't you think this would make an excellent title for a thread. Then you can have an opportunity to make your standard response on a daily basis, as this seems to be some sort of fixed red flagged windmill at which you just have to tilt. Or better, you yourself might like to establish a thread that actually has something worthwhile to represent. But perhaps no. That appears not the way you work. In fact do you have anything worthwhile to add here other than negate. Please correct me if this untrue or unfair, and provide examples of just what you do stand for- value. Perhaps you are here as an advocate for rightful caution or caveat emptor, or beat the scammers. Fair enough, a teacher, or some sort of enforcer of reality - well a reality you see anyway. Nothing personal here of course, just the ideas and attitudes that are being promoted by you.

It would be refreshing if you did not simply sling mud, but present a case for why you believe that your strategies can work and why my arguments are invalid. Whether I 'negate' or not really has nothing to do with whether I am correct or not. You may not like me or what I 'stand for' but in order to discredit my input (if that's your intention) you really need to engage with what I've said, and not who I am or what you think I represent. This is a common debating tactic called Ad Hominem (against the person) but it is a fallacy and is commonly used when the attacker has no argument to respond with and so resorts to the much easier task of slinging mud, ie 'Mike is always negative, so you shouldn't believe anything he says'. The fact that you refer to my 'standard response' shows that you really have no interest in engaging with the details of my argument; you skip lightly over those and just slap a 'negative' label on me.

QuoteIt is amusing and a touch concerning that like your colleague Xander/Snowman you ignore any prior comment or significant question, or specific example  such as the the life work of a professional like Martin Blakey, and just keep on keeping on, ignoring an outstanding example of a professional who daily uses both patterns and progressions for consistent success.

Xander is not my 'colleague' and I don't know where you got that idea. As for Martin Blakey, I can't be expected to know about every tom dick and harry who claims to win at roulette, can I? This is anecdotal evidence and as such doesn't carry a lot of weight especially as I don't know the details of how he plays or even what he has claimed to have acheived. What I find remarkable (and a touch concerning, to use your phrase) is that you are only too happy to give isolated examples of 'winners' but appear to be unaware of or totally ignore the accepted view of academics who work in this area (statisticians). Consult any statistician or mathematician and they will repeat what I have said. Are they also to be written off as 'negative' people who offer nothing of value?

QuoteIt is part of our hard wired physiology and consciousness that we seek out patterns as opportunities in nature to be harnessed and thus we naturally delight in seeking out such in our games. It gives us both pleasure and reward. 'The irrefutable logic' you refer to is flawed, and really is a construct in the eye of the beholder and the belief system chosen.

Very true and I should clarify what I mean by 'patterns' in this context. By 'patterns' I mean any method of playing roulette which can be put into the following categories:

1. Using past spins in order to 'predict' future spins. By this I mean using ONLY the past spins as data in their own right, not correlated with any physical aspect of the game. So you look at the marquee or numbers you have collected and this, and nothing else, informs you as to your next bet(s).

2. Using statistical data or probabilities in order to try to gain an edge. There is some overlap with (1) here but in this case the system engineer is usually trying to find some 'rare' event or regular pattern.

I'm not suggesting that we cannot use patterns in the broader sense that you are talking about, but we have to know the difference between when a pattern is telling us something significant and when it's just random 'noise'. The vast field of statistics was basically invented in order to address this issue, and you appear to either know nothing about it or are wilfully ignoring it.

I'm curious why you think the logic is flawed and due to my 'belief system'. Unfortunately this is a very common viewpoint these days; most people think that logic and reason is only of use to back up the beliefs they have acquired by other means, in other words, it's a process of rationalization. This is false of course, if it were true then we would not have science or engineering and no way of telling reality and facts from wishful thinking and mere opinion.

QuoteThere is no disagreement over the fact of the negative expectation nature of the games of roulette and all casino activities. However it needs to be stated that the games can be beaten, not necessarily every session, but more often than not through the three stages I earlier outlined and which is a generally understood principle and accepted by some mathematicians and certainly by some players as a fair summary.

I'm glad you acknowledge that the negative expectation exists, but you don't appear to have understood what it means since in the next sentence you say that the games can be beaten. Please be clear that I am not saying roulette cannot be beaten, only that it can't be beaten using methods (1) and (2) above.

Quote#1 Learn to read the game, observe the patterns. Focus.
#2 Seize the short term cycle opportunity through a tested, practiced and proven technique.
#3 Through money management and a playing model drive your session play through cycles of win and loss in order to achieve a net session positive outcome. Quit the session while ahead.

At least you have tried to summarise your strategy, but as a description it's woefully vague and inadequate, and as an explanation it fails completely.

#1. Reading the game and observing the patterns. In order to read something I have to know what the outcomes and patterns mean, don't I? When I read a book I know what the words mean and also many other things like grammar, how sentences are contructed etc etc. The reading metaphor doesn't work very well in regard to roulette outcomes considered isolated from anything else because the 'words' have no meaning and are not connected in sentences which have a structure; they are, when considered as such, literally meaningless. If you disagree, please explain why.

#2. Short term cycle opportunity. An opportunity is a favourable situation, but in what sense can any opportunity arise if you are looking at patterns which have no meaning? how can a 'trigger' for any bet occur if there is no reason for one pattern to occur rather than another? Yes, there are patterns and cycles in the outcomes, but they are not regular; the presence of one pattern tells you absolutely nothing about the imminent occurance or otherwise of another.

#3. Money management is important, no doubt. But it is secondary in importance compared to getting an edge in the first place.

QuoteIt is no surprise and a standard response from the school of thought you seem to represent that you advocate the only opportunity to break the shackles of the closed cycle symmetrical nemesis you portray which robs any long term opportunity for profit, other than luck, is wheel bias or dealer signature.

I'm glad you brought this up, because it's crucial. This is the crux of the matter and explains why it isn't possible to get an edge using the methods you propose.

The means by which it's possible to get an edge in roulette comes down to CAUSE AND EFFECT.

What does having an 'edge' actually mean anyway? how is an edge created? Above I talked about symmetry and why getting an edge isn't possible because all the patterns in the outcomes are accounted for in the odds and payouts. You can use all the fancy formulas you like and 'read' as many past spins as you like but CONSIDERED ON THEIR OWN they will not help to give you an edge. An edge is just an imbalance or lack of symmetry which then creates an opportunity, but this imbalance can not be found by looking at past spins in isolation or looking for 'rare' events, because the CAUSE (if you can actually use that word) of these is the randomness itself. You cannot 'read' randomness, the phrase is an oxymoron. To repeat, events which are equally likely (which is how roulette is set up) results in random outcomes, but sometimes these events get out of balance. This itself does not create an edge.

YOU NEED TO IDENTIFY SOME EXTERNAL CAUSE OF THE IMBALANCE

ONLY when you have done this does it make sense to look at past results or statistics. This means looking at the physical device, the dealer, the ball, and maybe other things like the humidity. If you can find some PATTERN or correlation between these factors and the past results, then you have an edge. You cannot just look at past results, see a number has repeated a few times and then say 'this is a hot number' and start betting on it, because you have no idea whether the CAUSE of the number repeating is just random doing its thing or some outside influence. Do you see the difference?

Every effect has a cause outside itself. The pattern or system player ignores this fundamental truth and says that the patterns are causing themselves! he thinks that there is some kind of code hidden in the numbers or patterns which can be accessed without regard to looking at what actually causes the patterns. That's why I said that the system junkie is looking for a 'magic' pattern. Does this not strike you as a little bit crazy?

I'm not sure how your references to quantum physics and paradoxes relates to this discussion. Of course there's a lot we don't know, but there isn't any need to refer to such esoteric physics when the results can perfectly be well explained with the old-fashioned variety. And just because something isn't known doesn't give us the right to say that something IS known as a result of it. A mystery is just that, and any answers are pure speculation.

Hello Wannawin,


Yes that's true, but the point is you would not get as far as even asking that question if you knew that the system for sale involved patterns and progressions in casino games, assuming you realize that systems based on such strategies cannot win!


The first thing you should ask is CAN IT POTENTIALLY WORK? if it can't then there's no point in investigating further or asking the seller why he's selling it and not just using it himself. If it can potentially work (eg it's a sports betting or trading system) then there's still a good chance it's a scam, because in that case the seller is taking the risk that heavy use of it will drive down its value (one reason why sports betting systems can become less effective over time). But there could actually be a genuine reason why it's being sold. Maybe the designer has no stomach for risk and is merely a theoretician, or perhaps it's a sideline as is often the case with tipsters.

XXVV,


It's not a matter of making judgments over others or knowing the facts when the logic is irrefutable, as it certainly is in the case of using patterns and progressions in an attempt to get an edge in negative expectation games.


These short cycles you speak of are incorporated into the probability models of these games, so they cannot give any advantage. It may seem as though they can when you come across them, but they are always balanced by equal and opposite cycles which deplete your bankroll. The effect is more striking on the longer odds bets, so it's easier to get fooled into thinking that you have something if you play just one or two numbers rather than 30, although the odds in terms of expectation are the same.


There is always a symmetry which can't be broken by playing for or against particular patterns, because each pattern has its nemesis, and this can be discovered by anyone if they make the effort to learn a little probability theory or do a computer simulation. Because of this there is absolutely no possibility of creating the assymmetry which is needed in terms of payouts in order to make a long-term profit, and any shorter term profits you make are based purely on luck. To make a consistent profit you need a situation where the outcomes are not already accounted for in the odds and payouts, which could be a biased wheel in the case of roulette, or some kind of dealer signature.


The same principle applies in other types of betting, actually. In sports betting you cannot make a profit just by picking winners, you need to focus on value. A value bet is one which is not already accounted for in the odds. There is no point in picking the winner of a horse race based on past form, jockey and so on if this information is available to everyone, because these factors will already be accounted for, and the weight of money on a selection will affect the odds. The net result is that although the probability of the horse winning may be high, the payout is not (relative to that probability), so you have failed to secure any value.


This is sophisticated stuff for the average casino gambler, but if you're serious about making money you really need to learn it, because it makes all the difference between success and failure. Negative expectation casino games have fixed odds and payouts, so there is no chance of getting a value bet, unless something is wrong with the setup (eg a biased wheel) in which case the probability of a win could be high relative to the payout.


All these patterns and progression which so many forum members put so much effort into do not make one iota of difference to the value of a bet because the payouts and probabilities are not affected by them at all. Can you not see this? is this me just being negative and defeatist? if you think so, you may have a problem. As long as you think there is a chance of finding some magic pattern or progression you will always be vulnerable to the charlatans and hucksters. You will have no real answer to their spiel, because at heart, you believe it could be true, in which case the only defense you have against them is the question "if it's so good, why are you selling it", and they can always come back with some plausible answer to that.

Quote from: XXVV on May 02, 2014, 01:51:27 AM
The risk exposure in casino games  is known with fixed variables, unlike the financial markets. Yet there are winning strategies available in all these areas and there is always room for discussion of more.

Fixed variables. You said it XXVV, and that's why you can't win at games like Roulette and Baccarat, at least not with patterns and progressions. The odds for financial markets and sports betting are not set in stone so it is possible to get an edge, although I would pick sports over financials any day.


That's how I know Mr. iplayforaliving doesn't playforaliving, although he'd like others to believe he does. Not arrogance, simple mathematics and logic.

You are not seriously going to let this guy have that signature!

I thought spammers weren't allowed in this forum? 

No-one?


I don't bite anymore, I've been fitted with a muzzle by the mods.[smiley]aes/lol.png[/smiley]

Has anyone read the book? XXVV mentioned the name in one of his threads.


http://www.roulettemastered.com/

Quote from: Sputnik on November 21, 2013, 02:00:22 PM

@ Mike are you saying the windows even out in the long run.

They should do, but I'll get back to you on that...

Quote from: Sputnik on November 21, 2013, 07:23:59 AM
One thing i can't get out of my head is that if you pick the last 6 numbers with no repeat, then you get one repeat with the next 6 numbers.

Sputnik,


How often does this happen when the last 6 numbers DO have a repeat? I think you'll find that you get the same percentage whether the last 6 numbers had a repeat or not.

Big EZ,


3 times 10 losses in a row might be ok. But there's no guarantee that you will be ahead even if you don't lose it.


If you're using a martingale, the bet amounts to this progression:


1,1,1,1,2,4,8,16,32,64


Return to step one on any win. My analysis above was incorrect when I said you don't need to make a profit after the 3 consecutive losses, because you have to take into account the 'wasted' win. i.e., You need to have made one unit profit when the stake start rising after the 3 consec. losses in order to make up for the win which you would have made had you not been involved in the recovery.

PratikPokerpop,


Spot on. There are a number on this forum who are simply addicted to roulette and systems and anyone who claims a system can't be found is dismissed as either being negative or accused of trying to bait others into giving them a winning system, or is bitter and twisted about not being able to find one. It never seems to occur to them that such a system is impossible. They want so badly for it to be true that they can't see the reality.


But on a forum like this which supposedly caters to all kinds of 'bet selection' and betting (which in the case of NE games is an oxymoron, or at least, pointless), you're bound to get some who have been sucked into an intellectual black hole.

esoito,


I don't know why such a big deal is made of the 'law of the third'. There is nothing special about it and there are numerous other 'laws' that will manifest given that outcomes are random and independent. By 'random' I mean that each number (or group of numbers) has an equal likelihood of occurring.


It isn't necessary to 'code in' the law of third to casino software because it occurs naturally; all you need to do is make sure that outcomes are random and independent and the law will manifest inevitably as a natural consequence. There is no mystery about it; it works because when you start with a relatively large set of numbers (37 in this case) you are more likely to get different numbers on successive spins early on, but later, when several numbers have been selected, you are increasingly likely to get a repeat because there are then more selected numbers than unselected numbers remaining - it's simple logic.


Try it yourself in a spreadsheet (or better still, using a simple programming language, perhaps Victor's new 'vASIC' assuming it has a built-in RNG). You don't need any authoritative links for any of this because you can prove or disprove it for yourself, and isn't that the best way to prove anything?