+ Register

[Xander]

I 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

[Gizmotron]

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.

[Xander]

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.

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
 

[Leapyfrog]

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

[Leapyfrog]

focus on the individual recognizable patterns

Garnabby mate, What does this mean?

[Leapyfrog]

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.

[Gizmotron]

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

[Leapyfrog]

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.

[Gizmotron]

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.

[Leapyfrog]

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.

[Gizmotron]

"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.

[Leapyfrog]

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.

It only takes one flat bet to try.

When do you place your flat bet?

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?

[Gizmotron]

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?

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.

[Bally6354]

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. 

[Mike]

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.