"Simultaneous" doesn't ring my bell.  To me, this means doing tricky-dicky things with different bet types simultaneously, inside or not, that is nothing more than trying to defeat the odds - a futile endeavour.

This is, I believe, not what combinatorics is about - at least, for me anyway.  This is a concept that is hard to explain - tackling the "game", not the "odds". 

It is about - monitoring the ecart, seeing the variations, and constructing a complex bet to suit the occasion based on the distortions arising as the flow of outcomes strives to retain normality elsewhere. 

I am pretty sure that that will always result in inside bets, even though the measures may include, for example, the EC's.

Folks, I am going to be out of town for a few days.  I hope to see lots of worthwhile posts on my return.

Right then - that's that sorted.  Now let's see what clues we can take from Hans's email.

1. Boolean combinatorics.  This implies to me algebraic combinatorics and specifically boolean, which further implies 50/50 situations.  Note I have not said EC's because obviously 50/50 can apply to inside bets also. Roughly of course since we have a zero to contend with.

2. Complex bets. Hmmm - my take would be that this means either a) a combination of different bet types such as en plein, columns, EC's etc. or b) betting en plein based on a complex derivation.

3. Class of thousands ...  Um - that seems excessive.  I guess if you were to calculate all the possible bets from all the possible bet types it could get to a pretty large number.  But even if there are not thousands he obviously believes there to be "lots".  This implies to me a selection of numbers to be bet on the inside - I doubt that you can get to a really large number only using outside bets.

4. A set of rules.  OK - that's good for us because it means that it is mechanical in nature, albeit complicated.

5. Pure math.  Again, as per number 4 above - good for us.  We should be able to do this.

Have I missed anything?

Thanks everybody - locking it off now as it seems to have run out of steam.  Continued with a bit more of a focus in the thread entitled Combinatorics - let's bounce this around for a bit.

Esoito's story of his friend Hans is tantalising. The concept of combining results from different statistical measures is something I have been wrestling with for a while.  I don't think I am sufficiently strong in pure math to be able to derive stuff myself - I just don't know how to go about it.  So I thought maybe we could discuss it a bit and see if those who can handle it might like to weigh in.

I guess we should start with basics.  It seems to me that the first thing we need to ensure is that of statistical independence.  Am I right in figuring that the statistical measures ARE independent?  That is, for example, we can calculate the probability of an outcome being in the first dozen AND black by simply multiplying the respective probabilities.  12/37 x 18/37 = 0.1578.  But this is only true if the probabilities are statistically independent.  Is this a true assumption?

Samster - well, in the context of the totality of playing the game, which comprises bet selection combined with MM which may include progressions, entry/exit, etc. etc. it seems to me that bet selection, as a single topic, is an abstractable component and is minimal in the sense that it shouldn't be broken down further since the bits then become "parts of the whole" and one of those "bits" is insufficient unto itself to lead to success.  But I have to confess that this is so only because I believe that bet selection is the key component.  Others believe that it is the totality that makes for a winning strategy - and that each of the components contribute in such a way that it is ONLY the totality that allows for success.  But I am not of that view. It is my personal belief that ONLY a successful bet selection strategy leads to success and that all the other stuff is just maximising (or potentially minimising) that success.

I have learned if you put one foot in hot water and the other in ice it is on average comfortable.
  That's brilliant Ralph - love it!


Ok folks - we are up to 7 pages now and that is probably enough for this particular discussion.  I haven't finished, but with all the great discussions going on at the moment I suspect my little prod in the direction of my own thinking is probably overshadowed somewhat.  Before I lock this one down, however, I thought it might be useful to summarise the thoughts that I believe we are mostly agreed on.  This, in itself, could be contentious but we can always agree to differ.  But I am willing to keep it going for just a little bit longer in an attempt to reach some sort of consensus, although this may not be possible.  I'm ok with that.

1. The likely future is always normality.
2. Given the point above, RTM is unlikely to be a usable concept in the time frames we play in.
3. While one statistical measure may vary considerably from the norm, others maintain normality.

There may have been others - feel free to add, although that may trigger another discussion.

Thanks Bayes - I was hoping that that would be the answer.  I only used 90 heads in 100 tosses because that was what the link you referred us to used as an example.  The point I was actually hoping to indicate was that after an extreme event (and I know we can't specify exactly when it is over) then normality reasserting is the most likely scenario.  Some might say that RTM would cause an overload of tails in the short term future (i.e. the next 100 spins in my example) in order to achieve statistical balance over the 200.  But here is where I disagree.  It is my assertion that the likely future is ALWAYS normality.

Thanks Bayes - well put and a nice article you referred us to.  I admit that I struggle a little when trying to differentiate in my mind between RTM and GF - it is the on-going struggle that helps the mind grasp and integrate the concept.  As I said earlier though, I do believe that RTM exists (since it is a mathematical certitude) - just generally not manifesting in our convenient time frame.  Help me with the following scenario.  I will try to be very careful in my wording so as to minimise any possible ambiguity.

We will have 200 coin tosses.  We will examine them in 2 groups - the first 100 and the second 100.  In the first 100 we see 90 heads. Would you expect the next 100 to comply with the normal probability distribution or to weigh in heavily on the tails side?

Topcat - I have no idea why it should be.  All I can say is that this was pointed out to me 4 years ago.  Superstition?  Can't say.  I just found it interesting that Gordon should raise it with that particular wheel. I suppose it is possible that that wheel is just old and well worn.  Very strange to be sure.

True, Ralph.  The key here is to find the minimal yet complete unto itself question.  We want to study the whole but not more than the whole.  I submit that the bet selection can be considered a minimal whole.

I reckon, in bowls, the system is entirely deterministic.  Same as the ball movement on a pool table.  But the permutations are infinite because of the curvature and other factors (such as weight distributions and so on) of the objects involved.  the Terminator could figure it out.  Just my 2 cents worth.


MG - nice! 

A roulette boot camp!  Yay!  I'm there!


I'm also alongside Spike in terms of his stated aims in the first post.  Any big problem is best broken down into littler problems.  Or even, by using Occam's Razor, shave it down to its most basic question.  I am of the belief that the bet selection is both core and key.

Sure is!  I guess this would qualify as a black swan event if you were actively playing at the time.  Black swans can be both positive and negative of course - if you were betting for sleepers then you would be in the cream - but for repeaters - well, 'nuff said!  Now I don't know if this relevant to your observation or not, but I have heard people say in the past that Dublinbet table number 2 is the weirdest they have ever seen and never play it because it keeps on tossing out these black swan events.

Considering the 20 reds scenario, if the run is over, and there is no real way to determine if it is or not, but assuming it is, then the next 20 spins will be "normal" 95% of the time.  If the run is NOT over then I think I can safely say that we are closer to the end of it now than we were when it started. 


As so well-stated by Bayes, there is no cause and effect in operation here.  It is my belief that in this short time frame no regression to the mean will be visibly effecting. This is why I am of the belief that regression is not a tool that we should be attempting to use - it just doesn't happen in our time frame.  Attempting to capitalize on regression is, to me, a prime example of Gambler's Fallacy.


Considering the other scenario, the statistical expectation is 6 new numbers and 8 repeaters.  Naturally, those figures are the mean.   It would be more accurate to say the following.


When there have been 18 unique numbers at spin 24 then at spin 38 there will be -
a 92.5% chance of 4 - 8 new numbers (mean of 6), and
a 92.5% chance of 6 - 10 repeaters, mean of .


I am of the opinion that what we are all about in this game IS trying to predict - THE LIKELY FUTURE.  I capitalize it because I want to make sure you understand that I am NOT saying predict THE FUTURE.  But it seems to me that it is not unreasonable to try and predict the likely future.  We do it all the time.  I'll give you some predictions of the likely future right now - the sun will come up tomorrow; at my location we will see a new moon on the 12th Jan; if I run onto the motorway during peak hour traffic there is a greater than 99% probability of being hit by a vehicle (morbid!); and so on and on.  Our entire life is governed by our predictions of the likely future - these predictions keep us and our families safe and, hopefully, advance our life quality.  Why should it not be reasonable to do the same with roulette?

Well, I was kinda hoping that measurable means that it can be simmed.


But in any case, maybe if I give you an example -


what do you think is most likely going to happen in the 20 spins following a run of 20 reds in a row?


OR


if, after 24 spins you have seen 18 unique numbers what is the likely scenario for the next 14 spins?