Who's going to be in LV next week?

Regarding Turner's "personal permanence" and a little different view:

Playing the game changes the game.

Contrary to what many people believe, the numbers that hit are not predetermined and laid out to infinity.  This means that if you're away from the table when your number hits, that the same number may not have hit had you stayed and played. 

Here's why:

Had to you stayed and played, the dealer would have had to wait for you to place your bet.  This means that the rotor may have slowed down a little bit more than it would have - had you remained away from the wheel.  It could be that the dealer sped the wheel up in order to accommodate the extra time that he felt was needed for all of the players to place bets.  Regardless, there are several different things that can affect the outcome of the game.  Your very presence at the table just happens to be one of them. 

The same thing applies to when you forget to bet one of your numbers.  Had you remembered to place a bet on the missed number, then the outcome could have been different, based on the reasons described above, and many other factors. Even if you're watching the game, you're still having a possible effect on the outcome of the game.

In short, observing, and playing the game, changes the outcome of the game.  So get up and hit the restroom when you've got to go.  Take a dinner break if you're hungry.  And lastly, don't fret if you forgot to bet one of your numbers.

-Xander

Quoteif you like, "Man didn't land on the Moon" is classic. One argument for "Man didn't land on the moon" is the Van Allen belt would of killed the Astronauts.-Turner

In short, the astronauts weren't in the belt long enough to suffer harm.  The scientists knew that they could make it through.


"The van Allen belt is a region of energetic charged particles trapped by Earth's magnetic field. Partcile radiation is best shielded by light metals, plastic, and water, all abundant in the Apollo spacecraft. Additionally, they were sent out on a trajectory that avoided the most dangerous areas of the belts and carried them through the unavoidable regions in less than two hours, not long enough to receive anything close to a dangerous radiation does in that environment. Dr James van Allen himself specifically denies that they pose any barrier to manned space flight." -Jason T.


I don't really understand why you talked about our trips to the moon.  But we most certainly did go.

QuoteLike i said, I don't believe it or disbelieve it. I just try to get to the bottom of things myself, and not just jump on a bandwagon purely by reading it. -Turner

Turner,

When it comes to most of these roulette systems, you should already be able to look at them and instantly determine whether they're mathematically sound.  If you read on the history of the game a bit more, you'll find that several people have already been down the same road and have already made all of the same mistakes that many of the people on this board have made.  It's best to learn from the mistakes of others, since you won't live long enough to make them all yourself. 


-Xander

Turner,

I have question.  Why would you track at one table, and then expect those results to carry over to another table?
(I believe that I read that you did something like that in an earlier part of the thread.  Or were you just using it as an example?)

Randomness sucks, doesn't it?   

Bayes, let's talk on Skype sometime. 




Happy New Year!

QuoteThe point is to eliminate long strings of losses, not to overturn the house edge.-Bayes

I hope I haven't misinterpreted what you've just written above.  Try as you might, you can't eliminate long strings of losses.  And if you can't overturn the house edge, then why play? 

QuoteWith the 3 SD trigger, you have already "used up" as it were, 3 SD's "worth" of losses.-Bayes

After having observed a 3 sd loss, you have no way of knowing if you're on your way to a 4 sd loss.  This is, again, a form of the Monte Carlo Fallacy.

Again, I hope I haven't misinterpreted what you've just written above.

Happy New Year! 


-Xander

QuoteXander, no-one is saying that there will opposite deviations in the future. You've totally missed the point.-Bayes

No, I don't believe that I have.

Quoteso that no matter how many losses you wait for, there is an infinite "horizon" of further losses waiting for you. Simple common sense will tell you that this is absurd, and indeed, it makes a nonsense of all hypothesis testing, which is a major part of statistics.-Bayes

Well, at least we agree on that part. 

"In the 17th century mathematician Jacob Bernoulli created the Law of Large Numbers, and asserted that even the stupidest man understands that the larger the sample, the more likely it is to represent the true probability of the observed event. For betting, this is known as the Gambler's Fallacy, and can be a very costly misconception.
The Law of Large Numbers
Using a fair coin toss as an example (where the chance of hitting heads and tails has an equal 50% chance), Bernoulli calculated that as the number of coin tosses gets larger, the percentage of heads or tails results gets closer to 50%, while the difference between the actual number of heads or tails thrown also gets larger.

As the number of tosses get larger the distribution of heads or tails evens out to 50%It's the second part of Bernoulli's theorem that people have a problem understanding – which has led to it being coined the "Gambler's Fallacy". If you tell someone that a coin has been flipped nine times, landing on heads each time, their prediction for the next flip tends to be tails.

This is incorrect, however, as a coin has no memory, so each time it is tossed the probability of heads or tails is the same: 0.5 (a 50% chance).

Bernoulli's discovery showed that as a sample of fair coin-tosses gets really big – e.g. a million – the distribution of heads or tails would even out to around 50%. Because the sample is so large, however, the expected deviation from an equal 50/50 split can be as large as 500.

This equation for calculating the statistical standard deviation gives us an idea what we should expect:

0.5 × √ (1,000,000) = 500

While the expected deviation is observable for this many tosses, the nine-toss example mentioned earlier isn't a large enough sample for this to apply.

Therefore the nine tosses are like an extract from the million-toss sequence – the sample is too small to even-out like Bernoulli suggests will happen over a sample of a million tosses, and instead can form a sequence by pure chance.

Applying Distribution
There are some clear applications for expected deviation in relation to betting. The most obvious application is for casino games like Roulette, where a misplaced belief that sequences of red or black or odd or even will even out during a single session of play can leave you out of pocket. That's why the Gambler's Fallacy is also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy.

In 1913, a roulette table in a Monte Carlo casino saw black come up 26 times in a row. After the 15th black, bettors were piling onto red, assuming the chances of yet another black number were becoming astronomical, thereby illustrating an irrational belief that one spin somehow influences the next.

Another example could be a slot machine, which is in effect a random number generator with a set RTP (Return to Player). You can often witness players who have pumped considerable sums into a machine without success embargoing other players from their machine, convinced that a big win must logically follow their losing run.

Of course, for this tactic to be viable, the bettor would have to have played an impractically large number of times to reach the RTP.

With an understanding of the Law of Large Numbers, and the law (or flaw) of averages consigned to the rubbish bin, you won't be one of Bernouilli's 'stupid men'."  -Source http://www.pinnaclesports.com/online-betting-articles/10-2012/law-of-large-numbers-gamblers-fallacy.aspx

QuoteSo it is not that ONE (next) spin of yours which you are talking about.-Drazen

Quite wrong.  You need to read on the Monte Carlo Fallacy. " is the belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independent trials of some random process then these deviations are likely to be evened out by opposite deviations in the future."


Notice how it's not just talking about the next trial, or the next spin of the wheel.  It says, "in the future".


There is no expectation that a current offset from expectation will ever even out. If you currently have 10 more reds than black, then your future expectation is that you will be 10 reds over EV forever. Your expectation from this point forward is always just the mean no matter what already happened. The future random walk is about the point where you are now, not about zero.

I understand that you think that there's a difference, but you're still falling prey to the  "the doctrine of the maturity of the chances" (or "Monte Carlo fallacy") There are tons of articles going into great detail on it.  If you read some of the articles, you'll likely feel like they're talking specifically  about you.  Don't feel bad though, people have been falling into that trap since the beginning of the game.  People have been wasting time calculating the std  of red/black imbalances since the game was invented.  There's nothing new or novel about it.


Gambler fallacy description

Imagine a person who tries to predict the outcome of the game in the long-run online casino betting. The player is sure that this departure may be easily corrected in a short term games. This is the gambler's fallacy of the plays. Let's analyze the formula:
•Something has occurred.
•Something diverges from what is waited to happen on average (or on the long term).  An imbalance.
•Thus, something will be finished soon.


-Xander

NO!  That's where you're quite wrong.

A common gamblers' fallacy called "the doctrine of the maturity of the chances" (or "Monte Carlo fallacy") falsely assumes that each play in a game of chance is not independent of the others and that a series of outcomes of one sort should be balanced in the short run by other possibilities. A number of "systems" have been invented by gamblers based largely on this fallacy; casino operators are happy to encourage the use of such systems and to exploit any gambler's neglect of the strict rules of probability and independent plays. — Encyclopedia Britannica (look under "gambling") -Source Wizard of Odds
-----------------

The topic doctrine of the maturity of the chances is discussed in the following articles:

...be used in interpreting the phrase on average, which applies most accurately to a large number of cases and is not useful in individual instances. A common gamblers' fallacy, called the doctrine of the maturity of the chances (or the Monte-Carlo fallacy), falsely assumes that each play in a game of chance is dependent on the others and that a series of outcomes of one sort should be...  -Source below

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/369846/doctrine-of-the-maturity-of-the-chances
-----------------

The Gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy (because its most famous example happened in a Monte Carlo casino in 1913)[1] or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independent trials of some random process then these deviations are likely to be evened out by opposite deviations in the future. For example, if a fair coin is tossed repeatedly and tails comes up a larger number of times than is expected, a gambler may incorrectly believe that this means that heads is more likely in future tosses.[2] Such an expectation could be mistakenly referred to as being due. This is an informal fallacy. It is also known colloquially as the law of averages. -Source below

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Gambler_s_fallacy.html


Watching for "triggers", and "calculating the deviation from the norm" on the outside ECs is a complete and utter waste of time.  Don't get sucked into the fallacy.  It's a dead end.

QuoteI see 3SD for red...then I go to table 2 and play for red to regress to the mean. Its my personal permanence.- Turner

QuoteFor example we start after we see 10 reds in a row. Ok we know that we can get much worse then that. So we start slowly but carefully with our staking, being prepared to handle the worst if it strikes. We are not intersted in some big profits, only 1 or 2 units per trigger is enough, but it is important that we still don't need to bet big sums even if we face tornado, and that we don't need to bet big to recover those losses.
-Drazen

Calculating the standard deviation so you know when it's due?  Triggers?  Seriously?

Guys, this is straight up gambler's fallacy.   It doesn't work. 

There is no expectation that a current offset from expectation will ever even out. If you currently have 10 more reds than black, then your future expectation is that you will be 10 reds over EV forever. Your expectation from this point forward is always just the mean no matter what already happened. The future random walk is about the point where you are now, not about zero.


Read more below, and study the link.  It's important that you understand this stuff before you waste anymore time and lose your entire bankroll.  There are several more articles, just like the one below on gambler's fallacy.



Exposing the Gambler's Fallacy



You're playing roulette, and red has just come up eight times in a row! Is black more likely on the next spin? No, it is not. Both red and black are equally likely. If you thought otherwise then the casinos love you, and you need to read this article right now.

http://vegasclick.com/gambling/fallacy.html

QuoteEveryone will agree this way of betting has some merit.-Turner

Please explain what you mean and why. 

QuoteThe problem lies in the attention that I would draw by making a large sum of money.-Kimo Li

Don't worry, I don't believe that will be a problem if you're playing the Global Pie.

QuoteI disagree. If the house edge doesn't exist you will still lose, assuming that the casino has a much larger bank than you do. That's because it will outlast the losing runs (variance), whereas the player's comparatively puny bank will be lost. Conversely, if the house edge is present, but the variance is reduced enough, then the player can win (although maybe not flat betting). If consecutive losing bets are limited to a few (say between 6 and a standard martingale will do the trick.-Bayes

I didn't bring up a game with no house edge.  .  You are for the most part, correct, but not entirely.  Because the casino has the most money, they could withstand the most variance in a very long game, so they would likely be the winner.  However, the player could still experience a large enough variance to bankrupt the casino!  (In a game that would reach outward towards infinity).


-Xander