A few people asked me why I decided to play multiple methods. For those who asked me and for those who will ask, read the first post from esoito over and over again. I am flapping my wings as esoito said I should. I am flying still and hope will be able to for some more time.

The first thing I read when I joined was reading the useful newcomers post from esoito in the new comers' lounge. Then I decided to go through each one of his posts and I landed on this one. I took it as the first advice and started to base my play based on this. As you have seen, its working so far, but since then my thought process has also evolved based on inputs from others. But I am still sticking to this for online play, as I better not fix something that's not broken isn't it

Congrats Sumit. May be you can also share how you are doing it, so that others can learn from it.

Thanks Chris. It is actually +48 as I was playing 0.5 chips
I was playing with +50/-50u target. So at anypoint in time if I was -50u after the spin, I would have/should have ideally quit to avoid getting into a deep hole. I don't think I went below -50u at the end of any spin. If I have, it might be because it was late in the night and I can take all of Sam's and my own beating for doing a mistake.

-Yanks.

Quote from: Turner on August 07, 2013, 06:55:40 AM
But a line is just one combination of 6 numbers that can exist in 37.
So 123456 is special and 123457 is completly different until I get to 7,8,9,10,11,12
Then its special again.?

Yes, line is one combination of 6 numbers that can exist in 37. Consider the example that you just gave. When you take 123456 as a line and you get sleepers 123457. In the analysis that Poit has provided over 12Mn spins, when 123457 appears as sleepers, even though they are 6 numbers will not be considered for analysis when he says a line sleeps because his boundary of 6 numbers is natural lines.

The difference is whether you are predefining this set of 6 or not. If you are predefining, it could either be a natural line or a combination of any set of 6 numbers (like 0, 1, 12, 23, 24, 35), they will have a lesser probability of sleeping over a set of spins than any 6 numbers. Defining the boundaries while tracking is the key differentiation. Relook at the Head, tail example that I gave. Either head or tail is an outcome. But the probabilities vary when you want head to sleep rather than either head or tail to sleep.

Hope I am able to convey what I am thinking. If am not, is there anyone who gets what am saying. Let me know if am blabbering as that might well be the case

It is more prudent to test my own way of playing against the random "Where" bet selection instead of a pre-defined bet selection. See where we got to.

WMCap

[smiley]skype/rofl.gif[/smiley]

Quote from: Turner on August 06, 2013, 10:24:04 PM
Now the confusion to me isn't why I am seeing 6 numbers (which a line simply is) showing 105...higher than the 12 mill data, but why i am seeing them readily without looking extensively.

I think the answer is because you are treating 6 numbers as line. They are not the same. Let me try explaining it with an example.

You flip a coin twice. The probability of Head sleeping is less than the probability of either head or tail sleeping over two spins.

Look into the detail. The possible outcomes of two flips are:

Head Tail
Tail Head
Tail Tail
Head Head

So if you want to find a predefined outcome (Head) not occurring for 2 flips, it is 1/4. The probability of an outcome (either head or tail) not occurring for 2 flips is 2/4.

This is essentially the difference between choosing a pre-defined set of 6 numbers (a line) sleeping over a set of spins and any 6 numbers sleeping over a set of spins. You will find that any 6 numbers can sleep over a larger set of spins than a pre-defined set of 6 numbers. [smiley]aes/devil.png[/smiley]

Quote from: TwoCatSam on August 06, 2013, 05:12:09 PM
Yanks

I deleted it myself.

Until Victor cleans this forum up a bit, I find very little need to post anything. 

Sam

Sure Sam. But it is a very interesting thought process and I was hoping to listen more on what people have to say. This is the exact thought process behind me starting the random thoughts thread. Vic, you better listen to Sam [smiley]aes/vampire.png[/smiley]


The very definition of random is "Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard". This very explanation says that random does not do anything on purpose. Is it the weakness of random? I am inclined towards the opinion that this is the strength of randomness.

Several important techniques in science are based on this strength of purposelessness (is it a word?) to the core. Funnily enough they are named based on gambling heavens. Eg. Monte carlo method - Not another roulette system, but name given to a set of algorithms relying on random samplings. Another example is las vegas algorithm

Trying to predict random and finding its weaknesses is not new. Our life is random. For ages we have tried predicting the future/fate/randomness through divination techniques. In India, I have seen people throwing dice even now to tell what is one's fate. In other places it is common to draw a tarot card to predict random fate.

Also, there is a significant difference between randomness and unpredictability. If you carefully observe the explanation again, you can figure out that it never talks about unpredictability. Random implies a certain state of uncertainity which is very  different from unpredictability. People who believe in this theory feel that there is a weakness and try to attack it using expected value algorithms. There is another section that believes there is no randomness and only unpredictability. Then comes the concept of true randomness generated by roulette wheels and pseudo randomness from RNG to confuse it even further. 

Randomness is a ocean or probably infinite times bigger. It is easy to play around with words. But it is very difficult to grasp the concept and even after nearly two and half decades of my existance I don't know what it means. that's why this blabbering and random thought. What looks like random to me might not look random to you. Simple example - Chinese language might look random to me with classic regularities in between,but not for chinese.

Monty hall problem summarizes the relationship of this indirectly to how we play roulette. Three doors. Two having goats and one having car. Objective is to win the car by predicting the door when opened contains the car. All doors are closed. You predict one. A different door opens with a goat in it. You are being asked to reconsider your options. Will switching give you a benefit? Well its still being discussed for ages. Same applies for this discussion as well. This will be discussed for ages and zillions of years to come!

Bayes, did you accidentally deleted Sam's topic Its not there anymore. Another causeless effect[smiley]aes/thinking.png[/smiley][smiley]aes/vicious.png[/smiley]

Thanks Bayes for clearing it up. Just relooking at the example, realized that there was an error. Apologies if I confused anyone, but I think it validated my position on the learning that I mentioned earlier in the post.

Very interesting Turner. As you know, I was reading Brett Morton recently around the same time when you read it . When he plays against the wheel his worst fear was "Today is going to be the world record breaking day of 22 straight reds". In fact he is playing for a sleeping EC when he plays against the wheel.

Few weeks back I was advised by a fellow member to see how playing black after 10 reds in a row or playing red after 10 blacks in a row was performing. I tested it and figured out that it was performing much better than playing against the last EC every spin. I tested for 10Mn spins and it was performing absolutely wonderful. The variance was under control.

Then I started looking deep. I figured out that if we just calculate the % wins on placed bets, it was no different.  I stress placed bets, because if you play every spin over 10Mn spins you would have placed 10Mn bets. But if you adopt the second approach of placing a bet after 10 straight ECs, then you would have placed 100,000 bets or so. So if you compare apples to apples, its the same variance. Hope I have not confused anyone. 

I think one more question that crossed my mind is what is the optimum that you should look for. I am thinking may be a line may not sleep 85 times for every session you play. Do you have any views Turner on how frequent this appeared on your tests? I mean out of lets say 10 sets of 85 spins, how many of them had a line sleeping for 85 spins.. In my tests I figured out that 5 numbers sleeping for 85 is very common but not 6.

I also did another test of randomly picking up a line, lets say line 1 and run it through a few sessions of permanenzen. You usually get a hit within the first 10 spins, but I might be biased. Worth a thought
- Yanks

It couldn't get clearer than this.

@ Dane, Let me try explaining in simple language my understanding of things without confusing on heavy mathematical principles.

You flip a coin. There are two possible options Head or tail. The chance of a head coming is 1/2.

Now lets get a bit complex. You have 3 bags. 1 bag having 2 red balls. 1 bag having 3 red balls. 1 bag having 5 black balls. Assuming that you are picking a whole bag, the chance of picking a red ball is 2/3. However you throw all these balls on to a box and pick one, then the chance of picking a red ball is 5/10 or 1/2. Hope you get the difference.

Assume that the balls are straight-ups. The bags are streets. Then you will be able to get the corollary on why it is 12/13 and not 34/37. I can get into some complex terminologies, but I think it is better understandable and better practiced, if we take a simplistic common sense based approach.


On doing the formula for sleepers, you are trying to find a formula for identifying a sleeper street for lets say 100 spins. Now if you are using 34/37 then what you are assuming is 3 numbers out of 37 is sleeping for 100 spins. Lets take a simple example. Lets assume that the sleepers for 100 spins are 5 numbers 1, 7, 22, 23 and 24. Now there is only 1 sleeping street but there are 5 sleeping numbers. So that immediately breaks away the fundamental reason of chosing 34/37. Hope you are getting what I am saying.


I am a newbie when it comes to roulette. But when it comes to statistics, I can safely say that I have better than average knowledge 

Quote from: BrenoGarcia on August 01, 2013, 01:00:40 PM

Priyanka, if I have a double loss, the next bet is the same as the last, is not it? If I have a third,  fourth loss (Ex: L (-) A (-) A (-)  L or A?()) The fourth betting continues A until I win or reach the Stop / Loss?

For - loss
Against - loss. Double loss, next bet is same as last.
Against - loss
For - loss. Double loss, next bet is same as last.
For - W/L

Quote from: Dane on August 01, 2013, 04:41:03 PM
So you are not going to produce a video with your  mother´s break dance?
Inspired by Prianka´s  "speedy" videos I can tell you that I am able to shoot faster than John Wayne.
The reason is simple: John Wayne is dead .
But now I grab my cheap electronic calculator to find the probability,  that one chosen street at one roulette table does not turn up in 111 spins:
(34/37)^111 = 0.00008390123. It is rather close to 1/33/360.  So if we observed 111 spins 360 nights a year, we should expect it to happen  approx. every 33Th year.
                                                                                                         Dane

Dane, the electronic calculator is right. But you might want to relook your formula.



Sam taught me an important lesson.  When a dozen hits it takes twelve buddies. When a line hits it takes 6 buddies. When a street hits it takes 3 buddies. So you might want to use 12/13 instead of 34/37.  Hope am not making a mistake here.