Quote from: Bayes

I have to say that I DO look on it with disbelief. Why doesn't the maths apply to a virtual bet? In any case, it would be no great hardship even if it were true, because you could simply bet the minimum while waiting for the "trigger".

Where there is no bet there is no probabilility of winning or losing, and there is no expected value. How can it be different? How can a virtual bet make any difference at all? It's a total fallacy. Yeah bet the minimum until there is some kind of trigger, up the bet size when the system is in play. All the maths applies only in relation to one's wagers and bankroll.

I'd be interested to know why you think virtual play holds any credence.

Quote from: Big Ez

You said getting the average of the losing run will only tell you exactly that.  But that in itself could be used to help strengthen the MM side of things don't you think?

This is no zero, right? The z-score is 3.8. It's great; the problem is, if your results are hand tested they are open to corruption due to personal bias - it can happen subconsciously. Can you simulate your bet? It would be interesting to see the results of 10,000 placed and even if the 2,000 you have tested tally.

Knowing the average might be useful for academic purposes, but formulating MM around that average will increase your risk of ruin. You have to know that you can bet through the worst deviation; the average won't help with that. But if your results are unbiased you actually don't need any MM. You can compound your winnings flat betting with some % increments. I wouldn't use any progression, or at worst increase your wagers slightly as you come out of a drawdown. If there is an edge the longer you play the more you win.

Quote from: monaco

A problem in a live casino for sure, but software can overcome that online. I use Bayes' software which helps a lot, but I almost can't imagine any way you could play this way in a real casino.

I agree, it is not suitable to play manually, at least not without some kind of tracker. Automation would be even better, if it was worth investing in.

Quote from: monaco
I see the distinction between 2 separate SD's (your virtual and real) - you are saying they are mutually exclusive, one having no impact on the other?

Only one of the SDs is exclusive: to its own existence in relation to your bet. The other one does not exist at all, it's just an illusion, therefore it can have no bearing on the future. It may not seem like a valid point to you, it depends on what you want to believe or what your own experience might tell you, but the SD and probabilities really do only apply to the results of outcomes where real money is wagered. If you stop betting at -1.5 SDs, when you begin again, at any point, the SD is still -1.5.

Quote from: monaco
Out of interest, do you agree with my point that where an SD (virtual or real) hits -3.0, it is more likely to decrease than carry on increasing?

Virtual, no; there is still a 50/50 chance it will go either way. Real, yes; it is more likely to decrease. But again the problem remains: how long will it take? And also, if you reach -3.0 SDs, where have you measured it from? Is it from the first ever wager you placed, or would you choose to measure it from constantly moving points? The overall SD for, say, red across 250 spins maybe -3.0, but for the last 50 spins it may be something else; which may suggest a flaw in your selection criteria.

This isn't a great example but it leads to the point: is it better to define an optimum distance between points of, say, 50 spins, and change your bet every 50 spins according to the last 50? Would that make a difference than just looking at the bigger picture? Is it even better to look at the bigger picture, combined with smaller pictures, compare them and then make a selection? These are the things that need to be defined using regression as the main example. Does anything make a difference?

Quote from: monaco
I find it hard to see how you can disagree with my statement

"No it doesn't" meant, sure, it doesn't know you are not betting, not that regression will not act itself out. But in relation to your wagers, no it does not happen if you are not betting. There is no expected value, and no maths applies to a virtual bet. You might look upon that with disbelief, logically it should make sense, but on another note maybe you have to actually see it to believe it.

It is exactly the same fallacious approach as waiting for 5 reds and then betting black. The probability of winning is still .486.

Quote from: monaco
Yes, I believe they are, that's what rtm states.. 1st 200 spins, 65/135 (extreme Event A), we know (Event B) next 200 spins are more likely to be closer to the average..

No bets, no SD! When I have some free time, we could use this example scenario and run a sim of a few trials to see what happens.

Quote from: monaco
People like yourself whose opinion I respect all seem to say no!

Well, if you ask me there are some conditional situations that are effective.

Quote from: Big EZ on December 19, 2013, 01:33:33 PM
So tracking your worst losing runs to get the average doesn't give you any insight in the variance?

I'm currently working on something, here are the stats. Could you tell me if you think I have the variance under control?

1000 total placed bets
536 wins
Longest losses 8 in a row once
Average losing run is 3.6

If you look at an average, you can only ever get an average picture that ends up halfway between best and worst; that can still lead to ruin. It's best to know the single instance of the worst possible variance and how long it lasts, then you can make sure you have enough money to outlast it. 8 losses is OK, but if it's 8 losses, 1 winner, then another 8 losses, that's something else. They are nice results, probably you should test another 1000 and see if you can match them.

Quote from: monaco
Regression to the mean is already proven beyond all doubt isn't it?  There aren't any question marks still hanging over it as a real phenomenon are there?

Yes, it is a normal behaviour of statistics, we know the outcomes will slide up and down from the mean all the time. I'm not so much saying RTM has to be defined, but rather, it has to be put into context so you can predict it more accurately in real time. Going back to the example of cycles of outomes constantly overlapping, by that logic, RTM has to be measured from constantly moving points in time. Analysing 100,000 spins is pretty pointless for RTM, we know it will happen, and even begin all over again in such a long sample. But how is RTM behaving between spin 20 and spin 250? What is happening between spin 5000 and spin 5729? There is a "trot" within a trot, and a trot within that, and a trot within that, there are as many or as few trots as you want, the shortest trot being one outcome. Does this make any difference to the bigger picture? The bigger the picture, the more diluted the premise becomes, until such a point that using it makes no difference to a random selection.

Quote from: monaco
but you are in position where you know it is more likely to continue in that way

Yes, but only if you have kept betting through everything, even negative variance. Only then do things like probability and standard deviation apply to your wagers. If there are no bets there is no expected value, and thus there can be no variance. You can't jump in and out of random outcomes and expect to ride the big upswings and avoid the downswings. The variance just stops when your wagers stop, and begins again when your wagers do. At that point, on the ECs, variance has a 1 in 2 chance of going either up or down. For example if you reached -2.0 SDs you might choose to stop betting, and begin again when the "virtual" SD is -3.0. The virtual SD is exactly that: an illusion. When you jump back in at -3.0 and expect it to regress, the real SD is still only -2.0.

Quote from: monaco
Is this not one of the crux's of the matter here – the variance isn't as likely to continue getting worse, it's more likely (those words again) to get closer to the average. That's the heart of rtm.

Same principle applies, you have to continue betting through everything, every spin, only then does "likely" and "unlikely" really mean anything. The problem then becomes, do you have a big enough bankroll to last through these dry patches?

Quote from: monaco
But in this sense, rtm doesn't know if you are making real money wagers or not – it will act itself out whether you are betting or not.

No it doesn't. But we can agree to disagree. The casino certainly knows, though, when you stop paying them tax. And where there is no wager, there is no probability of winning or losing, and hence no expected value. That skipped outcome can have no impact on you or your future. Bear in mind that mostly RTM is observed after the fact, in real time you can't really tell what is happening unless you have defined all parameters and proved them to yourself. I mean, there may be cases where you reach a scenario in which you're confident some regression will happen over, say, the next 50 spins, which will allow you to profit nicely. This is where putting things into context matters, including other popular ideas like hot numbers.

Quote from: monaco
I know that the next 200 spins are more likely to be closer to the average

Are they? Regression can happen over thousands and thousands of spins in total. And that is the one biggest problem with it, and what mainly makes it uneconomical in terms of both time and money. Plus, when you jump in at spin 201 and begin betting, there is no SD. Virtual tracking in this form is a fallacy.

Quote from: monaco
I would also guess that some kind of negative progression would be needed.

If you know when to play, positive would be better, do you think? It would keep you in the game longer and give a better chance of reaching the upswing. When you are losing, it's probably best to lose as little as possible.

Quote from: monaco
Here are 2 things – outcomes & cycles – different descriptions that can be applied to the same game. So you can look at individual outcomes, and you can look at individual outcomes as sets of individual outcomes - light described as both a wave and particle type premise; so does looking at the cycles, or sets, have any less validity than the individual outcomes?

Yes, it's pretty much spot on. As for validity, I couldn't possibly go into that. The concept of cycles of outcomes constantly overlapping suggests it is not valid at all, since the implication is that every outcome is totally independent. With that in mind, everything you do can only ever be defined as being random, unless is can be proved to make an actual difference.

Quote from: monaco on December 18, 2013, 02:07:38 PM
Does true independence have to exclude all definitions of knowledge of future facts?

The thing is, we aren't dealing with facts. They are observations, which lead to some kind of prediction about future events. You can define regression to the mean in your own way, there is no wrong or right answer; but it involves proving the premise beyond all doubt, and in a way that makes it economical to play.

It's not like regression just does not exist. You may have some sucess defining the event after the fact, but what you can't define, though, is its behaviour in real time. It may seem to be happening at a certain point, but how do you know it will continue in that way? The variance is just as likely to get worse at any point as it is to get better. For that reason you can't jump in at -3SDs and begin betting for regression from there. That's a fallacy. The house edge only applies to real money wagers. It's also impossible to bet through that degree of variance from the start. Even flat betting you would go bust in no time.

Which leads us back to a conclusion: regression to the mean is no different from a random selection. You seem to appreciate that; it is fallacious because it involves skipping spins and sitting out a portion of the game until "favourable" conditions appear. Once you step into the game the SD is 0 because you haven't even placed a bet yet. Most triggers are based on that same premise, and they are ineffective.

Quote from: monaco on December 18, 2013, 02:07:38 PM

Is it not an advantage to know that the next set of x spins is more likely to be closer to the average? So future questions could be how to take advantage of it, thinking in terms of 'the next x spins'. 'What is the best value of x?' etc.

For sure, I agree. If you can prove it.

Quote from: monaco on December 18, 2013, 02:07:38 PM

In my mind, aiming for lower variance (or I should say lower volatility), this would also imply lowering positive variance, as I don't imagine it would be possible to lower one side of the equation without affecting the other..

True. The variance would be much tighter than a random selection. You wouldn't even have to worry about that. More likely you would be busy compounding your profits exponentially with some kind of % betting.

Quote from: monaco on December 18, 2013, 02:07:38 PM

Are all triggers naturally fallacious? Are there any types that aren't?

Everything has to be defined and proved, that is the first step in making connections between seemingly random outcomes; past observations and future events. The premise of why a bet is different from a random selection has to be real. For example let's say you play in cycles of 37 spins. The cycle has to be defined and proved to be real rather than an illusion.

But consider: every outcome you record begins a new cycle, ends a cycle and forms part of every cycle in between. Outcome 1 begins Cycle 1, Outcome 2 begins Cycle 2 and is the second outcome of Cycle 1, Outcome 3 begins Cycle 3 and is the second outcome of Cycle 2 and the third outcome of Cycle 1. This goes on for ever and ever, in a constant state of overlapping. For that reason, on the surface, a cycle can only ever consist of one spin: the next spin.

So if you define a cycle of spins, how do you know it's making a difference. How do you know you're in it? Once the illusory nature of the game is past, you can argue that noting you do is a fallacy.

Yes, Monaco, these are all interesting questions.

Mostly the answers come down to personal interpretations and definitions. The problem is that if true independence exists between random outcomes then nothing can be defined until after the fact, and so even mathematical values cannot be counted on; they only apply to that single sample you tested (and even then the value applies from only two STATIC single points: A to B, where A and B could both be part of an even larger sample). The key lies in replicating these results time and again using the same logic. If results do not tally, then it can be concluded that there is no difference between that bet and a random selection.

As for lowering the variance in relation to the edge, techincally yes, they are connected of course. Where you play in a state of low variance, you are actually at or reducing the house edge, or even gaining an edge. The bigger the edge, the lower the variance. Unfortunately, mostly any positive variance is simply due to luck. The variance can actually be calculated for each bet and if you can consistently play in that low variance state, yes you could also win long term without an edge while using a soft progression. The drawdowns would still be big though, huge even; you would need a big BR to get through them and be prepared to sit many hours at the wheel to get to a new high. Not everyone has the stones for that. In fact even with a edge, it's still possible to go bust in some circsumstances (due to unforseen volatility). With perfect expectation you should win 1 in every 2 ECs, with a loss every now and then on green. The variance comes into play when the gaps between winners gets longer, and sometimes consistently remain unusually long for hundreds or thousands of spins.

The more you play the more likely you are to encounter worse-than-before variance. There is no low level or high level, you can just never test enough to find them, it's like trying to reach the edge of the universe (if you believe that the universe expands faster than you could ever travel). But if you have an edge or a bet that even reduces the edge in some way then the worst variance would be much lighter than a random selection for sure. All random selections would, on the other hand, be identical.

As a sidenote, nothing can be gained from using fallacious triggers based on previous EC patterns (not saying you're doing that). But if you want my advice and you're still looking for a solution, you're best to look at straight up numbers, that is what the game is after all. All the other bets are just there for convenience. Becoming au fait with the individual numbers may open up a new world where conditional situations can be proved to be effective.

Monaco, good questions.

Variance can be quantified by mathematical formula, from there you take the square root and ascertain the standard deviation, which is usually more understandable than the variance. I mean, the value means nothing unless it can be interpreted and/or compared to some other benchmark. You are best off using just the SD or even the z-score (how many SDs above the mean), to self-interpret the so-called variance (rather than the variance itself).

There is a z-score excel calculator somewhere here on the forum. An SD or z-score of 3.0 is considered rare, therefore the probability of achieving that result by luck alone is remote. It's worth bearing in mind that I am talking about flat betting here, otherwise the z-score will always fall within normality, whether is it negative or positive. Where there is an edge, the z-score, like your bankroll, should always keep rising.

As ever, much is open to your own criteria. For example, to be sure whatever value is accurate, you really do need to have the results of many many placed bets, or keep testing until you reach a z-score of 3.0+ with level wagers. Also, you cannot trust the results of manual hand testing (if you're doing that). In these cases there is psychological and emotional bias in play, thus the results are open to deadly corruption and a large margin of error which is capable of accounting for a false edge.

If you're looking for your worst losing streak, the results would have to be dissected bit by bit and each trot of variable length to be analysed in order to find the driest area of the system (this might not simply be the most number of consecutive losers). Once you have a z-score for that you will know what your worst variance is. If there's an edge the variance should be negligable and should not so much as even dent the overall return.

The largest drawdown is something else. In that case, you're looking at the volatility of the bet i.e. how adversely the bet's losing streaks affect your bankroll (in short, how much you need to get through the bad times).

Every aspect of roulette has to be defined in some way, if only to one's self. It's difficult when you're dealing with random outcomes. The only things that seem real are what you see; mostly the key lies in defining what you can observe, and these things are selective to individual knowledge and brain power. Many "philosophies" are illusions that don't actually exist.

The concept of hit and run is one such idea. Randomness does not allow someone to hit and run repeatedly. The game is random when you play, it carries on being random when you stop, and is random when you play again. Therefore every single spin (or actually, wager) is just part of one long game. Randomness does not care if you take a three day break between games, or play two sessions in different casinos on opposite sides of the world. Hit and run is simply a fallacy for those who have the fear of losing.

Pattern betting is another illusion. Every outcome is random, so nothing can be defined as being anything but random until after the fact, whether it's a single spin or a series of spins. You can't bet on a pattern, because as soon as you place a wager, the pattern you think you see ends.

Tracking and virtual wins and losses is another illusion. It does not alter the state of affairs,I.e. it does not change probability. Probability only applies to spins on which real money is wagered. Where there is no wager, there is zero chance of winning or losing. You can't circumvent the house edge by tricking it and not placing a wager. It stops existing when you stop betting, and exists when you begin again.

Quote from: TwoCatSam on December 10, 2013, 03:46:10 AM
MBB

Are you saying:  "Hypothetically I did x, y and z.", or are you saying you have actually done this? 

I read you saying you have never left the table a loser in 20 years.  Are you making that as a factual statement?

Just curious.....

Sam

Similarly, how does someone know when to leave the table? The session is tough so they stop. But that doesn't mean the next session is not going to begin tough, and how long you sit out is irrelevant. Roulette is a game of life. When you're in it, you're in it for ever, and variance follows you around everywhere; it stops when you stop and starts when you start. It's like having a monkey sitting on your shoulder all the time. Sometimes it will gently massage your head or give you a cuddle. Often it will stuff down your back. Occasionally it may bite you in the neck. For some people it might just rip out their jugular.

Anything that considers past outcomes could be coded. Where there is logic there can be replication.

As for Albalah's test, it's a large sample but the results are still random, you can see that by looking at the graph. There are some contradictions in his claims, I'm not convinced they are worth understanding, especially if I have to pay 19.99. Besides, I really need to stock up on toilet roll for Christmas. I doubt one PDF will be enough.

Quote from: Pockets on December 09, 2013, 04:39:36 PM
What might matter to you is what I want to show you next. Number Six, you probably will have to take more than 7-8 incarnations before getting light years of distance closer to me.

Sure, it will be my life's work anyway.

Quote from: Albalaha on December 09, 2013, 01:10:10 PM
           It will take your life to get any closer to me and do not get frustrate by this crude fact.

It would be easy to add some credence to your reputation by undergoing a public test. The test can be set up in such a way to preserve anonymity of any bet selection.

Distribution conforms to probability in the long run; how you define that is up to you. People always complain that they don't' know what it means. In my opinion, the long run isn't any set amout of bets or spins, the long run is simply when any edge (positive or negative) is stabilised. Allowing for slight fluctuation, up and down, once the edge is in play it doesn't really change much from that point on. The longer you play the more minute the changes become, but any downturn can be felt pretty hard.

The simple truth is, without an understanding of maths, there really is little chance. Or at least, you cannot become a more accomplished player without understanding what underpins the game's concept. There's no way of knowing what has merit, what has been deemed a failure and why, and when you're on to a good thing. In the end people get stuck on pointless tracking and nonsense triggers.

That being said, probability in shorter term games does not conform to expectation, hardly ever. In certain areas of the game perhaps it's possible to make your own rules which allow for more accurate guessing.

But, the numbers are irrelevant, right?

There's no reason those groups will hit at a rate equivalent to a 7% edge (which by the way on a 00 wheel is enormous; claiming such is really something. Is there any data in the book that backs this up?). It's all about the trigger, so it can be logically played with any groups of 12 numbers. It still remains inconceivable in my eyes that this bet selection has any legs at all. Good luck with the tests, though.

Quote from: Sputnik on November 21, 2013, 07:45:07 AM
Reason:
One reason is hot numbers or bias numbers or the tendency of fluctuation favoring certain numbers.
Numbers seems to come in clustering periodicity - waves - and the optimal window is 5 or 6 ...

Are you talking about physical bias or probability?

It's a tendency to look at repeaters within a set of spins. 37 is popular for law of the third. The set can be any amount of spins long, it doesn't really matter. Mathematically, in a single dimension, a set or cycle of spins can only actually consist of one spin, but that's not the issue. A cycle of spins can be determined for convenience and help to establish benchmarks. In a set of 37 spins, the probability of repeat numbers obviously cascades from the top. Outcome one is most likely to repeat than any other, for example. This goes without saying.

It is difficult, though, to predict when. I'm not sure about your concept of "periodicity". When a number repeats should actually conform to probability. Example, outcome one has a 2.7% probability of repeating on spin 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc... Proving otherwise leads to the great of greats - a true mathematical edge. This is probably why most people fall down on playing repeat numbers. The triggers seem to lack logic.

There are also cutoffs throughout any cycle, which makes the bet selection complicated. For example there comes a time when, say, outcome 1 has a higher probability of hitting for a third time, than outcome 21 does for hitting a second time. This means it is sometimes better to play numbers further back in the cycle than, say, sticking to the last 5 or the last 12.

I like this section, I'm sure it could help to filter out real material from useless literature, and I am more than sure that this book belongs in the latter category. In fact, probably many about "gambling" do, since they are not educational.

And about this particular bet; at what point does a mindless claim like a 7% edge become false advertising? It's just another system to be played for fun at one's own risk. In fact, claiming a 7% edge with this bet is criminal.

I see what your challenge is but for me, that would be a fruitless exercise. It wouldn't achieve anything because as you say there are billions of permutations, one progression will not beat all of them.

I have replied to you on the assumption that you're betting one number, maybe the same number, I could be wrong, it doesn't really matter, if the bet selection is capable of reaching beyond -3 SDs, I don't think it really warrants further review. That type of fluctuation is too wild, and spread over many hundreds or thousands of spins it will lead to financial ruin. Time would be better spent find a way to play in a consistent state of lower variance.