+ Register

[TheMagician]

In life, there is no such thing as "easy money".  Even a crime, of any sort,  takes effort and thought combined with good timing and luck. Turning the light on roulette, the king of random number generators in the gambling world, the very same principle ensues from the Strong and Weak Law of large numbers.

This law stipulates that the average of results extracted from a large number of tests will not only be closer to the expected value but even come closer as more tests are implemented.



Most gamblers lack basic knowledge in game theory and consequently disregard  this field of mathematics, either by said ignorance, or some inborn obsessive defiant disorder, convincing themselves that somehow this universal law can be overcome or put aside in order for their own "will" to come through and fulfill any given desire rising from challenging the representative archetypes of this law, be it roulette, craps, lottery or otherwise.

The only way to beat a material archetype based on this law is to approach the very fundament of said archetype. In roulette that would be the Wheel and its specific distribution of numbers and not the table and its distribution of numbers that doesn't match the wheel array.

Said approach need to take into account the prevalent physics at play during any given spin and include four factors: Energy, Frequency, Resistance, Vibration(Mass).

Every given spin can be represented as a waveform of energy, and every waveform is calculable through an array of mathematical tools as to predict its direction, interference and outcome.

When you for example use a laser against a roulette wheel you implement above named factors.

But as physical instruments of this sort are prohibited in any given Casino, a more theoretical approach is needed where a set of algorithms has to be devised,  including not only the EFRV factors, but also act as immaterial substitutes for the laser measuring equipment.

This later technique is known as Wheel Distance Differentiation, or alternatively, Frequency Distance Differentiation.

Any given platform using said Algorithmic matrix is bound to produce results that more or less invalidates the Strong and Weak Law of large numbers during any given game,  leaving its participant in said numerical continuum of non-randomness",  with a wide open field of applicable options that easily can predict sectors on the wheel where the ball will stop its spin direction through the factors of EFRV.

Is this a way to easy money. Certainly not, as even such an application takes considerable effort and thought. Yet the outcome can be said to be superior to any given trials by those who believe the Strong and Weak Law of large numbers can be set aside by mere trial of repeated pattern implementation, where the only variance is the change of pattern and bet selection.

[Blue_Angel]

This law stipulates that the average of results extracted from a large number of tests will not only be closer to the expected value but even come closer as more tests are implemented.

Really?

Let me ask you a question, we have 3 samples, the first contains 10 results, the second contains 100 results and the third 1000 results, the question is which of the 3 samples is most probable to has the most balanced outcomes.

Simplicity itself, so? 1st, 2nd or 3rd ?

[Blue_Angel]

If we could find an imbalance with 10 results then why do you expect that in 1000 will be any difference?
Don't 1000 contain many set of 10's ?
So if all of the smaller parts from a big total are imbalanced why the grand total should be more balanced?
Isn't this what probability theory dictates, that since every chance is equal we will lose regardless of what we bet because of the lesser payout?
And am asking you, isn't quite an assumption that in some distant and vague future everything will appear equally?
Let me put it another way, when a total of outcomes grows larger, the actual difference between each and every number's appearances only grows bigger proportionally to the sample's growth, what seems to minimizing is the percentage difference.
The actual difference is what it matters, the percentage difference is deceptive.
Perhaps all these theorists have no idea about gamble, by putting many numbers into papers doesn't make you realize how much different could be a theory from reality!
The papers which count the most are the money notes and the significant numbers are not those from equations but these from the results!

[Albalaha]

Very nice and thought provocating topic. Law of large numbers talk of likelihood of a large sample to be closer to mean, in each bet. If you say, toss a coin 10 times, all heads could happen but can it happen 10x10 times? Answer is, the sequential probability of such events are so remote it could take gazillions of tosses to find one such sample. Realistically, we can safely presume that such things can't happen. Larger the data, closer we get to mean. It can only be proved untrue with some physical bias but never in a truly random outcome.
            There is a bigger question of how to utilize even if law of large numbers is eternally a truth. There are very few strategy meant to work for long run and most known ones are proven failures by one reason or other.

[TheMagician]

Your mode of reasoning is flawed. Next time I suggest that if you have a question you state the question only, and not as you by habit seem to do, mix questions with set opinions, otherwise, the reader and target of your post might feel its better to abstain from responding than trying to enter such dialectical traps.

Now, as I am a generous nature I ´ll respond the question/s.

If the Casinos, who always consult mathematicians (those practicing applied math), thought what you wrote in your post,  was even remotely possible they would never open. It is because of the math behind the Strong and Weak law of Large Numbers is irrefutable and also proven through countless spins all over the world from thousands of roulette wheels, all showing the same thing combined with the carefully calculated odds the Casino offer you as a gambler that makes them winners in the long run.

Sure, you might have some "system" or a conceptual idea of what you believe to be a superior bet selection, but the Casinos know that if they can keep you long enough at the tables or make you return frequently, they own you, or more correctly, your money.

You know very well something about my own extensive research over the years with my team. I have lately proven to them that the only way to beat the Casinos at their own game when it comes to Roulette, is to only play the variance curve formed on any given bet selection.  If you play this curve correctly it means that you basically understand its mathematical language from a graphical point of view and can swiftly apply a bet selection that shows a positive variance which means the odds of making a hit during its temporal duration is maximal.

Equally, you save money by not playing when the variance curve of your bet selection is negative. This is as far as I know the only way to beat any given roulette wheel at any given session.
You may, of course, refute this, but I speak from empirical proof provided to me by my team both with thousands of simulated and real money sessions.

Thank you.

[Blue_Angel]

If you really believe that then you've been brainwashed!
You swallow every chunk of horse stuff they provide you instead of spitting it back to their face!

Here's what TurboGenius has to say:

Random rarely ever equals "equality".

So for example - if we take 1000 spins - without "random" we could have 500 reds and 500 blacks (not accounting for the zero/00 of course for simplicity.
With random however - we have a tiny slight chance of it being 500 and 500 but most of the time it won't be.
Much like 38 repeats of the same number - the "math guys" will point to some small number/chance and say "it's possible".
It's incredibly unlikely.
So we can avoid the idea that using anything "random" will end in equality.
It also doesn't mean that there is some push towards equality - this seems to be common with systems that don't work - because there were more reds than blacks, somehow there will now be more blacks to try to catch up to reds.
This doesn't happen.
These types of systems always fail.
Random does however keep itself contained - you won't have 10 times the number of reds than you do blacks.
Random has limits and over time you can calculate these as well.
We can look at standard deviations and see that a number might be +4 std but it won't stay there - there's not equality with other numbers, but there is some type of balance or boundaries that random stays within.
I always think of this as a rubber band around the results - it can stretch but it's held within a specific range because of random.

To hit on bets for a minute as well - I rarely see people playing the even money bets or the dozens/columns or streets/lines and that's good (in my opinion).
Think about it this way - even if you could have close to 500 red and 500 blacks - when you look at individual numbers you'll see there is nothing of the sort going on there.
As I posted in the other thread - you won't see each number hit 3 times exactly in 3 cycles of spins.
This is a sign right away that things not being equal is the door to winning.
Just knowing this along should steer people away from the outside bets and playing individual numbers is the way to go.

As you move from even money bets through the betting locations until you get to straight-up bets, you can see that the chance of there being equality gets less and less likely the further you go.
While you might see 500 reds and 500 blacks, you'll never see 3 of each number appearing for 3 cycles, 5 of each number appearing for 5 cycles, etc etc.
This makes it clear that there is a benefit in playing repeaters.
It might seem more logical to think about this way - if you could avoid betting on the numbers that aren't going to show up over X amount of spins and you "could" bet on numbers that appear multiple times over those same X amount of spins - you would never lose.
This is true and entirely possible.
"Just don't bet on numbers that aren't going to show".
"Any number that hasn't shown up is potentially a number that WON'T show up". You're playing repeaters then.
It's just logical.
Playing random numbers, lucky (coughs) numbers, birthdays, flat betting, switching tables when down X amount, stopping when X ahead or X down all makes no sense. You're going to win playing repeaters.
Are hot numbers going to stay hot ?
No - like I said, the rubber band around the results keep a hot number from going out of control and staying hot and showing more and more and more above expected.
The same for cold numbers - they won't stay cold, but they won't catch up either with any regularity that you can bet on and win.
Run 1,000 spins and note the top 15 hottest numbers.
Run another 1,000 and re-check.
A few will have dropped off of the list right ?
Of course - but.... some of them will remain and continue to stay hot.
Another 1,000 spins ?
More drop off, some stay.
Another 1,000 spins ?
Now someone can say - "what good is that, you don't know which ones are going to do what - it's random !!!" but they aren't thinking really.
We can use progressions - which make up for the fact that we have no idea with 100% accuracy which ones will do which.
No one can predict that kind of info, and we don't have to.
We're not playing ALL of the numbers on the table.
Cold number staying cold - we don't lose on them.
Hot numbers going cold - we don't lose on them.
Hot numbers staying hot - we don't win or lose on them - and numbers becoming hot ?
We make a killing with the progression in place that covers any loss from not being 100% accurate with the other categories.

The anti-system people are first to jump in and say that it's mumbo-jumbo and some "mystery" that no one can figure out - it's up to you to agree with them or not.
They won't deny though that the only way to win is to play numbers that show above expected (which are hot numbers) and to NOT play numbers that aren't showing up (common sense).
They can throw rocks at the idea that a system and progression based on repeaters is nonsense - but at the same time they surely have to understand that it makes complete sense, and that the road to always winning is down that road.

For those who don't know Ed (TurboGenius), he is one of the most prolific and flamboyant system creators.
When such ideas come forth, as the one above, I cry out loud:
I'm in love with your brain! 

[TheMagician]

The derivative of Ed´s lengthy proposition is very basic Roulette. He advocates simply to play straight ups (numbers) that are, as a bet selection, in a positive variance curve. I used plain, good English when I described that in my previous posts. What Ed wrote about is the only working method. He calls it Anti system, or whatever, I apply a more suitable mathematical expression on it. The way is still the same. He may use a strict approach with some notations, I use advanced platforms with good graphics describing the curve and the right moment to bet and win or, even better, when won, also when not to bet.

Your mental inability to understand that,  and your childish way of using "rebellious" expressions as to show your disdain for those that you feel  do not choose to see and embrace the distorted reality you perceive, is not my problem. It is yours.

[Blue_Angel]

The derivative of Ed´s lengthy proposition is very basic Roulette. He advocates simply to play straight ups (numbers) that are, as a bet selection, in a positive variance curve. I used plain, good English when I described that in my previous posts. What Ed wrote about is the only working method. He calls it Anti system, or whatever, I apply a more suitable mathematical expression on it. The way is still the same. He may use a strict approach with some notations, I use advanced platforms with good graphics describing the curve and the right moment to bet and win or, even better, when won, also when not to bet.

Your mental inability to understand that,  and your childish way of using "rebellious" expressions as to show your disdain for those that you feel  do not "comprehend" applied reality as it is, is not my problem. It is yours.

If this is your way of saying: "you are right, I agree", then I'm glad to read it.
I've no problem with my "rebellious" expressions, I see no reason why would you. (?)