Nathan - I really don't need this kind of stuff on my discussion.  Believe it or not I am actually trying to have a serious and worthwhile debate here.  With all due respect, may I suggest Aut tace aut loquere meliora silencio

thank you
Bryan

Let's talk about advantage play for a moment. I think we all understand what that means. For my purposes here let's limit it to the ecart - that is, exclude anything that relates to the physical nature of the medium such as table or wheel bias.  What sort of advantages do you think we can find if we look into the  results as they unfold?  Gizmo has mentioned patterns and recurrence of past sequences, Bayes mentioned statistics, and JL some other method yet to be disclosed.  Remember - there has to be a REASON why the advantage exists.  Hence it should be measurable.

Ha!  So we DO have a sense of humour - great stuff guys!  I am absolutely hopeless with other languages.  I tried to learn French but couldn't make it stick.  I am seriously impressed by people who are multi-lingual - it is a talent I just do not have. 


Thanks for splitting this off from the other thread Vic - I assume it was you.

Uh - I think he was referring to Bally's tale - could be wrong.

Spike - you are absolutely right - the pockets could be called apples, pears, oranges, cats, mice, etc.  - makes no difference.  Properties of "numbers as labels" have no place in the development of strategies.


A word on regression since it was mentioned by Bayes. My belief is this - I believe in the existence of regression to the mean as a statistical fact, but I do not believe that it can be used to provide an advantage.  The reason is this - regression to the mean takes place over such a long period that it is PRACTICALLY impossible to use it.  If a person is expecting the regression to take place over a short period of time (which would be required to make it playable) then the wheel must toss out another, compensating, abnormal run. Now, if you allow me to define "normality" as that which occurs within 2SD's then normality is what we experience 95% of the time.  So what is your chance of the abnormal occurring when you need it?  5% of course.  And that it is in the direction you need? 2.5% I reckon.  For this reason I gave up chasing methods based on regression a long time ago.


And why does this damn editor keep putting 2 CR's LF's between paragraphs?

Gentlemen, please - let's play nice!  It's the emotive language that pushes people's buttons.  And it is largely unnecessary.  John, perhaps you are just a little battle-weary from years of exposure to other forums negativity.  I can't believe that you lack imagination since you have, as you say, found a method that has worked for you for 8 years.  Therefore you must, at some level, be still open to new ideas and growth, and hence you must allow for this to be true in others also.


I, for one, am interested in exploring your term VIRTUAL LIMITS and how that might translate to an efficient bet.  Your statement "matures inside 20 spins" implies studying the ecart as it unfolds and looking for certain conditions to be manifesting. This looks to me like you are finding a specific bet which is "efficient".  Presumably you will have stop rules in place also - which I would translate as stopping when the efficiency is gone (or profit/loss target is reached).  I would not like to get hung up on terminology here - we may be talking about the same thing, although coming at it from slightly different angles.


I'm also interested in why you would so passionately declare that this bet has no edge, and argue so strongly that the belief that an edge is needed is "flawed thinking".  Would you still say that if it could be shown that your bet does indeed have an edge?  How do you know that it does not?


On a personal level, I do believe that an edge is needed, as I have stated elsewhere - although I am most certainly willing to be proven otherwise - but for you to state so categorically that my thinking is flawed is insulting and disrespectful to me personally and to the years of work I have done to reach this point.  This is the reason why people react to your emotive language - you show no respect. 


Now, I know that in this tough world we have to develop a thick skin, but I do believe there are times when we should be able to relax our guards and be willing to expose ourselves a little in the interests of self-improvement and possibly to help others in that goal for themselves. I believe that the goal of the moderators here is for this forum to be one of those places and so we are a little more vulnerable here than we might be face to face.  Only bullies take advantage of such circumstances.


So I would like to make a plea to everyone to please: lose the emotive language, treat everything as opinion rather than fact until clearly proven, and be respectful and courteous in your writing.  Can we manage that?


thanks
Bryan

OK JL - I believe I understand you. 


Some years ago a chap wrote a treatise (some called it a book) called Roulette 2000.  He was (is?) a statistician.  It was his belief that if you waited for an event, and he had a bunch of them enumerated, and then bet accordingly you would hardly ever lose. 

For example, if the event of 20 reds in a row constituted a rare event then his belief was that if you had a MM scheme that could handle 6 fails before a win, for example a simple 7 step marty, then you had a winner strategy if you waited until you saw 15 reds in a row - this would guarantee a winner until 22. 

Obviously this particular event was pretty rare and you would be waiting forever (effectively) for it to appear, but he had a whole bunch of them to look out for and so he usually didn't have to wait too long before an opportunity of one kind or another came up.

Well, long story short, he played seriously for a while and had several really close calls, ended up about even, paid back his bankers and gave up. 


I was one of his bankrollers so I know the story to be true - although I might have one or two details wrong because it is over 10 years ago now.  But nevertheless, for me it was a watershed moment. 

It caused me to re-examine a lot of my beliefs and also to bring me back to the maths in a very solid way.  I no longer believe this approach to be valid.

I have faith in the maths and I do believe that a mathematical advantage is required for long term success.

However, that is just my belief.  I fully respect your right to believe otherwise and my mind is not closed to the idea if you can, as you say you intend to do, prove it.

Getting back to the thread topic, would you say that your bet selection method constitutes an efficient bet? What is it about that bet that differentiates it from an inefficient bet?

@MG - you got my obscure reference - well done and nice quote! 

@JL - Ok, so you are saying, categorically as far as I can tell, that money management combined with bet selection, even if that bet selection does not provide an advantage, allows for profitable play long term.  Do I have that right?

I was just having a little fun - hope everybody understands that - as I do realize that English is not everybody's first language - but fourth MG?  Damn!  I'm impressed.  Of course we overlook those little errors Esoito and I am certainly no angel myself - I wrestle with the apostrophe on a daily basis! As for  Bush Jr., well, what can I say? No shining example that one! Let the record speak for itself. But I will always use proper English spelling - and be willing to fight the damn spell checkers to the death to achieve it!  Can't get over the arrogance of the American literati just changing perfectly proper spelling to suit their own inadequacies, and then incorporating it into their dictionaries - seems a little self-supporting don't you think?.  Ha!  - now that's bound to upset  somebody!

I am not one of the responders to the poll.  Not because I don't want to take part - but because the question is poorly worded and so the intent is not clear. Hence I am unable to answer because I am not sure what the question is.  No offence intended - truly!   

I have to confess that I can be a bit anal when it comes to language usage.  I try very hard to be clear and unambiguous in everything I write - I read and re-read a number of times before I publish anything - even daily emails between friends.  MG - please learn the difference between "lose"and loose"- <big grin here!!> 

If you had said - do you believe that a consistent flat bet winning method exists - or - do you believe that you possess a consistent flat bet winning method - then I would have answered and I believe there would be no confusion at this point.  Judging by your comment - And not one of them has posted a method for us! then I can only assume that you really meant to ask the latter.  I suspect a lot of people answered the former.

OK - this is where I have a little trouble - short term vs. long term.  There are 2 problems.
1. These are both relative terms. Is the long term 3.25 million? or infinity? or 300 spins non-stop? Is the short term 5 spins? 50 spins?
2. Is not the long term just the sum of x short terms?  If we say that the answer is yes for the short term, then are we saying that this is an average over a bunch of short terms?  In which case, would not a statistically significant collection of short term sessions sum to the positive?


You see the dilemma I am sure.  I am leaning towards the belief that it is NECESSARY to solve the problem for the long term.  Saying that something (a strategy) works for the short term is just smoke on the water.  dah-dah-daaaah ... dah-dah-dedaaah. 

All good ideas, and it seems that we have a consensus that generally believes that there is such a thing as an efficient bet. We probably have a good idea of what is meant by "efficient" as well. 

But can we be more specific about it? 

Can we maybe zero in on it a little more by agreeing what is an inefficient bet? 

For example, would it be considered an inefficient bet to simply scatter 1 or 12 or 18 chips around the table in a random fashion on every spin - that is, without any regard to what is unfolding? 

No regard to regression or variance, no structural overlays such as LOT, or cycles of 37, or whatever. 

Would this be inefficient compared to, say, studying the ecart for normality, or anomalous behaviour, or cross-referencing statistical measures and betting selectively rather than every spin? 

Is there really any difference?

Hi Bayes - and thanks for the welcome.  Yes I've thought about Linux but, I don't know if you are familiar with VMS or not, but after working with this most elegant OS for so many years I have to say I find Linux unnecessarily cryptic and difficult compared.  I've stuck with Windoze (love it!) because in my consultancy work I have to stay with an industry standard - and even, dammit!, have to recommend Windows when interoperability is a consideration, which is most of the time in business.


What you say about testing concepts rather than systems is exactly where I am at also.  However I still refer to what I do as Monte Carlo simulations because, while I am not applying funds in any way, I am running simulations of strategies to expose the true probability resulting - this is what a MC sim actually is.  I am not "betting" but rather comparing the actual hits to expected hits and determining the resulting probability compared to theoretical probability so as to determine any advantage (or reverse which is just as good).


Gizmo - "proof of concept" is all it takes.  This is the scientific method.  I'm particularly interested in the concept, as you say, of abstracting the bet selection from the effectiveness track and seeing where that leads.


All the best
Bryan

Thanks Vic - interesting response.  You make some good points and I like the analogy of bankroll = oxygen.  Very true!

One point I would like to make - I believe it is a mistake to take the view that winnings are the casino's money.  It is not!  It is your own, hard-won money.  Raising bets as a strategy when you are winning is fine - I have no problem with the concept - I just believe we should not view this as the casino's money.  In my view it most certainly is not!  It is YOUR money - and it was hard-won. If a person were to view their profits as casino money then it is very likely that they will make the mistake of varying away from their pre-determined strategy, for example maybe carrying on when they should have quit, because of the mental view of "oh well, it is casino money now so I won't really be risking anything if I push it a little bit longer even though my strategy is tuned to quit at this point".  If you get my drift ...  I don't want to get caught up in semantics but I believe this is a very important point.

Your point about letting a sleeper sleep is well-made. This is an example of what I like to call "managing the variance".  There should be no surprises when playing - if you do not know the possible variance of your particular strategy then you haven't researched it enough to be playing it.

But back to topic - is it possible to construct an efficient bet? Given that the odds are unable to be manipulated and are completely inviolate no matter how one constructs a bet, can we find efficiencies from the ecart?