In the random game of roulette:

Variance is a double edge sword.  It's why you can sometimes win during a session. (And why you may lose)

The house edge is why you will always lose in the long run.  And it exists on each and every bet made.

The "law of the third" isn't of any value.  It won't help anyone win.

QuoteXander.....because its random...right?


Straw poll....


I ran 1 tables permz from weisbaden, stopping here and there to pick 6 numbers, and finally 7


I had 37 numbers made from groups of 6 with varying gaps in between


24 numbers hit, 9 are repeats, 13 un-hit.




same numbers 37 in a row....from spin 100


23 hit, 9 are repeats, 14 un-hit -Turner

Turner,

I'm sure as to what you're trying to say.   Can you maybe explain it in a different way?

QuoteIf I bet for 8 spins and win, then leave....this is the classic H&R model....but if I sit for 37 spins, and by method, only ever have 1 chip on the table due to some trigger, sometimes none, sometimes 2 (no more than 2)..... do I have less exposure to the wheel?

Yes, unless you plan on returning to gamble at a later date.  Then, it's as if you'd never left in the first place.

Hit and run sells John Patrick books, but in reality it doesn't really work. (It's what you sell if you suck at math).   If hitting and running enabled you to avoid the "long run" when gambling, then consider the ramifications...

Such players would be like vampires!  They could apply their "hit and run" skills to avoid living in the long term as well.  Life expectancy rates wouldn't apply to them, as they could continually just sidestep death and watch on the sidelines, or from their secret "hit and run place- where the magic occurs that enables them to win when they return to gamble"- while other people died instead!

It appears that we agree.

Really it's the observer that assigns value to a rare occurrence.   If we walked up to a wheel and witnessed 25 reds in a row, we would be bragging about the rare freakish streak that we had just witnessed.   However, everyone over looks the rare streaks every time they look at the reader board.  For example, consider the last 25 spins.  If you were looking for that particular patter of red and black, then you would have just witnessed something just as unusual.  How about the last 25 or 100 numbers that you just played at the wheel?  What if someone was looking for that extremely rare pattern of those exact numbers in that exact order of occurrence?  My point to all of this, is that randomness really has no limits other than those that relate to the degrees of freedom and the number of spins witnessed on the wheel.  (For example you can't witness a run of 20 reds if you're only going to look at 10 spins.  And you can't witness the number 39 hit.)

For the record, the longest streak of red that I have witnessed, first hand, was 26 in a row at the Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City, NJ 2007.   (No, it's not an Indian Casino. And yeah, I don't know why that's relevant either.  ). There were people foolishly chasing the black with up as you lose progressions, and there were people riding the streak on red.  It was a mix.  Interestingly enough, red did continue hitting quite well the entire night.  I never did witness any strong streaks on the black.  But then again, why should I have?  There's nothing that says that black will eventually catch up.     Black would not be expected to make up for it's large deficit. 


And no, the Guinness Book of World Records didn't show up to record the event.  To my knowledge, such records don't really even exist.


-Xander

Here's a simple task by which you can determine just how long the red and black can go without hitting, or without hitting twice in a row.


Take any natural number (not zero) N  and divide it by 2.  Continue dividing by two until you reach zero.

Now, it's very very important that you count the number of steps that it took to reach zero.   The number of steps that it takes you to reach zero will match the maximum number of times that the red/black can go without hitting.  You can NOT use a calculator.  You must use pen and paper. 


By the way, in order to find the real maximum number of times, you must continue dividing by 2 until you actually reach zero.  If you still have a decimal with numbers remining, then you're not quite there, so continue dividing by 2.

Good Luck! 

Bayes,

If you're talking about betting on trends on the outside then you might be falling for a bit of the gambler's fallacy there.

I suppose that if you're taking into account the wheel's fitness, then betting with the trend would make the most sense.  Especially if you're betting on the numbers straight up, rather than on the outside.  The reason is because if a wheel was biased, then there's a greater chance that you could be on one of the biased numbers.  If so, then the house edge for such a bet could be slightly lower than playing the coldest numbers.

Playing the coldest numbers on a live wheel, is probably the best way, that I know of, to actually lose at a rate that could exceed the normal house edge.

I

Quoteknow gamblers fallacy and i know red can stay ahead for one year at one table or wheel.
You are not telling me anything new that i did not know.-Sputnik

You're not alone in your misinterpretation the real fact that the hovering state and the draw-down state is part of correction.
Then come in tiny, middle and large waves, no matter what experts or what you say.

So what you're saying is that Dr. Thorp, Mike Shackleform -professor of gaming math Univerity of LV, other mathematicians and myself are all wrong?  Ok.   I must ask though, why do you feel that you're more qualified than the people that I have listed above?  Smile emoticon

QuoteI have simulate at least 1 million trails, so i know for a fact that does two states show after 3.0 STD.
The world record is 5.24 STD and guess what happen after that, yes it either start hovering or getting a draw-down.-Sputnik

FYI, there are no world records for this.  Furthermore, if you were to observe a sufficient number of trials, you'd eventually observe a standard deviation that exceeded even 10.  Regarding the simulations, I suspect that I've simulated for more, but that's really irrelevant.  There's no real reason to run such simulations on EC's when you can easily do the arithmetic.

QuoteWhen you say even out it has not have to do that, nothing even out 100%.
Correction comes in various random bits, that is reality.-Sputnik

I didn't say that it would even out. 

QuoteYou can read all nonsense you want, i base my assumptions on significant statistical research.
I do that as hobby and would not be fool by assumption taken from wikipedia.-Sputnik

I'm sorry if you don't believe that the experts that I have listed above are up to your standards.  I'm sorry if I've upset you.   

But the facts are what they are. 

@Bayes,

I agree with what is written in the Wiki article.  I don't know why you believe that I do not agree.
Perhaps you should take the time to more carefully read what I have written. 

No, that's where you're wrong.  There is no reason to expect a correction in a game of independent trials.

If red has hit 10 more times than black, then the expectation is that it will forever remain above expectation by 10 more hits.

You're not alone in your misinterpretation.  Many people have made the same mistake.  I highly recommend that you read more on basic probability, gaming math, and most importantly the gambler's fallacy.  There's some quality information available out there, written by gaming math experts like Mike Shakleford (Wizardofodds),  Dr. Edward Thorp, and other mathematicians.


Best of luck,


Xander

Regarding regression towards the mean:

"Regression to the mean" is very often misunderstood. It does not mean that if you have a sample that is skewed one way or the other, that you will even out in the future by skewing the other way. Past random events have no effect on future random events.



There is no expectation that a current offset from expectation will ever even out. If you currently have 20 more reds than black, then your future expectation is that you will be 20 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.

The average absolute offset (in dollars, flips, red,black or whatever) from expectation tends to get larger over time, not smaller. It's only the proportion of the offset to the total expectation that tends to get smaller. This is because the standard deviation grows slower than the sample size, as a square root function. 



-Xander.

Anyone in the Bahamas right now?

Thanks!!!

Oklahoma has 94 Indian casinos owned by 33 tribes.  I know that they do not have regular roulette dealt by a live dealer, but do they have roulette machines?
To be specific, do they have the game called Organic Roulette?  Does anyone know which casinos have them?
Thanks!
-Xander