Interesting application of future modelling at NATO:

http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-073///MP-073-$$ALL.pdf

I like this "multi-path" approach with the concept of "Proximity" (as in how close the predicted result matches).

Of course, first impression is it can be used to model the physical device. Yet since we have a short-circuited scenario in the numerical game itself, proximity could possibly be related to the raw numerical value too. Or to pocket distance should we order the numbers on a disc and model that.

It's an open field at this stage.

Very interesting thread. Equating "roulette thinking" with linear thinking is certainly how the bulk of players tend to approach it.

X number spins Z

10 reds, it must spin Black now.

---

Quote
Linear Thinking
Definition: a process of thought following known cycles or step-by-step progression where a response to a step must be elicited before another step is taken.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/linear+thinking

This is exactly how trigger-based games approach the numerical stream.

- This triggers that.
- That triggers such.
- Such triggers this again.

It is spot-on to think we must get out of stiff linear thinking as it has been proven not to work. In this case we could lean to be more like an "analytic engine".

I like the concept of "future modelling" since it equates what's happening to one of many possible models. Keeping it malleable. Switching models as reality approaches one with bigger accuracy.

This might be one way of leaving trigger-based methods, but -sadly- the Future Modelling field hasn't touched paths with gambling seriously enough in the academia. One might say because the odds are fixed and it is accepted everything which could have been said about a fixed-odds game is thought to have already been discovered/debated.

It's been used mostly in such scopes as the engineering and climate fields:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change_on_humans#Future_modelling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modeling_and_simulation#Academic_Modeling_and_Simulation_Programs

Of course, if we were to model possible futures for a random stream of roulette numbers, we would need to leave a number of possibilities out. More like matching a fraction of possible paths rather than the whole; if not due to the sheer amount of processing power required to account for all futures/paths, due to accounting for the nature of the game, where you can't eliminate with a 100% level of confidence the possibility of losing, you can only aim at increasing your chances to win.

I find the phenomenon interesting too.


Indeed: playing martingale continuously the whole month on the same roulette every single day gives you 100% guarantee to be there betting when Martingale's run from hell appears.


Playing martingale among many methods, using it -perhaps- one or two times in the month, puts you in a position of at least having a shot at skipipng them. Guarantees? none; but it brings into "the realm of the possible" to out-sit Martingale's shitty runs, while betting it continuously guarantees with 100% certainty you will hit the run from hell, keeping it in the realm of the impossible.


In this game, everything that's possible to happen will happen. This means some players will in fact out-sit spins with the run from hell with this technique, and they'll think they got the grail . You can't tell a winner what he just cashed-in from the casino this year isn't real.


Reminds me of the "first spins from the wheel" thinking.


Which states if you play only the first spins when they open a wheel, randomly, you will have a better chance of success. Because all long runs from hell happen in the middle or well-entered in the game 


You can check this at wiesbaden's online archive. Like any other player belief, mathematically, we know how's it labelled like  .

Quote from: TwoCatSam on March 08, 2013, 12:38:28 AM
what--exactly--did you give us?

He brought "system randomization" to the fore.

A valid technique as any other.

Math-wise the odds are set in stone, and every unit won is scheduled to be lost "somewhere in the future". Even if system randomization allows to give some players more time in between total wipe-out, it still can have merit. Who knows? maybe the player is smart and doesn't give it all back

The casino can't get back what you don't put into game. Now, what's the best method or combination of methods to maximize one's chances to make system randomization effective, at least at the beginning? That's undetermined. Each player has a different liking for their favorite methods, and it makes all the difference (...or perhaps the opposite, depending if you ask a mathematician or not).

I reckon this randomization way a "principle", not a fixed technique per se.

Thanks TC.


Very appreciated! 

Ideally your method is one with a strong "spring-back value". This is, the method's ability to bounce back from deficit to plus.


If you want to have the best "spring-back shot" for the least invested money I'd advice to use reversed progressions.


I'm sure some may have this already figured, but for most this is new territory -including myself-; perhaps Bayes may help math-wise regarding maximizing the chance for reinvestments of recovered units to effectively "patching" the bank.


Knock his door, he's known to be open and willing to help

Hugo Chávez, president of Venezuela, dies in Caracas
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/05/hugo-chavez-dies-cuba

As far your "casino friend" is concerned, your proxy friend doesn't exist. But I wouldn't advice you to tell them 


The bankroll back can make a difference. Having a % of your bankroll back assists in giving more cushion against "Risk of Ruin", this is, the point of total wipeout is placed father behind as lost money is put back into game again. This can be crucial to assist in high fluctuation times. Assuming your game is solid, this recovered % gives more room for fluctuation and a "bounce-back" to bankroll's good health.

Quote from: esoito on March 04, 2013, 10:23:46 PMWhat is it that underpins trends in this instance?  What is the X-Factor at work?

As the game of Roulette is in principle Chaotic (not random), under such light the X-factor has been named "attractor" (see Basin of Attraction):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basin_of_attraction

Basically, we don't deal with unbound variables, but we can't exactly underpin their swaying.

If the game were truly random there wouldn't be anything particularly expected out of it. We say Roulette is a chaotic system because even as knowing its configuration on a given moment doesn't enable you to predict its future state, the movement of the values is not entirely random; they tend toward certain values which keep an established trajectory. Attractors are responsible for keeping variables tending towards their established trajectory (this is what we call trends, the clumping can be seen as a "correction"). Even so, we can't predict the several oscillations of values  which variables might have when transversing the path established by the attractors.

Such a Chaotic system is advantageous to the house since while the overall values are already known, the variations in the ebb and flow to get there are not. The house is not unintelligent to put their money on truly unbound random. This is the big confusion regarding the "limits of random". "Random" does NOT has limits, Chaotic systems do because of attractors.

---

Player-wise, correction points can be seen as the few points for the player to exploit (correction). As well as the random walks which will be scheduled to be corrected at a later time (positive trending).

Vic

Good idea Chris,


Yet by the sample you can really know where it's leaning eh!

Even if only to do it as a "safety net" for yourself it looks appealing.

Of course, hypothetically... I'm not saying one should do it. In any case, I can see such scenario as:

Step 1: Register as an affiliate (so the checks are in your name).

Step 2: Fund and use a friend of you as a "Gaming Proxy". Use his computer remotely.

Step 3: If you win, you get 100% via the proxy player's account. If you lose, you get a % of your losses back as your commission.

It would be Casino Number Reader + Tracker with alarm. (LoL, as far as I know there's no official name for it. We use clicker for a program that clicks, so maybe "alarmer" )

Your best bet right now is contacting Stef/Nick; or Maybe Superman can make a space for you? I'm out of the private coding scene for personal reasons ... Hey! Talk to the fellows. Coders are generally good folk.

It shouldn't be harder than using 75% of a bot (number reader, tracker) and making it play an MP3/WAV sound instead of the last stage (clicking).

Hope you get your idea implemented at an affordable price.

Cheers!
Vic

Quote from: esoito on February 25, 2013, 04:04:10 AM
Why has this discussion morphed into bonuses??

The thread started with a proposal regarding affiliates.

Fair questioning; the thread has been split.

Dublinbet isn't fond of professional players or bonus baggers.

Read item #7 from their bonus terms: http://www.dublinbet.com/help/bonus_terms.html

QuoteBonuses offered by dublinbet are intended for genuine recreational players only. Abuse of the bonus offer will not be tolerated. dublinbet reserves the right to investigate, cancel, suspend or lock any account if bonus abuse is suspected. At our discretion, all bonuses and subsequent gaming activity may be revoked and voided, and deposits returned. Professional players or players we determine to be abusing the bonus offers may face additional restrictions and/or lockouts. Limit one bonus per household.

Well, at least they acknowledge there are PRO's

Quote from: albalaha on February 24, 2013, 05:44:33 AM
How do u count distance? clockwise or anticlockwise?

At your choice.


It's just a matter of subtracting the lower number from the higher to get the distance.

Quote from: ignatus on February 24, 2013, 02:21:19 PM
Interesting. What are your results playing this?

This is merely an aid for manual tracking. The actual method as per the player's choice