Friends, after a long series of something strange like a long series of single color by the law of attraction another long series of a single color happens? I guess it is like in hot and cold numbers. After a sleeper returns it takes up with drive to balance out.
Accounting for the many RB patterns you can play this? Without much need to wait for something particular you could play the RB sequence that just came out. Only the condition to be a sleeper RB sequence returning. Somebody does this already? Thanks.
From a personal perspective I would have to say that I am not a supporter of either of these propositions (the RB idea or the sleeper one). In my view after a strange situation such as you describe, or in other words a statistical anomaly, "normality" returns, which is a generally accepted mathematical phenomenon known as Regression toward the Mean, or RTM for short. I believe that there is no scientific basis to the law of attraction. In any case, that is a theory based on energy such as thought for example - unless you are referring to something else of course.QuoteAfter a sleeper returns it takes up with drive to balance out
Again, in my view completely false. See RTM above.
Who's to say that the RTM should take over quickly. I once observed a single dozen almost perfectly sleep on four tables, all in the same area of the casino, for more than four and a half hours. It was one of two events that convinced me to study the true anomalies of randomness with regards to Roulette.
RTM is an absolute truth, otherwise we would have seen 100 blacks in a row, some day. The problem is to define and use the "extreme" of a sample (and it is also difficult to define the sample length which should be used) after which we expect a relatively smoother "regression towards mean" in the second sample.
Thank you for all your valuable comments. They are really appreciated. What I have in mind is really easy and does not require much effort to grasp. I have some initial encouraging results. you can even do without waiting. It takes into account the pattern that just came out. if it is coming back after it did not come in what probability dictates then you bet on it. Only for the spins that it is supposed to be shown inside his chance of appearing by probability. neither more nor less.
RBR => no condition. you look for one more.
RBRR => no condition. you look for one more.
RBRRB => condition appears. start to play for the spins of probability to 5 in any even chance.
Win or lose that game ends and another game begins. with the same process of using the last spins. A positive progression to gain may be the key. I think the advantage is the ability to not always play the same. to be be selective in the betting according to what the game dictates in the current session. It also eliminates the wait. hopefully someone can expand or create a program.
Quote from: sqzbox on June 02, 2014, 02:43:13 AM
I believe that there is no scientific basis to the law of attraction. In any case, that is a theory based on energy such as thought for example - unless you are referring to something else of course.
Again, in my view completely false. See RTM above.
Well, maybe I should not use the law of attraction name. I mean the simple fact that the roulette goes through times when it shows nothing of a pattern and then when it comes out it would seem to call more of the same pattern. This is the behavior for all. streets, dozens, splits, numbers. Perhaps another name other than attraction is appropriate. but the idea is just the exact same idea of that huddle.
Thank you for participating. Very interesting and informative your comments to start a discussion on RTM. That is clear mathematical concepts worth knowing. It is much appreciated you are bringing it up for us.
Are we talking about live wheels or RNG ?
Dr. Mabuse
Quote from: Dr. Mabuse on June 04, 2014, 04:40:51 PM
Are we talking about live wheels or RNG ?
Dr. Mabuse
It can be either. For me there is no difference between them for the purpose of rare events. Can be given both in live roulette and RNG.
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.
In this article we'll show here is why past events have no influence over future events. To understand this you need to know just a teeny tiny bit of math, and just one term, probability. Probability describes how likely it is that something will happen. There are three ways to refer to it: by fraction, by decimal, or by percentage. For example, say there are four cards, face-down, and you get to pick one. Three of them are aces. What are your chances of picking an ace? You have three chances out of four to get an ace. We can express this in any of these ways:
3/4 (fraction)
0.75 (decimal)
75% (percentage)
Each of these is just a different way of talking about the same thing. Notice that they're pretty easy to convert, too. If you punch 3 divided by 4 into a calculator you get 0.75. And to convert a decimal to a percentage all you have to do is move the decimal two spaces to the right and add the percent sign. 0.75 is the same as 75%. What could be easier?
Okay, so now that we know how to refer to probabilities, let's look at what they mean. Something that definitely will happen has a probability of 1 (or 1/1, or 100%, if you prefer). There's a 100% chance the sun will come up tomorrow. Well, it's not really a "chance" since it definitely will happen, but you get the idea. In our example of four cards, if all four were aces then your chances of picking an ace would be 4/4 = 1, it would definitely happen.
Something that definitely will not happen has a probability of 0. And in between 0 and 1 (or 0% to 100%) are all the things that could happen.
Your chances of winning some bet or series of bets might be 22%, 39%, 57%, or 83%. The higher the number, the more likely it will happen. Events over 50% will probably happen, events under 50% will probably not happen.
So far so good. So now let's look at probability when an event happens many times, like flipping a coin over and over. The probability of getting heads on one flip is 1 out of 2 -- one way to win out of two possible outcomes. We can call that 1/2 or 0.50 or 50%. But what are the chances of flipping the coin twice and getting heads both times? To figure this we multiply by the probability of each event:
First Flip
Second Flip
Probability
1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4
Of course, another way to express this is 50% x 50% = 25%.
Okay, so what are the chances of getting ten heads in a row?
1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/1024
Not very likely, of course.
So here's where the gambler's fallacy comes in: Say you've tossed the coin nine times and amazingly, you got nine heads. You figure that the next toss will be tails, because the probability of getting ten heads in a row is one in 1024, which is unlikely to happen!
The problem with this reasoning is that you're not looking at the chances of getting ten heads in a row, you're looking at the chances of getting one heads in a row. The heads that already happened no longer have a 50% chance of happening, they already happened, so their probability is 1. When you flip again the odds for that flip will be 50-50, same as it ever was.
Let's introduce our hero, Mr. P, who will always be looking to the future to see what's going to happen. He's about to make ten coin flips, hoping to get ten heads. Here's his outlook: 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/1024
And here's Mr. P. after flipping nine heads in a row, getting ready to make his tenth flip: 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1/2 = 1/2
Now you're saying, Hey, wait! How come all the 1/2's turned into 1's? The answer is that they're no longer unknowns. Before you flip a coin you don't know what's going to happen so you have 50-50 odds. But after you flip the coin you definitely know what happened! After you flip a coin, the probability that you got a result is 1. You definitely flipped the coin. Definitely, definitely. So after you've flipped nine heads, the probability of flipping a tenth head is 1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x 1/2 = 1/2.
Let's have another look at Mr. P:
1 x 1 x 1 (Mr. P enters here)x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/128
Notice that it doesn't matter where on the table you stick him, the chances of his next flip being heads is always 1/2. Wherever he is, it doesn't matter what happened before, his chances on his next toss are always 1 in 2.
How could it be otherwise? When you flip a coin you will get one result out of two possible outcomes. That's 1 in 2, or 1/2. Why and how could those numbers change just because you got a bunch of heads or tails already? They couldn't. The coin has no memory, it neither knows nor cares what was flipped before. If it's a 1-out-of-2 coin, it will always be a 1-out-of-2 coin.
Still not convinced? Then here's another way to think about it. Let's say someone hands you a coin and asks, "What are the chances of flipping heads?" Without hesitation you'd probably say 1 out of 2? But wait a minute -- if it were true that heads were more likely if tails has just come up a bunch of times, then why did you answer "1 in 2" right away when asked about the chances of getting heads? Why didn't you say, "Well, you have to tell me whether tails has been coming up a lot before I can tell you whether heads has a fair shot or not."? It's simple: You didn't ask about the previous flips because intuitively you know they're unimportant. If someone hands you a coin, the chances of getting heads are 1 in 2, regardless of what happened before.
Would it really be the case that you answered "1 in 2," and then your friend said, "Oh, I forgot to tell you, tails has just come up nine times in a row." Would you now suddenly change your answer and say that heads is more likely? I hope not.
One last example: Let's say your friend slides two quarters towards you across the table. He tells you that the first coin has been flipping normally, but the second quarter has just had nine tails in a row. Would you now believe that the chances of getting heads on the first coin are even but the chances of getting heads on the second coin are greater? Given two identical coins, could you really believe that one would be more likely to flip heads than the other? I hope not!
The same concept applies to roulette. An American roulette wheel has 18 red spots, 18 black spots, and 2 green spots. The chances of getting red on any one spin are 18/38. If you just saw nine reds in a row, what is the likelihood of getting black on the next spin?
18/38, same as it ever was." -Vegas Click written by ©2004 VegasReference.com
Whether it's waiting for a long losing run on the red or black, or a number to have not hit for a long period of time, virtual losses and chasing rare events is still part of the gambler's fallacy.
Both are a foolish waste of time.
-Xander
Excellent and totally topical article Xander. Thank you very much for participating.
It is clear that the last sets have no consequences. but you have to have some frame of reference on which to base your bets. You are very clear with the concepts of the game, could you please help in the thread: http://betselection.cc/math-statistics/help-me-understand-rb-series-correctly-for-a-system/ ? your help will be greatly appreciated to know the reality of sets needed to get the correct math for series of even chances. thank you.
My question for Xander,
Is it as much likely to get 9 more reds in a row after 9 already have hit and a successive hit of 9 reds?
QuoteMy question for Xander,
Is it as much likely to get 9 more reds in a row after 9 already have hit and a successive hit of 9 reds?-Albalaha
After nine reds in a row have hit, the probability of hitting another nine reds in a row is (18/37)^9.
After nine blacks in a row have hit, the probability of hitting nine reds in a row is (18/37)^9.
Why should it be any different?
Afterall, after nine reds in a row have hit, the probability of them hitting is 100%,
since they already have hit! Why would what has hit in the past affect the future? Does the dealer block each number after it has hit to prevent it from hitting again? Answer: NO
Do the same number of numbers remain on the wheel from one spin to the next? Answer: YES
What really matters is the probability of the spins that have yet to happen. This is why virtual losses and virtual bets are a waste of time.
-Xander
Xander,
Either you did not get my question or trying to avoid it.
two probabilities: 1.Getting 9 reds in a row
2. Getting 18 reds in a row
If every spin is independent, both should be equally likely. Are they?
QuoteXander,
Either you did not get my question or trying to avoid it.
two probabilities: 1.Getting 9 reds in a row
2. Getting 18 reds in a row
If every spin is independent, both should be equally likely. Are they?-Albalaha
What would you like to hear? ::)
Why on earth would you think that both would be equally likely? ::)
And yes, every spin is independent.
QuoteAnd yes, every spin is independent.
If every spin is independent of past decisions, why on the earth, since roulette got invented, none has seen 50 consecutive hits of an EC?
Why no 10 consecutive his of a number ever came?
Independence of a single spin does not mean that every spin is free to generate any outcome till infinite. It only means that looking at past outcomes, u can't decide any better bet in one single spin.
Collective probability of many consecutive spins and probability in one spin, are different.
It seems people enjoy to be mislead.
QuoteIf every spin is independent of past decisions, why on the earth, since roulette got invented, none has seen 50 consecutive hits of an EC?
Why no 10 consecutive his of a number ever came? -Albalaha
The probability of seeing a number hit ten times in a row is (1/37)^10. Maybe someone has for all we know, but the odds of it hitting that many times in a row are very low since there are 36 other numbers on the wheel.
Quote
Independence of a single spin does not mean that every spin is free to generate any outcome till infinite. It only means that looking at past outcomes, u can't decide any better bet in one single spin.
Collective probability of many consecutive spins and probability in one spin, are different. -Albalaha
On any spin, regardless of what has hit in the past, any one of the 37 numbers can hit. For example: If you've just witnessed nine consecutive hits on the number four, the probability of it hitting on the tenth spin is still 1/37. Randomness has no limits.
QuoteIt seems people enjoy to be mislead. -Albalaha
Yes, I'm part of a vast conspiracy along with other experts and mathematicians to hide the true nature of roulette and basic probability from people like you. We all secretly coordinate and plan to mislead you all. We have secret meetings, and we even have a top secret handshake. ;D
On a more serious note, there are plenty of people on various math and physics forum, like myself, that could teach and mentor you on roulette and basic probability for free. Also try the wizardofvegas forum.
-Xander
QuoteRandomness has no limits.
It shows how much you know about randomness and probability. I won't argue with you because it would be like talking to a wall. Enjoy your brilliance.
OK. Both agree to disagree and leave it at that.
[Then things won't start getting too heated, and I have to officially intervene.]
Well answered Albalaha.
R.
What is a rare event? Can someone explain it please?
I mean when is it considered rare, and when is it not?
Is there a specific point at which an event moves into the rare zone or is it a fuzzy logic thing?
Quote from: greenguy on June 08, 2014, 05:48:35 AMWhat is a rare event? Can someone explain it please?
Maybe I should give my concepts clearer. It is valid to ask this question. I am referring to an event that does not normally occur in sets comprising a normal game session.
For example if my game sessions are 100 spins. in 40 sessions I only see a row of many reds in 3 sessions of them. Many more than the expected in a term of 100 spins. For me to be in the presence of one of these sessions is a rare event.
Thank you for explaining but if you play 40 sessions of each 100 spins then you have witnessed 4000 spins so you should expect some rare events as per probability which renders them not so rare after all.
If you are hoping to catch one of these rare events without having to witness the whole 4000 spins then I think luck will play a part.
You could try to continuously play the most recent dominant EC over a short burst and stop to wait if others catch up then play again when one is dominant. This way you could almost guarantee your bets would be riding on at least some of the "rare event" when it happens.
Quote from: Xander on June 07, 2014, 04:31:06 PM
Randomness has no limits.
Yes randomness should have no limits, but it also has no knowledge of how to find out if that is true, so it will never extend beyond some reasonable boundries. This is where gamblers hope to find an edge. Within the reasonable boundries set by the lack of skill and knowledge possessed by randomness.
Quote from: Xander on June 07, 2014, 04:31:06 PM
On a more serious note, there are plenty of people on various math and physics forum, like myself, that could teach and mentor you on roulette and basic probability for free. Also try the wizardofvegas forum.
-Xander
The more you know about math and physics the less you'll be apt to beat the game.
Your mindset with such knowledge is a handicap to understand chance behaviour.
On average you'll have the same rate of wins and losses playing same amount of numbers.
Now have a look how they do in your personal permanence and you'll have an answer to find a way to do well while playing roulette.
Dispersion and concentration affect your decisions as well as everything in nature, private life, job,......
Things come in series, intermitences so why wouldn't Ws and Ls have a similar behaviour?
Regards,
Carlos.
I have spoken about extremes that are few and far between. The discussions occur under the topic "Elegant Patterns." A sequence of spins can form into perfect repeating patterns. I've discovered them in the dozens. That's any dozen. You can make up your own. What happens is that the same dozen keeps hitting either in a streak or in the same repeating pattern. It's not just a dominance, but a perfect sequence without error. At times like these you can place bets as if you know future outcomes. Now mathematically there is nothing to prevent them from occurring. There are no figures published that say when they will occur or for how long they will last. It takes a craftsman to see and exploit them.
For many years I have been criticised for suggesting their existence. What I find far more interesting is that nobody else has reported exploiting them or even having seen one of them. A common one is the same dozen sleeping for more than thirty spins in a row. The more rare is a same dozen hitting in a perfect sequence as a pattern of some kind. You will never see anything if you are not looking.
Seeing opportunities comes from instant recognition due to visual dexterity caused from viewing properly illustrated spin results, charts.
Randomness does have a virtual limit. It is not possible to get infinite variance. Those who haven't observed the game enough and merely read a few lines like, "every spin is independent of all previous ones" or "a million monkeys can type a work of Shakespeare" or " it is possible to get even 100 reds in a row" are misinformed people and they never bothered to see the randomness' reality.
Have a look to see the virtual limit of randomness: http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/13069557/Virtual-limits-of-different-bets-of-roulette#.U5RPtHKSxhU
Quote from: Xander on June 07, 2014, 04:31:06 PM
On a more serious note, there are plenty of people on various math and physics forum, like myself, that could teach and mentor you on roulette and basic probability
Xander, would you like to have a section dedicated to the concepts of statistics and probabilities?
Not to mention serving as an ordered place for the fellows to point to and be directed towards when dealing with those very matching topics which recurrently appear. A quality model with your brand.
...How about naming it
"Xander's Cookies"? --You know, because of the cookies & BIAS folk-minted relationship :)
It would be really great to have you in command of an open educational space about roulette's math.
Cheers!
Victor,
Thanks for the offer. :thumbsup: But no, I'd rather not have a section. Someone else will have to mentor Albalaha.
QuoteRandomness does have a virtual limit. It is not possible to get infinite variance. Those who haven't observed the game enough and merely read a few lines like, "every spin is independent of all previous ones" or "a million monkeys can type a work of Shakespeare" or " it is possible to get even 100 reds in a row" are misinformed people and they never bothered to see the randomness' reality.
Have a look to see the virtual limit of randomness: http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/13069557/Virtual-limits-of-different-bets-of-roulette#.U5RPtHKSxhUAlabalaha
Variance is only limited by the size of the sample. For example, 101 reds, obviously, can't hit in a row if the game is only 100 spins.
Now to correct Albalaha [smiley]aes/wink.png[/smiley]: If the wheel did not have a zero,
in a game of 100 spins, 100 reds in a row could hit. In such a game, there would be 2^100 possible patterns that could occur. And all red is one of the possible patterns. All black is also one of the possible patterns. The reason that you will likely never witness all red is because there is only a 1/2^100 chance that the unique red pattern will hit. However, there's a 1 - (1/2^100 ) that another pattern will hit.
In other words, there are a gazillion possible patterns, other than red that can hit, but all red is only one of them. In the end, that one pattern that does hit could be considered an extremely rare event to the person that was perhaps looking for it from the very first spin. :o :o :o In the end, the wheel is a rare event generator.
-Xander
Quote from: Xander on June 08, 2014, 05:36:02 PM
Victor,
In the end, the wheel is a rare event generator.
Absolutely correct !!!. I've been banging on about this for years.
You can make a group of 18 that has hit 24 times any time you like (see example below) Just collect and count from the first spin. The repeats are more hits.
If you select a set of 18 you will wait a long time to see them do anything rare. Like red, or high or odd.
You may deem line 1-6 to be hot if no.1 has hit twice and no.5 has hit once. Why does 1 and 5 hitting mean 2,3,4,and 6 will hit? It doesn't. There is no reason for it to. But in the numbers below, the 6-group 20,25,11,3,10,14 has hit 7 times right off the bat. don't go looking for it. It happens every spin. All rare events are produced all the time.
We are hoodwinked into looking at about 20 of them....lines, dozens, ECs.,,,waiting endless years!!!!
Random is producing the hottest stuff every spin.
First spins of a random.org selection.
20
25
11
11
3
10
14
11
13
23
34
30
33
21
6
35
4
2
1
23
18 xxx Here is a group of 18 which has hit 21 times (without searching)
16
12
15
12
Quote from: Garnabby on June 08, 2014, 09:12:45 PM
I thought that there were no patterns? Now every thing is a pattern. :applause:
Not quite Garnabby, what I am saying is if you want patterns, don't sit around for 20 years looking at casino created carpet patterns, random is producing them every spin.
There are 2.3million groups of 6 in 37, and 1,2,3,4,5,6 is just one of them. Every spin, there is a 6 group hitting 6 or 7 or 8 times.
How many could that hit? 1,5,22,22,5,1,5,5,22,24,26,1,22,5,33 ?
Albalaha tells us lines only hit 9 times. that's a limit of random. I just made up a group of 6 which hits 15 in a row. Could this sequence never happen?
Quote from: Garnabby on June 08, 2014, 09:33:00 PM
And, it's better to focus on the individual recognizable patterns instead of the next bet per se.
Sorry Garnabby, just expand that a little. I could take that 2 ways....I want to get what you meant
Thanks
QuoteI thought that there were no patterns? Now every thing is a pattern. -Garnabby
There are no exploitable patterns in ECs. I simply used the word "patterns" to describe all of the possible outcomes.
There's no way of knowing whether a pattern will likely continue or end. To believe otherwise is part of the gambler's fallacy.
-Xander
Quote from: Xander on June 08, 2014, 11:16:31 PM
There are no exploitable patterns in ECs. I simply used the word "patterns" to describe all of the possible outcomes.
There's no way of knowing whether a pattern will likely continue or end. To believe otherwise is part of the gambler's fallacy.
-Xander
There must be a fallacy for fundamentalism of not knowing the future. Even worse is preaching the never ending mantra. Get this: you don't need to see the future in order to take advantage of it. You also don't need the inability to see the future from preventing you from taking advantage of coincidence. But you can't see it. That's because of your stubborn opinion.
Not seeing into the future does not prevent Elegant Patterns from occurring. And fundamentalism does not enlighten anyone but the easily impressed. So please ignore my comments if they differ from any beliefs that you might find too ignorant.
QuoteNot seeing into the future does not prevent Elegant Patterns from occurring. And fundamentalism does not enlighten anyone but the easily impressed. So please ignore my comments if they differ from any beliefs that you might find too ignorant.
I have a question: Do these elegant patterns ebb and flow? [smiley]aes/wine.png[/smiley][smiley]aes/wine.png[/smiley][smiley]aes/wine.png[/smiley]
Sorry, but the facts are not "elegant", and they do not "ebb and flow". Flamboyant terms and made up jargon is amusing at best and will not dazzle anyone. There are no patterns in the ECs that you can exploit, since you have no way of knowing whether a trend is likely to continue or end.
-Xander
Quote from: Xander on June 09, 2014, 06:24:39 AM
I have a question: Do these elegant patterns ebb and flow? [smiley]aes/wine.png[/smiley][smiley]aes/wine.png[/smiley][smiley]aes/wine.png[/smiley]
Xander friend - I don't think there is anything to laugh at. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs. When I started not a long while ago, my belief was on ECs, patterns so and so forth. Am glad no one laughed at me, but after going through so much in these times and working through practically and placing bets on the table, I believe now that there are nothing like patterns that you can exploit. It is the way we have been thought to think by roulette creators and there is nothing foolish or ashamed to be human. I get what you are saying, but it will take a bit of out of the box thinking to think that way and it cannot be imposed by preaching. I can see you telling the same thing for another millions of years of come :)
Quote from: Garnabby on June 08, 2014, 09:33:00 PM
focus on the individual recognizable patterns
Garnabby mate, What does this mean?
Quote from: wannawin on June 08, 2014, 06:43:30 AM
For example if my game sessions are 100 spins. in 40 sessions I only see a row of many reds in 3 sessions of them. Many more than the expected in a term of 100 spins. For me to be in the presence of one of these sessions is a rare event.
Wannawin, I am from the camp that believes the outcomes in every session is a rare outcome of its own. We can go on arguing for that, but that's not the point and there are excellent arguments from Turner and Xander already in the thread that explains it.
I think there needs to be slightly different qualification for what you call as
rare. We could take a few leaves from probability, variance and deviation. Rather than calling something rare, call something out of normalcy. I can already hear someone questioning my phrase "Normalcy".
It can either mean "being within certain limits that define the range of normal functioning" or "expectedness as a consequence of being usual or regular or common". We can definitely take advantage of the short deviations from "Normalcy", if we know what "Normalcy" translates to in roulette terms. The difficulty lies in understanding what "Normalcy" means. This is another endless discussion, but the only one thought process of normalcy that any one will rarely disagree is that there is 18/37 or 18/38 chance of the next spin being red. It is questionable, whether this can be translated into a collective phenomenon for a set of spins.
To be honest, there is no known advantage of playing or not playing occurences of a few reds in a row. You can put a number to "few".
Someone raised a question of 9 reds in a row followed by another 9 reds in a row. Why 9, lets make it simple. The probabilities of getting 2 reds in a row is different from the probability of 1 red followed by another red. See below why?
RB, BR, RR, BB - The probability of two reds in a row is 1 in 4 or 25%. Now if you assume that after 1 red, the probability of the next spin also being red is 1 in 4, it is not right. Why? See below.
RB, BR, RR, BB. After 1 red appears, your chances diminishes to only RB and RR, or 1 in 2 or 50%. Just extrapolate this to probability of 18 reds and 9 reds appearing after 9 reds. This is precisely the reason why your point of entry matters. This is
precisely the reason why placed bets matter and virtual bets do not work. It takes a beating to get a grasp of this concept, but once you grasp this, you will realize that most of the things will fall in place beautifully.
Just to clarify, that is not to say that there are ways to use the collective probability. My only point is
there is a reason why probability treats dependent and independent events differently. You cannot break collective probability and translate it into individual probabilities and the definition of what is rare need to be taken in this context.
There was another question around why no one has seen 50 reds in a row raised in this thread. The above explanation holds true for this case as well. As Xander rightly pointed out, it is one out of a number of various chances that can happen in 50 spins. To give a bit more to think on that, we all know that 50 reds in a row mean only an identified set of 18 or few numbers to appear in 50 spins. It is possible and
rarer (lesser possibility) than an identified set of 18 or few numbers to appear in 49 spins. But both these events are out of normalcy.
Simplify it further to understand it better. Consider only two outcomes Red and Black. RB, BR, RR, BB. It is
less probable (not rare) for an identified set of outcome to appear twice in two chances than occuring once - 1/4 against 2/4. But extrapolate this, you will realize that it is becoming lesser and lesser probable until a point when it is perceived to be "rare". The point is there is essentially only one measure "Probability of a chance". "Rare" is just a perception and relative observation. For someone who plays one session every day of 50 spins, it might be rare to see 18 reds in a row. For a croupier, who spins for a living 18 reds in a row might be something very common. Larger your sample size gets, "Uncommon" becomes "Common".
Can you exploit it in simple terms? In theory, No. In practical terms, Questionable as you will never be able to prove it one way or the other. It needs a bit more than thinking in terms of reds and blacks and more than pure mathematical terms to exploit it.
Quote from: Xander on June 09, 2014, 06:24:39 AM
I have a question: Do these elegant patterns ebb and flow? [smiley]aes/wine.png[/smiley][smiley]aes/wine.png[/smiley][smiley]aes/wine.png[/smiley]
Sorry, but the facts are not "elegant", and they do not "ebb and flow". Flamboyant terms and made up jargon is amusing at best and will not dazzle anyone. There are no patterns in the ECs that you can exploit, since you have no way of knowing whether a trend is likely to continue or end. -Xander
Answer this? Do you see the absence of singles or the occurrences of only one single after every color change in this stretch of spins?
BBBBrrrrrBBBBBBrrrrrrBBBrrrrBBBBBrrrrr
Quote from: Gizmotron on June 09, 2014, 02:54:04 PM
Answer this? Do you see the absence of singles or the occurrences of only one single after every color change in this stretch of spins?
BBBBrrrrrBBBBBBrrrrrrBBBrrrrBBBBBrrrrr
Gizmo the answer is a no brainer and you know the answer you will get. This is a fact.
But the question is what do you derive from this fact. I am sure you might have seen all combinations of AAAAAAAAA and AABAABAAAAB and ABAABBABBAAB and ABBABAABBAAAAB etc where A represents a series of colours and B represents a single.
What are you trying to drive from this fact?
With respect to ebb and flow, as an English speaker it means to me a recurrent pattern of coming and going or something regularly becoming higher and lower. The key phrase here is "
regular". To be fair, you can see one outcome peaking and dominating over the other, but do you think they happen regularly. Does that mean that if i give you 5 sets of 15 outcomes, you will be able to get into a profit betting the next 5 outcomes in these 5 sets? I would like to learn, if you are open to teach.
Quote from: Leapyfrog on June 09, 2014, 03:28:24 PM
Gizmo the answer is a no brainer and you know the answer you will get. This is a fact.
But the question is what do you derive from this fact.
The only fact I see is that you didn't answer my question, one that was never directed at you, I might add. You then proceded to offer up a "red herring" by asking another question. You need to get your answers from somewhere else. I'll continue to get my answers my way.
Quote from: Gizmotron on June 09, 2014, 03:45:39 PM
The only fact I see is that you didn't answer my question, one that was never directed at you, I might add. You then proceded to offer up a "red herring" by asking another question. You need to get your answers from somewhere else. I'll continue to get my answers my way.
I will steer clear if you want me to. do you?
If you don't and interested in continuing the conversation, let me try answering it your way.
"Answer this? Do you see the absence of singles or the occurrences of only one single after every color change in this stretch of spins?"
Yes and a loud YES.
Quote from: Leapyfrog on June 09, 2014, 03:47:59 PM
"Answer this? Do you see the absence of singles or the occurrences of only one single after every color change in this stretch of spins?"
Yes and a loud YES.
Thank you. That puts you in the camp that sees patterns in the EC's. By the way, that pattern occurred last night at the casino. I had no trouble exploiting it. It only takes one flat bet to try. The winning pattern was after every color change there was two more of the same color. I placed bets after each color change, only one for each change. I won four times before losing once. That's when the pattern dissipated.
Quote from: Gizmotron on June 09, 2014, 04:04:49 PM
Thank you. That puts you in the camp that sees patterns in the EC's.
Gizmo, answering yes to your question does not mean that it puts me in the camp that sees patterns in ECs. The fact is I see patterns in ECs. The fact also is I don't know how to exploit them.
Now that i have answered your question, Will you be kind enough to explain how to exploit it. Now lets say you saw the pattern last night in casino. I have a couple of questions.
Quote from: Gizmotron on June 09, 2014, 04:04:49 PM
It only takes one flat bet to try.
When do you place your flat bet?
Quote from: Gizmotron on June 09, 2014, 04:04:49 PM
The winning pattern was after every color change there was two more of the same color. I placed bets after each color change, only one for each change. I won four times before losing once. That's when the pattern dissipated.
How do you identify there was a winning pattern. Do you see such series occuring three or four times in a row and then flat bet? What is the trigger to say it is a winning pattern?
QuoteHow do you identify there was a winning pattern. Do you see such series occuring three or four times in a row and then flat bet? What is the trigger to say it is a winning pattern?
This is what I do. I recognize a pattern. I wait one spin to see if it continues. In the EC bets I place one bet that fits the pattern. If it wins then I ride it until the first loss. Now the odds are that I will lose 50% of all trys, in the long term. But 50% of the time I have a chance of hitting a win streak. That's balanced with the fact that only half the wins will end with only one win. But the rest of the streaks are all wins.
In my example, this was not a perfect pattern. So that cut down on the opportunity. You can use any pattern selection method you like. What you are looking for is any continuing situation. All you do is make small risks on things that are continuing to work. If you lose a bet then that usually means the pattern is over.
Quote from: Garnabby on June 09, 2014, 10:23:18 PM
That's it, you have to beat the random game. Forget about the edges, etc, for the specific casino games. But, you have to beat the random game in a way in which its "edges" can negate that of the casinos'.
You are right of course Garnabby. Anything else will not last '10 minutes'.
Interestingly enough, I also have looked into working in groups of three for the e/c games and there is a lot of promise there. It makes sense to attack Baccarat with the lower vig. The only thing that would put me off is the time sitting at a Baccarat table not betting. It's no problem sitting out spins at a roulette terminal where nobody is really paying any attention.
Anyway, thanks for a very good post. :thumbsup:
Xander is wrong to say that every event is a rare one, but you have to define what "rare" means. Often in statistics it's taken as less than a 1 in 20 chance, but in any case you're looking at 2+ standard deviations from the mean (the outer reaches of the bell curve).
He is right, though, in saying that there's no way of exploiting rare events, and there's no way of "reading" randomness either. The very idea is an oxymoron. How is it possible to predict the unpredictable? which is what random outcomes are.
Quote from: Mike on June 10, 2014, 05:44:37 AM
He is right, though, in saying that there's no way of exploiting rare events, and there's no way of "reading" randomness either. The very idea is an oxymoron. How is it possible to predict the unpredictable? which is what random outcomes are.
There that same mistake is. It never fails. Someone always thinks that reading randomness is a claim of predicting future outcomes. It's actually a process of confirming continuing situations. It has nothing to do with fallacy or prediction.
What's troubling is having to deal with people that can't understand it. Further more they get up on their high horses about this "straw man" argument. Well this might sound very odd to you Mike, but your argument is undeniable. There are very few people that would disagree with you around here. There's one big problem though, you don't know what reading randomness is for and how it is used for bet selection.
Mathematical fundamentalism and probability can't predict when a win streak will occur and how long it will last. Those are two things that happen every day, and they do this without any need for prediction to make them happen.
Quote from: Gizmotron on June 10, 2014, 03:02:44 PM
Mathematical fundamentalism and probability can't predict when a win streak will occur and how long it will last. Those are two things that happen every day, and they do this without any need for prediction to make them happen.
Actually, probability
can predict those things, that's what expectation is. The expectation is an average, but of course you have to factor in the variance, so events are predictable only within certain limits. You can predict events like the number of spins it takes to get a run of 3 even chances in a row, or the number of spins on average before all numbers on the wheel have hit at least once.
So reading randomness is confirming continuing situations? OK, but unless you can predict better than the expectation says you will, how can you hope to gain an edge? You can lose a lot of bets before your situation continues as you hope it will, and the math says that over time those losses will outweigh the wins.
Like I said, there are those that are stuck on the math. This: 1/37, this has all of them fixated like a deer in the headlights.
Why are math oriented people discussing at a forum about bet selection. Something does not add up.
Like the maths guys or not...they stake their case as Xander did. Like the "random produces rare events all the time" guys or not....I staked my case clearly why I believe it.
Now we are left with the "no it doesn't" guys not staking any case. Just..."no it doesn't"
Quote from: Xander on June 10, 2014, 05:42:55 PM
So what you're saying is that all of the experts and mathematicians are wrong, but you're correct? Do you by chance have any "elegant" math that you can show us to back up your wild claims? Or do you still require people to pay for your "elegant" tutoring?
Guys, "reading randomness" is an oxymoron. You can't read random, because it's just that, random! There are no "elegant patterns" that can be exploited.
-Xander
I have exploited five perfect patterns in the last 20 years. This is from the first one:
.324 x .324 x .675 x .324 x .324 x .675 x .324 x .324 x .675 x .324 x .324 x .675
This pattern occurred for 36 perfectly symmetrical spins in a row.IF YOU REALLY NEED THE RESULTS I'll have to use my laptop. It's basic distribution arithmetic. That's mathematical proof that a basic pattern can continue to repeat.
As stated elsewhere the divisive black and white views espoused by some are silly childish oversimplifications of a much more complex, fascinating and beautiful reality. In many cases I can say you are both right but when some over state their position and deny all other possibilities that reveals the limitations of their thinking and present capacity to think.
I will provide examples.
Every day and in any stream of numbers you provide, say 20 -30 spins duration I can demonstrate short term patterns and sometimes symmetries that put a lie to the position as stated by Xander, and which will give a likely indication of a con-sequence through the dialectic of 'same' and 'different'. These variations on a theme ( often illustrated beautifully in baroque music) are all beautiful, just as any leaf on a favourite tree in the garden or park, or the patterns we see as infinite variety in human fingerprints or iris. Unique assemblages of the same material but when seen in the correct 'spirit' are exquisite. just so a stream of random numbers, and every one containing coded information ready to temporarily link and thus cluster in short strands. The decay curve of such overlapping clusters stretches from ( by my definition/ interpretation) three to sometimes well beyond a dozen and the willingness to change form or resistance to break is a resonance of change/ same expressions where the force to change always wins but sometimes struggles to overcome same.
These patterns are insights and aspects of randomness which I tend to approach as a partially knowable unknown.
It is beyond human consciousness to deal with the vastness of the 'Unknown' and the attempts produce over simplified orthodoxies that separate people very often rather than unite. This is where physical merges into 'meta-physical' but this should be no surprise because we are constantly dealing with such when decay and creation surrounds us and is 'our body' ( in all its bio chemistry) from microscopic to cosmic and more. You just have to learn to look ( peep if necessary) outside of the (linear) box wherein you may feel more comfortable.
I am not going to waste my time in my Blog Section dealing with views such as those expressed by Xander, or Mike, but that is not to say they are 'wrong' but that they appear not to accept that there are other views beyond their understanding. For all is not knowable, and the best we can do is chip away and try to make progress. All I am encouraging is co-operation in this quest and not subversion.
It is 'results' ( ie actions) that count, not 'words', and too many words are divisive. So I merely wanted to provide some support for Gizmotron here with his wonderful and elegant example. It is the application of theory that has most value and in science priority is given to 'how', with often the 'why' being wisely attempted much later.
There are many participants in this Forum ( I personally know several) who have working successful and demonstrable bets ( and wisely they may not choose to reveal too much in public ) - knowledge and results earned through so much practical application. Once you have that quality, you realize how foolish and vain are the statements of those who say it can't be done! Also, beware cynics, for all the reasons I have outlined earlier, as for reasons known only personally to them, but they can get quite mean spirited, especially when they get together.
@ Xander
Your comments as always are noted.
As usual you have missed the point completely as to what was discussed and the principles and practical application therof. Your lack of observation regarding my quite specific and particular work in practical application and testing of roulette ( ie the specific 10,000 spin live test of WF +LWB and the 100,000 RNG test) on the Blog Section illustrates shall we say a 'selective' vision, or perhaps 'blinkered' view. Several years of roulette work you seem to have missed, and it might be fair to say I publish more specific spin data than many.
For the record, and as you are now in direct contact with me which is the position I wanted, please note on BetForum.cc that it was your pre-meditated, malicious, ignorant and spiteful continuing personal attacks on first Dr Martin Blakey PhD ( Melbourne) a highly regarded professional roulette player and daily participant at Crown Casino Private Members Rooms, and then your personal slander and derogatory attacks on me, accusing me of representing myself as Dr Blakey on the Forum, and then your accusation that I conspired to defraud Members of the Forum, and your issue of threatening and defamatory PM messages to myself and to the Forum Administrator regarding me, that caused massive mis-information on the Forum to such an extent that the Forum Administrator lost control and published private correspondence between myself and he, in breach of international privacy regulations. Having watched this situation unfold through your troll like behavior, you then in a delicious twist of inverted irony demanded that I should apologise to the Forum for the chaos that unfolded.
Thus, after taking careful professional advice, I made a formal complaint to the Forum Server, Belgacom Skynet in Belgium with the apparent result that BetForum.cc is now closed. Further action by me is pending. Let us be clear here. I made the formal complaint which was receipted by Belgacom-Skynet on May 20. I was advised action would follow within ten days, and during that time I noted BefForumcc closed. The 'action' I anticipated would have been further detail communications from the telco but whether coincidental or not, the Forum closed. It is childish of Xander to state that I was seeking to claim I had been responsible for the closing. It may have been a complaint or it may have been other commercial issues, or private issues. I am sure Xander would not know but as is his mode of operation he likes to assert blame anywhere other than in his origination.
I have stated elsewhere my intention was to bring to formal attention unacceptable and illegal behaviour on an internet Forum hosted within EU provisions, not out of some petty attempt at retribution. Far from it. I hope the Forum re-opens because there is valuable information therein. What I do want is to see lessons learned and behaviour improve on internet Forum sites. Now this may be hard to achieve but the difference between a responsible and calm environment and that of a chaotic and reactionary cauldron is the difference between heaven and hell in my perception. Sound control and administration is essential but it may be that higher level work has to be private for some entities just do not want or accept progress.
Xander is primarily responsible for that consequence being the Complaint against the Forum where he was the initiator of a pre-meditated campaign of slander, and as he is a forthright expounder of the principle of cause and effect, this one is a classic example. His irresponsible actions and repeated lies were the cause, and the effect may be the resulting loss of service to that Forum. But then maybe its all a curious coincidence.
Thank you for successfully illustrating the side of the loyal opposition so candidly. My favorite part is both of you ignoring my example and/or being ignorant of it altogether. I guess being an actual math oriented fundamentalist is actually very easy. I'm still waiting for the all mighty of all mantra "past results can't predict future events."
Gizmo, where is your example? Your method seems to be this: look at the last few outcomes and if you see a pattern, eg something like R B R B then bet that the pattern continues. So the pattern being alternating red/black I would bet on red next, correct?.
If the bet fails I look for another pattern and bet for it to continue. Is this your method in a nutshell?
Quote from: Mike on June 11, 2014, 09:15:40 AM
Gizmo, where is your example? Your method seems to be this: look at the last few outcomes and if you see a pattern, eg something like R B R B then bet that the pattern continues. So the pattern being alternating red/black I would bet on red next, correct?.
If the bet fails I look for another pattern and bet for it to continue. Is this your method in a nutshell?
Singles in the EC 's are not rare. I won't bet on them unless there is also an existing context, the global effect. - Yes, I know, it's another made up phrase. Too bad you are too lazy to research about context. It's here at this forum, it's completely given without an expectation of compensation.
Quote from: Gizmotron on June 11, 2014, 03:35:25 PM
Singles in the EC 's are not rare. I won't bet on them unless there is also an existing context, the global effect. - Yes, I know, it's another made up phrase. Too bad you are too lazy to research about context. It's here at this forum, it's completely given without an expectation of compensation.
Typical. You can never get a straight answer from system advocates. That's because they know that if they give a concrete methodology you can actually test, it will be shown to be a loser. Far better to keep it vague and then no one can say you're wrong because they don't know what you're talking about in the first place.
Quote from: Mike on June 11, 2014, 04:47:25 PM
Typical. You can never get a straight answer from system advocates. That's because they know that if they give a concrete methodology you can actually test, it will be shown to be a loser. Far better to keep it vague and then no one can say you're wrong because they don't know what you're talking about in the first place.
http://betselection.cc/gizmotron/the-global-effect-what-is-it/ - for those that are interested.
I could not be more pleased that you don't get it. Some people deserve their own self inflicted retribution. Whine all you want. This website is the only place on the internet where I answered all the questions. I have no reason to re-discuss material already published. I have no desire to argue with a troll. Come back when you have done your homework.
Before being interrupted I was sharing the existence of the perfect repeating pattern. I consider this the most fringe of rare occurrences. The topic of this thread is about taking advantage of rare events. The old boy scout axiom plays into this, "be prepared".
I always am searching for these moments while I play my normal game. I wonder if others have such tactics?