+ Register

[wannawin]

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.

[sqzbox]

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.

After a sleeper returns it takes up with drive to balance out

Again, in my view completely false. See RTM above.

[Gizmotron]

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.

[Albalaha]

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.

[wannawin]

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.

[wannawin]

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.

[Dr. Mabuse]

Are we talking about live   wheels or  RNG ?

Dr. Mabuse

[wannawin]

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.

[Xander]

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

 

[wannawin]

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.

[Albalaha]

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?

[Xander]

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?-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

[Albalaha]

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?

[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?-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.

[Albalaha]

And 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.