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.

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....

Oh, just put me out of my misery 

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,

Turner,

I'm not sure where you're falling down with the concepts. It appears you have proved to yourself the possible existence of a personal perm by collecting numbers from different sources and noting that they are, in fact, totally random and do not produce unusual results. Which means yes, you could "track" a system on one wheel and then begin placing bets on an other wheel with the exact same probability of winning whatever events you are betting on. Because, such a method is gambler's fallacy. In that case, you are simply betting from square one, where the probability of winning an even chance is .486. Any system that involves accounting for past "virtual" results is fallacious.

But even if you had already begun betting on the first wheel, you can simply switch to another wheel for no reason at all. It makes no difference where the outcomes are random, you take your PP with you, including any and all probabilities and deviation.

It seems there is a misunderstanding or confusion of how it all applies to an individual. It has nothing to do with spins you just observe i.e. virtual play: it is about your bets. Your wagers make up your personal random stream, and any subsequent deviation is also calculated from your real bets (or it should be; accounting for deviation of virtual results is erroneous and hugely increases the risk of ruin) . If there is no bet, even if you are "tracking" it, it is not part of anything to do with you personally.

If the personal perm does not apply only to your wagers, it cannot be defined in any terms, it would be too expansive and therefore could be dismissed as nonsense. What if you walk past a wheel and accidently note that the outcome was black. Is that included in your PP? No, it would become impossible to keep track of everything you see.

And the PP doesn't refresh each session. You are in it as soon as you place your first ever wager. The PP just carries on from before, roulette is a game of life. 

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.

Turner,

Bing Bell is an upside down one.........

Quote from: Bayes
Agreed, but even then you have to win that one time you play in order to say that hit & run has succeeded.

For sure, that's what I meant, but also by that logic, a person has only one chance to succeed anway, so win or lose, it can still only be attempted once, especially with real money. Then they can never play the game again in any form, even a roulette shots drinking game, without entering a longer personal perm and being at the mercy of luck, which, when you're playing not to drink jagermeister, can have a more "projectile" impact.

Quote from: Bayes
It's actually more basic than that. Warrior said:

Many think that this implies that "if you don't sit too long at any table then you won't lose" (and reasoning thus, they are led to the idea of hit & run). But this is a textbook logical fallacy called "denying the antecedent".

Well, again at the risk of splitting hairs, the statement of sitting at the wheel is not actually accurate is it? Are the subtle differences between definitions really important? They probably are, sometimes they may lead to a eureka moment. The more money you wager, the more likely you are to lose. If I sit at the wheel for four hours and don't place a bet, I have no probability of losing anything.

Quote from: Sputnik
If everything is based upon fallacies, then how do we deal with does who win.

I would tend to agree that a gambler might not know the difference between luck and something else. I mean, it is possible to be lucky for what might seem like a long time. But at what stage does a fallacy stop being a fallacy? Does it stop at all. I would say if you can prove the premise of what you do makes an actual difference, and once it's proved to be effective, there is nothing fallacious about it. For example if there is a conditional situation that offers a better than normal EV, it can't be a fallacy can it? Even if it is based on passed spins.

Turner,

Out of interest, why did you think it wouldn't be that way? The numbers are random, it doesn't matter where you get them from.

For that reason, there is no such thing as hit and run, it's a nonsense tactic helpless gamblers use because they are afraid of losing. The game doesn't cease at any point to be random.

Hit and run is another fallacy that is related to the fact that there is no expected value on a non-wager. Helpless gamblers think they can avoid variance (or the way they see it: there is a smaller chance of losing) by lowering the amount of time they play. It does not work like that at all. A person can only do hit and run once in their life, when they play for a second time, and then again and again, they are just carrying on from before. Playing 10 spins a day for 100 days is no different from playing 1000 spins at once.

Quote from: Pockets
If random outcomes follow the laws of regression, when you are playing virtually, the spins which are real creates patterns and will follow laws of regression and will have its own SD.

You don't appear to be that confused; your assumption is right. The results of real and virtual bets both have their own SD; but only the real SD is meaningful. Following the virtual SD is a fallacy. Phantom probabilities cannot influence future results.

Quote from: bayes
suppose you suspect that a particular wheel in your local casino is biased, so you collect some data

People worry about things like this becoming a matter of semantics or accuse people of being pernickety. My opinion, the definitions are most important. The wheel is not biased until you start to win money off it.

Quote from: bayes
You can't have the following event consist of one spin if you're comparing it with a sequence of spins, that's comparing apples with oranges

I'm sure you can see it was a rudimentary example, focussed only on the first bet after the extreme event; however long you bet for is not really the point. For the record, I am not saying RTM is a fallacy. The fallacy is betting for regression on the back of virtual spins.


Bing Bell,

Don't you think the PP is definitive to your wagers only? Otherwise there can be no variance from skipped spins. That spin ceases to have significance if you don't try to beat it individually or part of some other sequence.

To steal a phrase from sputnik, this is the "march" of the next in line.

It is based on a simulation of 3.7m spins.

So, what is it? In a fixed set of 37 spins, we know the probability is high for some repeaters; this information can be useful for betting "hot" numbers within that set. Even if a number only hits twice, it is hotter than the majority. The march shows, according to what has hit, what should hit next.

The probability cascades from the top down. So, the first outcome of the cycle is most likely to hit twice than any other, followed by the second outcome and the third. We can observe a standard march like this until a "cross over", where a certain number has a higher probability of hitting for a third time than some other number does for hitting a second time. In that case, the march model may not be exactly the same as what is envisioned in theory.

This march can help to hone your selection for repeat numbers or law of the third or even to create some effective GUT-like bet; for example, with the cross overs there are moments when it is wiser to look further back up the cycle for your next bet as oppose to always selecting from the last eight or ten or twelve.

Outcome	Hits
1	2
2	2
3	2
4	2
5	2
6	2
7	2
8	2
9	2
10	2
11	2
12	2
13	2
14	2
15	2
16	2
17	2
18	2
19	2
1	3
20	2
2	3
21	2
3	3
22	2
4	3
23	2
5	3
24	2
6	3
7	3
25	2
8	3
26	2
9	3
27	2
10	3
11	3
28	2
12	3
29	2
13	3
30	2
14	3
15	3
31	2
16	3
1	4
17	3
2	4
32	2
18	3
3	4
19	3
4	4
33	2
5	4
20	3
6	4
21	3
7	4
34	2
22	3
8	4
9	4
23	3
10	4
24	3
11	4
35	2
25	3
12	4
13	4
26	3
14	4
1	5
27	3
15	4
2	5
16	4
3	5
36	2
28	3
17	4
4	5
29	3
5	5
18	4
6	5
19	4
7	5
30	3
20	4
8	5
9	5
21	4
31	3
10	5
22	4
11	5
23	4
32	3
12	5
24	4
1	6
13	5
2	6
14	5
33	3
25	4
3	6
15	5
4	6
26	4
16	5
5	6
17	5
6	6
27	4
7	6
34	3
18	5
8	6
19	5
28	4
9	6
10	6
20	5
29	4
11	6
21	5
12	6
1	7
22	5
35	3
30	4
2	7
13	6
3	7
23	5
14	6
4	7
31	4
15	6
24	5
5	7
16	6
6	7
25	5
7	7

Quote from: monaco on December 22, 2013, 09:41:57 PM
but there is still the probability of red or black (or whatever you're measuring) and whether you bet or not doesn't invalidate or affect the maths of that probability and its significance in relation to something like RTM.

The ball can land in a red pocket, a black pocket or a green pocket. If you don't place a bet, it doesn't affect you then or at any time in the future; you can't win and you can't lose. So it is not significant to you in any way; even the regression itself is insignificant because there is no regression if there is no bet. At best you can define it after you have observed it between two points in time, but that provides no real life advantage.

Regression to the mean can be any length of spins taken at any time. Measuring it across 10 spins is no less valid than measuring it across 10,000. If your first wager is to bet black after 10 reds, is your chance of winning any better that 18/37?  No. It is gambler's fallacy. You will always be playing catch up from the first wager, you'll always be expecting something that isn't going to happen by any means other than coincidence. The same applies regardless of the size of your sample and how complex the bet selection is.

Where there is no expected value there is no variance in relation to your bankroll. Where you don't bet the outcomes are simply irrelevant. Please tell me how there is an expected value in a non-wager, and how a phantom probability can possibly influence your future. The EV explicitly applies to your wager, nothing else.

Here is the formula for the EV on even chances. 1 or -1 represents your return or loss.

(18/37 * 1) + (19/37 * - 1) = 18/37 - 19/37 = -0.027 * 100 = -2.70%

You cannot reach the EV without a bet. It's that simple. I suspect you are bored of me going on about it, I guess you will have to figure it out in your own time.

Quote from: Sputnik on December 22, 2013, 02:50:36 PM
The classical playing model for RTM aim to find one window of overrepresented events - then attack.
If you search for windows on a rolling basis, so is the last present window the current state, so the answer to you question is 3.0.
Each window is independent with overrepresented and underrepresented events.
Its based upon what benchmark you use as reference point when playing and measuring the distribution.

For the benchmark, the SD is measured against your wagers, not the events you observe, it can never be measured against anything else. I would love for you to explain why the opposite is not gambler's fallacy.

Similarly distribution is measured against your wins and losses. How can the SD be -3.0 when you haven't even bet to that point?

Bayes,

I do not contest your original points; take the probability for one outcome or ten outcomes, it makes no difference, but even so the probability of events still do not exist unless you bet on it (or them). There is always a probability, but unless there is a wager it's just theoretical. The probability applies directly to your wager, does it not? As oppose to the probability of observing some event.

It's not "there is a 18/37 chance it will be red".
It's "there is an 18/37 chance of doubling your money".

Betting black after five reds can be no different to regression measured over 1000 spins. In fact, betting black after fives reds is itself a regression bet; there has been a slight and fast deviation, now the player expects a slight and fast regression on the very next spin, so he bets with the erroneous belief he has a better chance of winning. And we already know the probability of winning the bet is .486. So, how is regression measured over many more spins different? Yes, you're considering multiple outcomes, but each outcome is still an individual. And you can even argue that where the outcomes are random, the SD is reset to zero on every new spin you record, so the whole idea of regression is an illusion until after the fact.

There is no expected value on a non-wager, the point cannot be contested even if put into any context. There is no probability of you winning or losing a non-wager. Thus, it can have no affect at all on your personal variance.

Let's pose a simple question, to make this explicitly easy to grasp and find out what people do and don't truly believe. Anyone is free to answer it.

You are betting on red, every spin, now you're losing heavily. The SD for red from your first wager is -2.0. At this point you stop betting. Now you continue tracking the SD until it reaches a virtual -3.0. Now you decide it's a good time to start betting for regression. When you place your next wager what is the SD? Is it -2.0 or -3.0?

Quote from: Pockets on December 22, 2013, 08:14:13 AM
It is dependent on only the outcome from the wheel.

This is the point I would like to stress: it is dependent on the outcome of your wager. Where there is no wager, the outcome from the wheel is irrelevant.

Turner,

I am sure we can agree that virtual play is some kind of way of avoiding variance or simply just skipping spins until there is some sort of trigger or condition that's perceived to hold an advantage. It's an erroneous approach. It is, in short, gambler's fallacy. No matter how complex the bet selection might seem to be, it's essentially the same as betting black after 3 or 4 reds, or a virtual trot of similar deviation. In that case the probability of winning on black is still .486. If that was not true, we could all make millions and play with 95% edges. No maths applies to that, or any, virtual trot. In order for the maths to apply, there has to be a wager. The house edge cannot be avoided by not betting. With no bet, you take it, and yourself, out of the game. It's important not to overanalyse this or think of it in some complicated context.

I'm not sure I could explain it any more than saying that where there is no bet there is no probability of winning or losing. How can a virtual bet have an affect on anything: future results or your bankroll? It can't. It doesn't change anything, it makes no difference.

If that doesn't explain it, feel free to specify why or why you think the maths can apply to a non-wager.