Yep, more gamblers fallacy for you. GOOD TIMES!

[Gizmotron]

Bayes - " For each number of spins looking back, the hot numbers were winners, but in general the trend is that the % difference increases the further back you go."

Wow, that's impressive. In fact it's  significant compared to a couple of years ago when several of us ran the same rules on several different computers and programming languages.

Could you post your source code for the RNG test? I would like to test it in Xtalk on a Mac OS.

In the past test we used one simple rule to attempt to successfully avoid the zeros. We tested over a billion spins for those tests.

[MrJ]

I am the master at predicting how certain threads end up.

These tests (this thread) will simply fade over time. In a month or two, we'll be back reading (from the anti-method crew), you can't win and it makes NO DIFFERENCE what numbers you bet, its all the same, blah blah blah.

The people at the Wiz board are well known for this TACTIC. Flag the thread, don't talk about thinking outside the box, go along with the masses in terms of opinions, no original thoughts of their own, gang-like attacking of other members etc.

Some will disagree with this......the Wiz board is not too different from GG. Its like the wild, wild west over there.

Ken

[Gizmotron]

Bayes - " Get 600 spins, and pick the 3 numbers which have hit the least number of times, then pick 3 numbers which have hit exactly 3 times going back no more than 47 spins. Continue to  get spins, and the winner from the 2 groups of 3 numbers is that group which is the first to get 2 hits."

Ken, here is your thread in a nutshell. Hot numbers are due. It's not a fallacy.

[MrJ]

"Ken, here is your thread in a nutshell. Hot numbers are due. It's not a fallacy" >>> Thanks, much appreciated. Trial & error, I can't say it enough.   

Ken

[Gizmotron]

Ken, I find this thread most interesting. I spent a full decade studying 300 spins at a time. I did notice a fall off at 450 spins. But I never looked at 600 spins. Have you ever heard of a standing wave? There might actually be natural lower point at 450, between 300 & 600.  If so I suspect it has something to do with the concept of a law of thirds. I'm  going to begin studying this with simulations. It's  nice to learn something new after all these years.

[XXVV]

The data produced on Rapid Roulette screens showing 4 hot numbers is in theory useful but actually is a further weapon to confuse the masses.
The hottest number may actually be cooling and the 200 spread is way too vague.
The most effective criteria in my experience are the short trends, and by short I mean within 20-50 spins. The hot sequence may well continue for several hundred spins and of course in some instances I have seen it continue for days, but in applying the most efficient and effective bet I believe it wise to look right under your nose.
When I have had streaks of 9 or more win cycles playing two hot numbers, they have little relation to the four hot numbers published appearing say 12/15 times over 200 spins. They are getting hot and hotter and get dropped before they cool. Thats the ideal.

[GARNabby]

The people at the Wiz board are well known for... don't talk about thinking outside the box, go along with the masses in terms of opinions, no original thoughts of their own, gang-like attacking of other members etc.

The Wiz is "filling his own pockets" at their expense.  Like all the other scammers, he makes his money without ever placing a bet.  (He replied to that over there, "I don't force anyone to bet".  Out of the other side of his (bodog) mouth comes, "Be a player.")



Still Garnabby... aka the Streak Fighter.

[MrJ]

I'll be honest guys, for MYSELF, this thread has nothing to do with a method. You might come up with one on your own, have a blast. My only purpose was to show that in SOME FASHION, choosing certain numbers over other numbers is 'better', even though its called gamblers fallacy. That's all I was out to do.

Ken

[MrJ]

I have a question guys.....it'll be kind of tough to answer, you might not even want to answer and to be honest, the question is a bit rhetorical, I somewhat know the answer.

A lot of us here will agree that betting on a couple (whatever) HOT numbers is 'better' to bet on compared to the cold numbers. Like I said though, its all in the wording of the method/test.

Anyways, why is it when I bring this very SAME subject up at the Wizard board, it gets shot down, laughed at, flagged (deleted) etc.

Like I said, the goofs over there like to post in unison, all agreeing with each other (LoL).

I think some of them LIE when they tell me they don't agree with my view(s). If I had a nickel for everytime I heard......"it makes no difference which numbers you bet", I'd be a millionaire today.

Ken

[Bayes]

Could you post your source code for the RNG test? I would like to test it in Xtalk on a Mac OS.

No problem, the code is fairly simple but I've added some comments  to make it easier to understand. Note that the raw_frequency() function analyses a list of spins and returns a sorted list with the most frequently hit numbers at the head of the list and coldest at the tail.

Code Select Expand

include std/stats.e
include std/sequence.e
sequence wheel, spins, s, cold, hot, scores

wheel = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,
     21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36}
scores = {0,0}
cold = {}
hot = {}
spins = {}
constant SAMPLE = 600

procedure bet()
    sequence score = {0,0} -- initialise scores (hot is 1st element, cold is 2nd)
    integer x
    while 1 do
    x = wheel[rand(37)] -- get next number
    if find(x, hot) then
        score[1] += 1   -- if it's in the hot list, increment hot count
    elsif find(x, cold) then
        score[2] += 1   -- otherwise, increment cold count
    end if
    if score[1] = 2 then  -- if cold numbers have "won"
        scores[1] += 1    -- chalk up a win for cold
        return
    elsif score[2] = 2 then  -- otherwise
        scores[2] += 1    -- chalk up a win for hot
        return
    end if
    end while
end procedure

for i = 1 to 100000 do     -- 100,000 sessions of 600 spins
    for j = 1 to SAMPLE do
    spins &= wheel[rand(37)]  -- get a spin
    end for
    s = raw_frequency(spins, ST_ALLNUM)  -- get list of frequencies (sorted from hot to cold)
    s = reverse(s)
    for k = 1 to 3 do
    cold &= s[k][2]  -- get the 3 coldest numbers
    end for
    s = raw_frequency(spins[$-46..$], ST_ALLNUM)  -- get list of frequencies for last 47 spins
    for l = 1 to length(s) do -- find the hot numbers
    if s[l][1] = 3 then   -- number must have hit exactly 3 times
        hot &= s[l][2]    -- add it to the list
        if length(hot) = 3 then  -- exit loop if 3 hot numbers are found
        exit
        end if
    end if
    end for
    if length(hot) = 3 then -- only start betting if 3 hot numbers have been found
    bet()  -- goto procedure
    end if
    spins = {}  -- reset arrays for next session
    cold = {}
    hot = {}
end for
? scores -- print output



[Bayes]

Anyways, why is it when I bring this very SAME subject up at the Wizard board, it gets shot down, laughed at, flagged (deleted) etc.

The Wiz makes his views on systems quite clear, maybe they're just sucking up to him? To be fair, it does seem reasonable to assume that because all numbers are equally likely to hit, then there should be no advantage in betting one group over the other, but as you say - it depends on how you define "hot" and "cold". The basic symmetry of the game isn't present under ALL conditions and definitions, and the maths shows this too. For example, I mentioned in another thread that you'd intuitively expect R/B to "cross over" (R & B have an equal chance of being in the lead), but that's not the case, and in fact whichever EC is in the lead will tend to stay in the lead for 100's or even 1000's of spins.

The key IMO is to find some kind of asymmetry in the game (which is all the AP's are doing too) then figure out a way to exploit it.

If you don't really believe it can be done (or are just too lazy to find out), then it's easier to go along with the received "wisdom" of the simplistic mathematical model, and dismiss it all as nonsense.

[nitrix]

I'm with Bayes for the Asymetrical thing that can be exploited.

Sorry its 3am and I'm really tired. I want to say I'll follow every threads and give a chance to every ideas. Even the oldest ones like Martingale, coupled with the right missing piece could be our winner.

Nobody knows who's on the right track or isn't. I try to learn from everyone, do my own experiments and share my results. I don't care what the guys at Wizard thinks.

You guys alone are a gold mine of informations and idea. We just need someone "stupid" enough to think outside of the box. Most great discoveries were a mistake afterall...

[MrJ]

The Wiz makes his views on systems quite clear, maybe they're just sucking up to him? To be fair, it does seem reasonable to assume that because all numbers are equally likely to hit, then there should be no advantage in betting one group over the other, but as you say - it depends on how you define "hot" and "cold". The basic symmetry of the game isn't present under ALL conditions and definitions, and the maths shows this too. For example, I mentioned in another thread that you'd intuitively expect R/B to "cross over" (R & B have an equal chance of being in the lead), but that's not the case, and in fact whichever EC is in the lead will tend to stay in the lead for 100's or even 1000's of spins.

The key in my opinion is to find some kind of asymmetry in the game (which is all the Advantage-play's are doing too) then figure out a way to exploit it.

If you don't really believe it can be done (or are just too lazy to find out), then it's easier to go along with the received "wisdom" of the simplistic mathematical model, and dismiss it all as nonsense.

"The basic symmetry of the game isn't present under ALL conditions and definitions" >>> BAM, out of the park!!

"If you don't really believe it can be done (or are just too lazy to find out), then it's easier to go along with the received "wisdom" of the simplistic mathematical model, and dismiss it all as nonsense" >>> BAM, out of the park!!

Ken

[Gizmotron]

Ken, it sounds like you agree with a concept of a  temporary state of the statistics.

[Skakus]

Bayes - " Get 600 spins, and pick the 3 numbers which have hit the least number of times, then pick 3 numbers which have hit exactly 3 times going back no more than 47 spins. Continue to  get spins, and the winner from the 2 groups of 3 numbers is that group which is the first to get 2 hits."

What would result if - " Get 600 spins, and pick the 3 numbers which have hit the most number of times (any ties picked randomly), then pick 3 numbers which have hit the least going back no more than 47 spins (any ties picked randomly). Continue to  get spins, and the winner from the 2 groups of 3 numbers is that group which is the first to get 2 hits."