Hi All,
I welcome anyone to post in this thread. The main intention of this thread is to prove with a mathematic equation that roulette cannot be beaten. It could contain assumptions, it could contain anecdotes, it can be copied from somewhere, it could be something that someone posted somewhere. Can we work towards creating a proof that it cannot be beaten. I welcome the likes of many people who have expressed their mathematic interest earlier to post here. Let's have a healthy discussion. If we can be civilised and keep away thoughts of plain statements "it's a fact, why do we need proof", "it's a futile exercise" etc etc. All we are trying to do is establish a mathematic proof.
You should probably be more specific.
Of course roulette can be beaten - by a few means that advantage players use, and also by cheating.
As far as mechanical systems or methods go - there is only one way to win.
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 07, 10:11 AM 2016You should probably be more specific
Turbo - I have specifically for a math equation to prove roulette cannot be beaten. What other specific are you looking for.
Here ya go.
link:s://math.dartmouth.edu/archive/m5w04/public_html/files/Pros/Roul.pdf
The payout is less than the odds of any event happening in a game with each spin being independent from the last.
I'm not sure what kind of equation you want ?
35 (payout) < 37 (or 38) Number of possible outcomes ?
lol
It's basic math, there's no complex formula to show that 35 is less than 37 or 38
((18/37)*1)+((19/37)*-1)=-.02702703 (for even money bet on euro single zero)
Do you want something like this ? It says the same thing.
More complex ?
(link:s://i.imgsafe.org/8a6b876.png)
In any event - the payout is less than the odds of anything on the table showing up and each spin is independent from the last spin. That's just the simple way to explain it.
Quote from: The General on May 07, 11:54 AM 2016
Here ya go.
link:s://math.dartmouth.edu/archive/m5w04/public_html/files/Pros/Roul.pdf
I am very glad that you should post this.
:thumbsup:
I am very much in alignment the work that has been done. This is one way of proving this. However when I first looked at it, I had two questions. Both questions are on the basic hypothesis that has been used. See it with an open mind without banking on what has been pushed into our minds as fact.
1. All the outcomes are
equally likely in every roulette spin.
2. All the spins are
independent.
These are what rrbb was describing as assumptions in the proof. What do you think of these two assumptions?
Quote from: Priyanka on May 07, 12:17 PM 2016
These are what rrbb was describing as assumptions in the proof. What do you think of these two assumptions?
I think the General would disagree with assumption 1, but not assumption 2.
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 07, 11:58 AM 2016the payout is less than the odds of anything on the table showing up
Turbo - all you are trying to show us that the payout is less than the odds. General has posted something more like what I was looking for here.
Let's come to what you have written. If the payout is less than odds, how do AP players or ones who is using computers win. By increasing the accuracy of predictions. So technically by increasing the accuracy of predictions you can win the game (beat the game = beat the house edge). One way we know is AP. One other way we know is computers. One way you seem to know is the math beat math game you claim. One way I seem to know is something based on certain events which breaks the basic philosophy of equally likely outcomes as spins are equally likely but certain events are not. This can be proven that all events are not equally likely. . So in summary what you have written is not what I was looking for as it just proves that odds are greater than the payouts. It doesn't prove that roulette cannot be beaten as one can increase the accuracy of prediction by any means that works and still come ahead of your house edge equation.
Quote from: Bayes on May 07, 12:22 PM 2016
I think the General would disagree with assumption 1, but not assumption 2.
What do you think bayes? I extremely value your thoughts too.
In the random game of roulette, what is written below is FACT.
1. All the outcomes are equally likely in every roulette spin.
2. All the spins are independent.
QuoteOne way we know is AP. One other way we know is computers-Pri
AP stands for Advantage Play. Above, playing with a computer to predict where the ball will land is a type of advantage play. Exploiting a defective wheel that tends to favor some numbers over others due to wear or poor assembly is also a type of advantage play.
An advantage is something that everyone should be trying to achieve, because without it, you simply can't remain a winner overtime.
Quote from: The General on May 07, 12:29 PM 2016
In the random game of roulette, what is written below is FACT.
1. All the outcomes are equally likely in every roulette spin.
2. All the spins are independent.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. But I would like to remind you that the proof that you have published doesn't state it as a FACT. it merely states these as HYPOTHESIS or an ANTECEDENT to establish what is further explained. Nevertheless, I hear your input that these two are FACTS.
I welcome a few others thoughts as well on these two assumptions before I express mine as well.
Quote from: Priyanka on May 07, 12:17 PM 2016See it with an open mind without banking on what has been pushed into our minds as fact.
Wow - ignore facts and imagine that anything is possible. Nice.
(I am a realist so this isn't possible for me - good luck. I use facts)
Quote from: Priyanka on May 07, 12:26 PM 2016Turbo - all you are trying to show us that the payout is less than the odds. General has posted something more like what I was looking for here.
I'm glad he answered your question better then me lol.
It's basic math why typical mechanical systems can't work - and until proven otherwise - none of them can "beat roulette" regardless of how many pages a topic gets on a forum or however the math is twisted into pretzel shapes to try to make the non-factual into fact or a lie into the truth.
Can I win using a method/system ? Yes. Will I prove it to anyone ? No... That's not my job.
But I have no problem pointing out why things that don't work - don't work. Ignoring facts and proof never advances anyone into the right direction.
QuoteWow - ignore facts and imagine that anything is possible. Nice.
(I am a realist so this isn't possible for me - good luck. I use facts)
I agree with you Turbo.
You should also distinguish between theoretical and practical execution of the game.
Theoretically........each spin is independent.
Practically........each spin is not independent due to mechanical imperfections of the device itself.
Since we live in the real world........we will only be interacting with practical Roulette. :thumbsup:
QuoteYou should also distinguish between theoretical and practical execution of the game.
Theoretically........each spin is independent.
Practically........each spin is not independent due to mechanical imperfections of the device itself.-The Law
@The Law,
Note the bold text referring to the random game.
QuoteIn the random game of roulette, what is written below is FACT.
1. All the outcomes are equally likely in every roulette spin.
2. All the spins are independent.
Quote from: thelaw on May 07, 12:49 PM 2016Theoretically........each spin is independent.
Practically........each spin is not independent due to mechanical imperfections of the device itself.
This isn't really true. Each spin is independent.
"Practically" - a defective wheel won't even be known to be defective (No, it's not THAT obvious) that a player sitting and playing for a few hundred spins would be able to use that to their advantage.
I would argue that roulette is NOT random - therefore some advantages could be found there, but it IS random enough (even with a device that isn't 100% perfect) that we can't throw out common sense and "fact" in order to let in opinions and nonsense which wastes everyone's time.
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 07, 12:52 PM 2016
This isn't really true. Each spin is independent.
"Practically" - a defective wheel won't even be known to be defective (No, it's not THAT obvious) that a player sitting and playing for a few hundred spins would be able to use that to their advantage.
I would argue that roulette is NOT random - therefore some advantages could be found there, but it IS random enough (even with a device that isn't 100% perfect) that we can't throw out common sense and "fact" in order to let in opinions and nonsense which wastes everyone's time.
If the mechanical device is changed with each spin.....then no.....each spin is not independent........unless you want this to be "theoretical".
Now......to what degree it is changed......is another debate entirely. But you guys want to have a theoretical debate here.......which would be purely based on the math of the game..........removing the wheel entirely.
Someone has already included advantage play in this discussion.........which is practical.....not theoretical.
First rule of a debate...........Agree on Terms! :thumbsup:
Whether it's practical or theoretical..........you must agree...........to have a proper debate.
Quote from: Priyanka on May 07, 09:27 AM 2016The main intention of this thread is to prove with a mathematic equation that roulette cannot be beaten.
...
All we are trying to do is establish a mathematic proof.
Seems this job is done already then lol.
Next ?
(I forgot to read the small print - isn't not about proving anything because proof is based on facts and now facts aren't allowed.)
Quote from: Priyanka on May 07, 12:17 PM 2016See it with an open mind without banking on what has been pushed into our minds as fact.
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 07, 12:36 PM 2016I'm glad he answered your question better then me lol.
And indeed am glad as well as expressed already. After a long time I have enjoyed reading what he has posted for a change.
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 07, 01:15 PM 2016
Seems this job is done already then lol.
Next ?
Turbo - the proof provided in itself doesn't accept the two hypothesis as fact. It merely states them as hypothesis. Remember the hypothesis can always be proven to be wrong. I am merely asking what are your thoughts on those two hypothesis. General says (not thinks not an opinion, but states) they are facts. I believe you are also stating that those are facts. Heard you!! I am just waiting for others to voice their thoughts as not everyone seem to be posting 24x7. But at this point in time, considering your statement on those two are facts, the rest of the proof is valid and we have a math proof that roulette cannot be beaten. you can move on to NEXT, if you wish so, but am keen on hearing other thoughts as well on those two hypothesis for the proof
"You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts."
Quote from: The General on May 07, 01:27 PM 2016
"You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts."
General - again. I heard you loud and clear!! As I said let's hear others as well. As you rightly said they are entitled to their opinion.
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 07, 01:15 PM 2016
Seems this job is done already then lol.
Next ?
(I forgot to read the small print - isn't not about proving anything because proof is based on facts and now facts aren't allowed.)
Your answers as well as the answers of caleb show one thing: Either you are not willing nor able to discuss this issue.
Only denying that there might be a solution is your argument and proof.
Iron cannot swim! That was a fact for a very long time. But then someone thought about it again.
Man cannot fly!
and so on ...
1 and 1 is 2. that is a fact. what do we need to think any further.
Iron still cannot swim (?)
Man still cannot fly.
:twisted: this one is wellllllllllllllllll BIA|sed.....sorry my math is bad
I don't know if it is a FACT that roulette can't be beaten.
Maybe this needs to be qualified.
When I play - I play to WIN of course... but does that mean the same as playing to beat roulette??
People play roulette; some are winners and some are losers. Can the winners then be rightly said to have beaten roulette? Or do we say, Yes they beat roulette this time somehow but they will of course not beat it every time? Or, Yes they won in the short term but they cannot do so in the long term?
What about the person who plays roulette for the first time and wins £10,000. And then never ever plays the game of roulette again in this lifetime... Has he/she beaten the game of roulette? FACT is - they won £10,000 and that cannot be denied.
If people could not or never ever beat roulette then it would not even exist as a viable game; hence it must be beatable *sometimes* by some people and in some ways ex. by luck or design (or both)
Or again, what about those lucky fortunates who win the jackpot lottery? Have they beaten the lottery? Depends how you look at it - but FACT is they won the top prize.
Winning at roulette... Beating roulette ; are these different things, then?
A.
Hi all . . .
I do not have a mathematical equation to show why random roulette cannot be beaten.
I have a statistical/logical explanation.
I have tested over 1,000 random systems and my empirical data showed they all lost because:
Random ALWAYS found a set of numbers to make each one lose.
Just my 2 cents.
Nick
1. All the outcomes are equally likely in every roulette spin.
2. All the spins are independent.
I think the point is are these facts or not? all of the math after is based on the idea that these are facts
Quote from: Priyanka on May 07, 12:27 PM 2016
What do you think bayes? I extremely value your thoughts too.
Priyanka,
Your question poses a bit of a dilemma for me, because on the one hand, I'm a "math guy". That means I respect the maths and "believe" it. On the other hand, I'm also a system junkie, and without boasting I claim to have done rather well out of roulette playing my systems.
I absolute get what the General is saying. The random game of roulette cannot be beaten because IF spins are equally likely and independent, no winning system is possible - that's one definition of what random MEANS - equally likely and independent. Simple logic.
However, how do I explain the fact that the house edge hasn't caught up with me? The general will say it's because I've essentially been lucky (riding a temporary positive variance), but I know enough about probability and statistics to know that it can't be so, because "luck" runs out eventually. I also know a few others who have been similarly "lucky".
So I propose the following hypothesis which may account for my success. The random game of roulette really only exists in some Platonic realm where mathematical equations are real (not just models of the world) and *dictate* outcomes, which is absurd. There is the random game of roulette and there's the real game which the general exploits because real wheels are not Platonic wheels.
So in the real world we can strike out one of the twin pillars of randomness - that outcomes are equally likely - at least sometimes and for some wheels it is not the case. Is it so absurd, then, to suggest that the remaining pillar of randomness - independence - also exists only in a Platonic realm?
After all, you can't *prove* independence. You can test for it, and of course outcomes really are independent in the sense that each pocket remains on the wheel between spins, but independence can be violated in other ways, and the tests for independence such as Chi-Square etc are just that - tests. And there are any number of ways of testing. Do you know how many statistical tests are out there? literally hundreds, and more being invented all the time.
Testing a simple scenario like "after 10 reds in a row black is more likely" will always return the apparently obvious and common sense result that these events are independent when using the simple tests which everyone knows about (well, all statisticians anyway). No argument from me there, but is that sufficient to put an end to the matter? I don't believe so.
You may argue that non-bias and independence are fundamentally different beasts and that no-one has ever found a wheel which generates dependent outcomes, but plenty of wheels have been found to be biased. But that just begs the question - it *assumes* the very thing to be proved.
Also, without wishing to deflect from the topic, there's a massive inconsistency going on here between Turbo and the general. I have great respect for both you guys but Turbo ain't no AP. If "math beats a math game" (and I agree, taking a broad view of "math"), how come the general always backs up Turbo when he obviously believes no such thing? The general believes that "Physics beats a physics game", and that *anything* else is fallacious. Yet he apparently indulges *Turbo's* fallacy while trashing everyone else's.
Quote from: Bayes on May 07, 02:28 PM 2016Also, without wishing to deflect from the topic, there's a massive inconsistency going on here between Turbo and the general. I have great respect for both you guys but Turbo ain't no AP. If "math beats a math game" (and I agree, taking a broad view of "math"), how come the general always backs up Turbo when he obviously believes no such thing? The general believes that "Physics beats a physics game", and that *anything* else is fallacious. Yet he apparently indulges *Turbo's* fallacy while trashing everyone else's.
Because he has respect for him, and doesnt for others and his heart is ruling his head on this one. Call it a soft spot, kinda like a murderer helping a cat out of a tree just after he wasted his family in the house...but less serious lol
Quote from: Priyanka on May 07, 09:27 AM 2016
Hi All,
I welcome anyone to post in this thread. The main intention of this thread is to prove with a mathematic equation that roulette cannot be beaten.
Yes indeed roulette cannot be beaten with mathematic equation, so dear Priyanka you need to find another path. :lol: or you will fail.
Quote from: Turner on May 07, 02:39 PM 2016Because he has respect for him, and doesnt for others and his heart is ruling his head on this one. Call it a soft spot, kinda like a murderer helping a cat out of a tree just after he wasted his family in the house...but less serious lol
LOL
I think I'm offended but I'm not sure. (climbs higher up the tree to think about it)
Bayes and others have a great point. Basically -
What If I win or someone wins - have they beaten the game ?.
This is roulette and math.. you have to (HAVE TO) ask yourself -
"Can I do the exact same thing that person did (or is doing) and win the same way ?"
No.. not with almost all systems and methods that have been posted (since forever).
Player A could go and win win win win and Player B will lose on the first try and quit using it.
Player C might win and lose and win and eventually lose.
The total of ALL of their play will be the negative house edge - math says so.
Player A can say all day that it's the Holy Grail, Player B can say it "sucks", Player C will argue
that "hey, sometimes it works - sometimes it doesn't, I ended up losing".
So is this any proof ? No, not unless you look at the "BIG PICTURE" - that is where proof comes from -
it eliminates "luck" (which isn't a real thing anyway).
See ? Everyone should stop thinking as one person who may use something and win - giving it credit when another player can't win using the exact same rules.
@ Bayes
No Blushes, but I always admire how you dont use your knowledge as a battering ram. You have a very open mind.
Knowledge shouldnt stifle your doubt.
I always agree with you...which is no accolade lol
I am similar. When I learn something and become an expert, I feel empowered, but my drive always lies in the feeling that I could be wrong.
No one likes a smart arse...and thats the balance you achieve.
Never becoming one.
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 07, 03:30 PM 2016LOL
I think I'm offended but I'm not sure. (climbs higher up the tree to think about it)
I didnt mean you lol
Hi all,
Interesting discussion!
I think it has been proven again and again that spins are independent. Also roulette is a negative expectation game.
i think that the question should be made more specific: "proof that there is no strategy that can overcome the house edge".
I will show my "proof" in words. For anyone versed in the mathematical language: just translate it.
Now lets assume i claim i have a winning strategy. This would mean that i would see a steady increase in my bankroll.
because of this i could define "sessions". A session ends when i'm in the plus. A new session starts after an ended session.
So: a strategy consists of sessions, and sessions consist of "betting decisions"
Now, lets assume that we can proof that any strategy has a finite amount of possible betting decisions. Either by rules, physical boundaries, or inherent features of that strategy.
For example: if the strategy were a simple maringale + FTL, the betting decisions are very limited.
Let's call these possible betting decisions the "template". It just a name i chose.
Let's number these betting decisions from 1 till M. M betting the total amount of possible bets. And lets make a list of this template: we fixed the order. This comes in handy later.
Each session will consist of playing at least one of bets from the template one or multiple times.
Now lets play my "winning" strategy ad infinitum that is, till the end of times,
Also, lets keep track, per session, what the result is per betting decision in the template.
If we would put the template in a row on the lefthand site of a piece of paper, and the make columns to the right of it, we could eadily keep track of what a session does.
Per session we can add the result in the appropriate row.
Now we do this for an infinite amount of sessions.
Because each sessions ends in the plus, we could sum all the results in one session (we sum over a column) and write this down in a row below the sessions (say row M+2).
On the other hand, we could also sum the results per bet in the template!
Well, i used a fixed template, so when we som over a row, i sum over a "constant" bet.
Now, due to the law of large numbers, we know that these sums must be negative.
We get a contradiction! All sums over the rows are negative, and all sums over columns are positive!
This can not be the case, hence my claim must be false!
:embarrassed:
Now, i claim, there is one HIDDEN assumption that needs to be made to reach this conclusion.
If you can negate this assumption, the "proof" is not valid any more!
Good luck!
Atlantis - Very valid thoughts. Probably I should have worded the question as rrbb has done, but neverthless I believe we all get it.
Quote from: Tomla021 on May 07, 02:21 PM 2016
1. All the outcomes are equally likely in every roulette spin.
2. All the spins are independent.
I think the point is are these facts or not? all of the math after is based on the idea that these are facts
Tomla - The question is not about whether these points are facts or not. The question is about what you think about these two hypothesis.
Quote from: Nickmsi on May 07, 02:07 PM 2016I have a statistical/logical explanation.
That is what is called as FACT also called as EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
Quote from: Bayes on May 07, 02:28 PM 2016After all, you can't *prove* independence.
Thanks Bayes. You clearly in your own subtle way established that FACTS are different from PROOFs and what is a FACT can any day be given a second thought by experimenting in an entirely different way.
Quote from: Bayes on May 07, 02:28 PM 2016Your question poses a bit of a dilemma for me, because on the one hand, I'm a "math guy". That means I respect the maths and "believe" it. On the other hand, I'm also a system junkie, and without boasting I claim to have done rather well out of roulette playing my systems.
I didnt mean to though :). But as you rightly said, there are certain things which are beyond explanation that we know of and that is why I also believe it is always not a bad thing to question things which has not been proved even though FACT says so.
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 07, 03:30 PM 2016The total of ALL of their play will be the negative house edge - math says so.
Turbo - You are right. But math says so under two hypothesis as you have seen. Can you give a thought on those hypothesis was my simple request.
So what have we got as people's opinion on these two hypothesis.
Its a FACT.
They are true in Platonic realm not in real world
Independence while cannot be proved, is an aspect that is very hard to be declined as a FACT. How about the other one "Equally likely". Bayes, you pointed out that may be the first aspect will be declined. Is that an explanation that we could give to perhaps why you are winning?
Rather than adhering to the facts, let me turn the attention to a simple experiment/simulation that I showed in cycles of dozens. We saw that the dozen that has defined the previous cycle is more likely (63%) to appear within the next 3 spins than any other dozen that did not define the previous cycles. Does that disprove the FACT that spins are equally likely. Any thoughts here?
QuoteBayes, you pointed out that may be the first aspect will be declined. Is that an explanation that we could give to perhaps why you are winning?
I think it's more to do with dependence. I do better when taking account of past spins than when I don't.
I think we should define what "bias" means in this context. For me it means the numbers/pockets, not some event which is derived from what is assumed to be an unbiased wheel.
Most events are "biased" in the sense that they're not equally likely. The chance of 2 reds in a row is higher than 3 reds in a row, but I wouldn't call one biased.
QuoteRather than adhering to the facts, let me turn the attention to a simple experiment/simulation that I showed in cycles of dozens. We saw that the dozen that has defined the previous cycle is more likely (63%) to appear within the next 3 spins than any other dozen that did not define the previous cycles. Does that disprove the FACT that spins are equally likely. Any thoughts here?
I think I missed that. Your "random thoughts" thread is long - do you have reply # where you explain it? Thanks.
QuoteHowever, how do I explain the fact that the house edge hasn't caught up with me? The general will say it's because I've essentially been lucky (riding a temporary positive variance), but I know enough about probability and statistics to know that it can't be so, because "luck" runs out eventually. I also know a few others who have been similarly "lucky".
The sample that you're playing is not a truly random sample.
The spins actually played are low/variance.
QuoteAfter all, you can't *prove* independence.
In the random game, yes actually we can and have. However, I suspect you're referring more to the nonrandom game. Even then it's not that they're dependent as much as it is the gaming device/non random number stream creates a bias effect that makes it appear as though the spins are dependent on previous spins. Regardless, I notice the careful dance that you're using to tease t the system junkies into believing that there's possibly light at the end of the tunnel when in reality we both know they're looking down the wrong hole.
QuoteAlso, without wishing to deflect from the topic, there's a massive inconsistency going on here between Turbo and the general. I have great respect for both you guys but Turbo ain't no AP. If "math beats a math game" (and I agree, taking a broad view of "math"), how come the general always backs up Turbo when he obviously believes no such thing? The general believes that "Physics beats a physics game", and that *anything* else is fallacious. Yet he apparently indulges *Turbo's* fallacy while trashing everyone else's.
Currently, I don't see any inconsistency. We both deal with exploiting the wheel, rather than the random game. And yes, I suspect we both believe that attempting to beat the random game is a fools folly. I use physics in the forum of defect spotting, coefficient of restitution testing, accoustics, visual observations, and data collection. Other people that attempt to exploit the gaming device may use strictly data collection in the form of the numbers that have hit. Both methods can yield an advantage, I simply choose my route because it's the most efficient to out track the casino.
The biggest problem that I see on the forums is that most people don't know how to really think about the game correctly. They're lost in the numbers and layout, rather than looking at the wheel. The free modes that many of the online casinos have is like a drug for them because it creates the illusion that they can win. It fools them, much like the free mode for slot machines where they're set to pay at break even or above 100% back.
Quote from: The General on May 08, 01:15 PM 2016I notice the careful dance that you're using to tease t the system junkies into believing that there's possibly light at the end of the tunnel when in reality we both know they're looking down the wrong hole.
You noticed that too ? :)
QuoteThe sample that you're playing is not a truly random sample.
The spins actually played are low/variance.
I don't know what this means. You're saying If I'm winning then the sample can't be random by definition. It's a circular argument and gets us nowhere.
Everyone keeps using the word "random" without defining it. It's ambiguous.
QuoteEven then it's not that they're dependent as much as it is the gaming device/non random number stream creates a bias effect that makes it appear as though the spins are dependent on previous spins.
The lengths you go to to not let dependence get a foot in the door are quite remarkable.
QuoteRegardless, I notice the careful dance that you're using to tease t the system junkies into believing that there's possibly light at the end of the tunnel when in reality we both know they're looking down the wrong hole.
Speak for yourself. I don't know they're looking down the wrong hole. And there is light at the end of the tunnel.
QuoteCurrently, I don't see any inconsistency. We both deal with exploiting the wheel, rather than the random game. And yes, I suspect we both believe that attempting to beat the random game is a fools folly. I use physics in the forum of defect spotting, coefficient of restitution testing, accoustics, visual observations, and data collection. Other people that attempt to exploit the gaming device may use strictly data collection in the form of the numbers that have hit. Both methods can yield an advantage, I simply choose my route because it's the most efficient to out track the casino.
Pull the other one. Turner nailed it, you're letting your heart rule your head here and you know it. That's ok, but why not be honest?
Turbo
always claimed to be a winner. Back in the glory days of GG his style of play was completely different from what he advocates now. It was betting "furthest back" and progressions, and you defended him then just as much as you do now. That isn't meant to be some kind of "gotcha"; it's part of the evolution of most roulette players. From what Turbo has said, he's definitely not an AP because he doesn't look for biased wheels, but just bets on hot numbers. That might be a step in the right direction as far as you're concerned, but as you've pointed out, one SD above the mean doesn't indicate bias, no matter how "clever" the system is.
And yet, I'm "teasing" the sytem junkies and he isn't. Not exactly impartial is it?
QuoteSpeak for yourself. I don't know they're looking down the wrong hole. And there is light at the end of the tunnel.
QuoteThe lengths you go to to not let dependence get a foot in the door are quite remarkable.
A bit of intellectual dishonesty don't ya think?. ;)
Quote from: The General on May 08, 02:51 PM 2016
A bit of intellectual dishonesty don't ya think?. ;)
How so? You'll have to spell it out for me. :)
You mentioned that it can be proved that spins are independent. I say we can only
assume it, not prove it. Where is the proof?
QuoteYou mentioned that it can be proved that spins are independent. I say we can only assume it, not prove it. Where is the proof?
In the random game of roulette:
1. The number of pockets on the wheel determines the odds of winning.
2. At each spin of the wheel there are 37 pockets. The ball is equally likely to fall into any one of the pockets.
3. Once a number has hit the dealer does not block a number for hitting again.
4. Since the number of pockets remains the same from one spin to the next, there is no dependence.
Where people are fooled:
The free mode offered by many of the online casinos/cellphones/games sometimes contain program code that's designed to fool people into believing that they can beat the game.
C'mon General, you're just pulling out the standard template again! Give me some credit! ;D
For starters, 1 & 2 are irrelevant to independence/dependence, 3. is true, but your conclusion in 4. doesn't necessarily follow from the fact that the number of pockets remains the same from one spin to the next. Like I said before, there are other ways dependence can arise. Your analysis is too crude.
Also, you're assuming that I'm committing the gambler's fallacy by using past spins as a guide to future spins. I'm not.
QuoteThe free mode offered by many of the online casinos/cellphones/games sometimes contain program code that's designed to fool people into believing that they can beat the game.
You may be right. However, not at the casinos I play at.
And this thread is in danger of wandering off course. I think we should let Priyanka have the floor.
Whatever floats your boat. ;)
Perhaps you should debate recorded history, rather than me. I've proven my point.
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=16981.msg155759;topicseen#msg155759
Quote from: rrbb on May 08, 04:30 AM 2016We get a contradiction! All sums over the rows are negative, and all sums over columns are positive!
This can not be the case, hence my claim must be false!
There are three flaws in this proof.
1. You are assuming all sums over the column is positive with a finite 1 to M. The key word is finite. It cannot be. If it is then the law of large numbers doesnt hold good in this case.
2. You are summing over a constant bet. The betting decisions need not in all practicality point to a constant bet.
3. You are assuming that the law of large numbers will be applicable and it is making the expectation negative. What if there is a way to plot the events from roulette in a Cauchy distribution? Just like the levy flight experiment, what if the outcomes are defined in step lengths instead of outcomes themselves.
These are three flaws that I can see in your proof.
Hi Foolwise,
Thanks for taking the time to read the proof :thumbsup:
The whole idea is to find "flaws" in the proof! There is one "flaw" that almost everyone does no spot because people take it to be self-evident.
Here are my responses. Feel free to disagree!
Quote from: Foolwise on May 08, 11:10 PM 2016
There are three flaws in this proof.
1. You are assuming all sums over the column is positive with a finite 1 to M. The key word is finite. It cannot be. If it is then the law of large numbers doesnt hold good in this case.
A column indeed represents one session. I claim I can proof that there is a finite (albeit large) number of potential bets per strategy. For example, take a martingale with "follow the last". The number of times I can double up is either restrained by the casino, or by the physical amount of money available in this planet. If the total table bet is for example 1024 units, I can double up only 9 times. So, the total number of different bets I can place is 18: red 1 unit, red 2 units,..., red 1024 units; black 1 unit, black 2 units etc.
So for this strategy M is clearly finite.
The general idea is this: because the number of numbers is limited (37), the number of combinations I can make are limited. It is impossible to to have a infinite set of combinations with a finite set of numbers...
However, this was the first assumption I tried to circumvent long time ago. I could not as it would lead to an impossible strategy. Maybe you can!
Quote from: Foolwise on May 08, 11:10 PM 2016
2. You are summing over a constant bet. The betting decisions need not in all practicality point to a constant bet.
You are right about the betting decision. I used the wrong incorrect word, Actually I mean a "bet". (or, the result of the betting decision). So please replace "betting decision" by "bet".
Quote from: Foolwise on May 08, 11:10 PM 2016
3. You are assuming that the law of large numbers will be applicable and it is making the expectation negative. What if there is a way to plot the events from roulette in a Cauchy distribution? Just like the levy flight experiment, what if the outcomes are defined in step lengths instead of outcomes themselves.
I never heard of this experiment. I looked it up.it is interesting stuff though.
I do not assume this, 99.999% of the people assume this (Check out the remarks of some illustrious forum members)
Even great minds like Thorpe did not deem in needed to come with a full fledged proof. As it is "self-evident that the law of large numbers, the independence of spins and the negative house-edge make roulette impossible to conquer"
When you look about the proof, there is one assumption everyone makes and takes for granted. This assumption is needed to reach the final conlusion... Play with either the formula's if you are mathematically inclined or, if you are more visually inclined, create the table I hinted at in the post... and slowly, very consciously, simulate a strategy. Every time ask yourself: "what am I doing, why am I doing it, am I sure I can do this". In this way you might just see what the assumption is. Yes it is related to independence, and therefor to the applicability of the law of large numbers.
A strategy like Martingale with FTL is the worst choice you can make for this "simulation by hand".
grts rrbb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>When you look about the proof, there is one assumption everyone makes and takes for granted. This assumption is needed to reach the final conlusion... Play with either the formula's if you are mathematically inclined or, if you are more visually inclined, create the table I hinted at in the post... and slowly, very consciously, simulate a strategy. Every time ask yourself: "what am I doing, why am I doing it, am I sure I can do this". In this way you might just see what the assumption is. Yes it is related to independence, and therefor to the applicability of the law of large numbers.
Now that i have looked at the conversation, I understand that all the proof here hinges around the independent nature of spins. To clarify this one should understand what is a Partially ordered set or Poset. It is a concept in which you are able to order, sequence and arrange elements of a set of spins together with a binary relation in such a way that for certain pairs of elements you can establish a dependency or precedence of one over the other. I think this is what Priyanka has shown using the cycles, using a specific arrangement and sequencing. Now when this partially ordered set comes into picture, there are inequalities in statistics and probability as against a typical i.i.d random variables. One of those inequalities is application of law of large numbers. Is this what you are driving towards rrbb?
For those who understand mathematic equations, if you consider a set of exchangeable variables (true in case of roulette spins), X1....Xn(A1.....An) with means U, variance ¬2, and correlations P2(P1). If P2>P1>=0, then Xi tend to hang together more.
I am clear on the dependent nature, but what am not clear is on the applicability of this in roulette to beat it, apart from the fact that there is no proof exists which says roulette cannot be beaten. I am a firm believer in math cannot help beat roulette and math is useless here and hence the applicability stands out for me.
Quote from: Foolwise on May 09, 08:22 AM 2016
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>When you look about the proof, there is one assumption everyone makes and takes for granted. This assumption is needed to reach the final conlusion... Play with either the formula's if you are mathematically inclined or, if you are more visually inclined, create the table I hinted at in the post... and slowly, very consciously, simulate a strategy. Every time ask yourself: "what am I doing, why am I doing it, am I sure I can do this". In this way you might just see what the assumption is. Yes it is related to independence, and therefor to the applicability of the law of large numbers.
Now that i have looked at the conversation, I understand that all the proof here hinges around the independent nature of spins. To clarify this one should understand what is a Partially ordered set or Poset. It is a concept in which you are able to order, sequence and arrange elements of a set of spins together with a binary relation in such a way that for certain pairs of elements you can establish a dependency or precedence of one over the other. I think this is what Priyanka has shown using the cycles, using a specific arrangement and sequencing. Now when this partially ordered set comes into picture, there are inequalities in statistics and probability as against a typical i.i.d random variables. One of those inequalities is application of law of large numbers. Is this what you are driving towards rrbb?
For those who understand mathematic equations, if you consider a set of exchangeable variables (true in case of roulette spins), X1....Xn(A1.....An) with means U, variance ¬2, and correlations P2(P1). If P2>P1>=0, then Xi tend to hang together more.
I am clear on the dependent nature, but what am not clear is on the applicability of this in roulette to beat it, apart from the fact that there is no proof exists which says roulette cannot be beaten. I am a firm believer in math cannot help beat roulette and math is useless here and hence the applicability stands out for me.
;). The dependency is not related to individual spins however. Those are per definition independent (unless of course there is something amiss with the random generator e.g. a biased wheel).
But do not forget Foolwise: the first step was to establish that the "proof" that roulette can not be beaten hinges an a very specific assumption, which is certainly true for most of the "strategies". However, the proof does not show that other possibilities does not exist! If you accept this, math has helped thusfar: no more assuming! Whether it is possible to find a viable method is the next step...
The next step is to establish the problem definition: what do we want to circumvent (or negate as I used to call it)? And if we circumvent it, what would it imply? What "features" does it need to poses?
One forum member asked how many spins are needed to proof that a strategy works: I did not want to answer in that thread because it was not a question for me. I would have answered zero (0).
If it can be stated what we are looking for, any system, strategy or whatever that does not poses this "thing" can not be a winning system: the law of large numbers will catch up!
As concerned to whether or not mathematics can help to beat roulette: I once had an Intellectual Property workshop in an town called Rijswijk ;) . The first thing that we were taught: most innovations are not generated by "deep experts". Afterwards these professionals are the first to state that it is "logical", but somehow it is so difficult to get rid of the "shackles of knowledge" that it (usually) are not these professionals that come up with the idea in the first place...
grts rrbb
Quote from: rrbb on May 09, 09:11 AM 2016the law of large numbers will catch up!
So in KTF where we are starting with a large group of #'s is this not a good starting point to bet that the large group must go down.
Quote from: nottophammer on May 09, 10:13 AM 2016
So in KTF where we are starting with a large group of #'s is this not a good starting point to bet that the large group must go down.
Hi Nottophammer,
I have to admit that I did not pay too much attention to KTF. So I can not answer your question.
sorry, grts rrbb
Quote from: rrbb on May 08, 04:30 AM 2016
Hi all,
Interesting discussion!
I think it has been proven again and again that spins are independent. Also roulette is a negative expectation game.
i think that the question should be made more specific: "proof that there is no strategy that can overcome the house edge".
I will show my "proof" in words. For anyone versed in the mathematical language: just translate it.
Now lets assume i claim i have a winning strategy. This would mean that i would see a steady increase in my bankroll.
because of this i could define "sessions". A session ends when i'm in the plus. A new session starts after an ended session.
So: a strategy consists of sessions, and sessions consist of "betting decisions"
Now, lets assume that we can proof that any strategy has a finite amount of possible betting decisions. Either by rules, physical boundaries, or inherent features of that strategy.
For example: if the strategy were a simple maringale + FTL, the betting decisions are very limited.
Let's call these possible betting decisions the "template". It just a name i chose.
Let's number these betting decisions from 1 till M. M betting the total amount of possible bets. And lets make a list of this template: we fixed the order. This comes in handy later.
Each session will consist of playing at least one of bets from the template one or multiple times.
Now lets play my "winning" strategy ad infinitum that is, till the end of times,
Also, lets keep track, per session, what the result is per betting decision in the template.
If we would put the template in a row on the lefthand site of a piece of paper, and the make columns to the right of it, we could eadily keep track of what a session does.
Per session we can add the result in the appropriate row.
Now we do this for an infinite amount of sessions.
Because each sessions ends in the plus, we could sum all the results in one session (we sum over a column) and write this down in a row below the sessions (say row M+2).
On the other hand, we could also sum the results per bet in the template!
Well, i used a fixed template, so when we som over a row, i sum over a "constant" bet.
Now, due to the law of large numbers, we know that these sums must be negative.
We get a contradiction! All sums over the rows are negative, and all sums over columns are positive!
This can not be the case, hence my claim must be false!
:embarrassed:
Now, i claim, there is one HIDDEN assumption that needs to be made to reach this conclusion.
If you can negate this assumption, the "proof" is not valid any more!
Good luck!
This is the big secret I believe that Priyanka has deliberately kept hidden from us - the key to gaining edge on the very next spin.
What is the hidden assumption?
I think roulette can be proven to win mathematically. No one would disagree, given an infinite number of spins, all things are possible. If betting 1 unit a spin on red, and parlay our bets, there will eventually be a series that will put us in the profit. 10 wins in a row off a 1 unit bet is 1024 units...11 wins is 2048...12 is 4096. At some point, given enough time, a parlay bet will put us in the profit.
There is actually a math paradox that explains this. Parrondos, I think is the name. The paradox says that a player should be willing to play any amount of money, no matter how large, to play this game because mathematically the reward is infinite.
If the reward is infinite, you are right.
But unfortunatly there are always a table limits, you could win even with marty if it was infinite.
Hope i understand your post to make this comment.
Quote from: praline on Jun 21, 09:03 PM 2017
If the reward is infinite, you are right.
But unfortunatly there are always a table limits, you could win even with marty if it was infinite.
Hope i understand your post to make this comment.
Yes, that's the problem...table limits. :)
If i remember, the Parondos paradox is about a dependency beetwen games that can potentialy lead to a positive edge for a player.
I read this somewhere and found it interesting. Suppose you are playing a single number for 36 spins. A stranger walks up and bets you $20 that you will not be in the profit after 36 spins. The stranger is confident because he knows that roulette is a negative expectation game. So, you take his wager for 36 spins. In fact, you play many sessions of 36 spins. Guess what? You are mathematically guaranteed to win money in the long run. Seems like a paradox, BUT this has been proven by mathematicians.
Quote from: praline on Jun 21, 09:06 PM 2017
If i remember, the Parondos paradox is about a dependency beetwen games that can potentialy lead to a positive edge for a player.
Can be interpreted in different ways. Basically, if you take an infinite amount of spins then all possibilities WILL happen at some point. Ex..20 reds in a row, or 5 same numbers in a row. At some point, there will be a parlay that will put you in the profit. But like you said, it has to be confined to table limits....also, be practical to play in a playable numerous of spins. Really, only works in theory :)
In roulette there is no parrondos paradox because everything about the game is negative.
Priyanka wrote about this...
Basicly you search a dependency between bankroll and the game of roulette. If you are playing according to the "rules", you must loose to the house edge whenever your entry point is based on your bankroll or stars position. Becouse what you have is just a random selection.
Something like this, but im a bit lasy to search the exact post were she is explaining this in random thoughts...
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Jun 21, 09:16 PM 2017
In roulette there is no parrondos paradox because everything about the game is negative.
Negative expectation doesn't mean it can't be beaten, in my opinion. Let's say red only appears once in every 3 spins. This would be a negative expectation game. However, knowing it will appear once in a 3 spin cycle will allow for an easy progression to overcome this.
If the worse case scenerio (in 10 million spins) in 200 spins is 65 reds, I'm convinced there is some solution to this. I don't know what it is.
Negative expectation doesn't mean it can't be beaten, in my opinion. Let's say red only appears once in every 3 spins.
For me negative expactaiton is the fact that
In the long run we will have exactly:
(100-2.7)/2 %
Of red or black
I will open a topik with "what is my personal view on this game".
Im really sure that it will move forward, all those "addicted" people to something more evolved.
Quote from: praline on Jun 21, 09:06 PM 2017
If i remember, the Parondos paradox is about a dependency beetwen games that can potentialy lead to a positive edge for a player.
They said PP doesn't work in Roulette, but that there is a "Parrondo-like" method that involves 2-spin pigeons and maybe a 1-shift parallel stream that follows the last or some such.
Quote from: Scarface on Jun 21, 09:09 PM 2017
I read this somewhere and found it interesting. Suppose you are playing a single number for 36 spins. A stranger walks up and bets you $20 that you will not be in the profit after 36 spins. The stranger is confident because he knows that roulette is a negative expectation game. So, you take his wager for 36 spins. In fact, you play many sessions of 36 spins. Guess what? You are mathematically guaranteed to win money in the long run. Seems like a paradox, BUT this has been proven by mathematicians.
$20 is a great return for flat-betting 36 red/blacks! ;)
Quote from: praline on Jun 21, 08:36 PM 2017
What is the hidden assumption?
Remember: Non-Random/cycles aren't related to random numbers and have nothing to say about random numbers specifically. What they do describe are rules relating to any number arrangements.
imagine betting on a coin flip. There's a 50/50 chance to win. But every 5th win you have must be paid to the dealer.
So how are you going to profit?
Figure that out then you'll better understand how to beat any casino game.
Increase the win rate or reduce the loss rate or both.
Roulette cannot be "beaten" with any mechanical system
The math is the math
However, some "systems" may be better than others
I enjoy systems that play against "rare" occurrences. Those perform best.
RUBBISH
Math proof only shows that the negative edge will cause you to lose if you FLATBET. There is no proof to show you will lose if your bet size varies.
Hi Pri
Its been a while since we had a chat. Hope everything is well with you.
As I am still looking for a possible way to disprove the proof on impossibility of beating the game (I simply cant find a way how to accept it) I stumbled onto something which seemed quite contrary to me. I was hoping maybe you can help me.
Topic of Vaddis grail seems to become hot again and it was a good reminder to take a look at some of his hints.
But as unfortunately he is not around (at least not that I know) I cant address this question to him.
Among his posts I found this:
Did I ever say the "event" is a number repeating ? NO,(so number repeating is NOT an event) I said the system is based on a PRINCIPLE. Not an EVENT
And your definition of a repeat would be that is an event, so where such difference is coming from?
Who is right, and who is wrong? Or is it possible that both of you are right?
Thanks
Quote from: Drazen on Jul 01, 01:36 PM 2017Did I ever say the "event" is a number repeating ? NO,
Drazen i know this is not your words, but if its not going for a repeat, why are you betting the last hit upto the magic number of 8, that only breaks even, if you get that far.
We should all know 7 unique can come and repeat is a possibilty.
Just now on Multi player 33,31,17,12,25,19,15,15 so good repeat, but what now, this is what came
16,23,10,8,26,36,14,13,34,11,5,18,22 and at last repeat 23.
Quote from: Drazen on Jul 01, 01:36 PM 2017
Hi Pri
Its been a while since we had a chat. Hope everything is well with you.
As I am still looking for a possible way to disprove the proof on impossibility of beating the game (I simply cant find a way how to accept it) I stumbled onto something which seemed quite contrary to me. I was hoping maybe you can help me.
Topic of Vaddis grail seems to become hot again and it was a good reminder to take a look at some of his hints.
But as unfortunately he is not around (at least not that I know) I cant address this question to him.
Among his posts I found this:
Did I ever say the "event" is a number repeating ? NO,(so number repeating is NOT an event) I said the system is based on a PRINCIPLE. Not an EVENT
And your definition of a repeat would be that is an event, so where such difference is coming from?
Who is right, and who is wrong? Or is it possible that both of you are right?
Thanks
Some people describe events like Black-Odd or Red-Even in only 1 spin! If BO or RE repeats then that could be described as another "event", but Priyanka was referring to events as things that must happen within a defined limit over the course of multiple spins. We can't say when a BO is going to appear/repeat regardless of how many REs came before it; vice versa we cannot say when a RE will appear - there's no limit. But if we monitor both RE and BO then one of them (can't say which) has to repeat within a short limit. And reddwarf said that we can't win playing for a repeat or a unique, so I think Non-Random events as defined by red/pri has another all-together different use: we are not playing repeats and we are not playing for something that has to happen - we are aiming simply to stabilize the stats IMO and avoid law of large numbers taking hold.
Quote from: nottophammer on Jul 01, 02:00 PM 2017
why are you betting the last hit upto the magic number of 8
Yes Vaddi used word magic. But I would be rather interested in his point of view about the magic.
I just got a thought how it is really funny when for example one kid who is dreaming to become a magician, spends many years learning and practicing it and in the end becomes able to perform astonishing magic in front of the audience, knows better than anyone that magic actually doesnt exist.
Best
Quote from: Bayes on May 07, 02:28 PM 2016
Priyanka,
Your question poses a bit of a dilemma for me, because on the one hand, I'm a "math guy". That means I respect the maths and "believe" it. On the other hand, I'm also a system junkie, and without boasting I claim to have done rather well out of roulette playing my systems.
I absolute get what the General is saying. The random game of roulette cannot be beaten because IF spins are equally likely and independent, no winning system is possible - that's one definition of what random MEANS - equally likely and independent. Simple logic.
However, how do I explain the fact that the house edge hasn't caught up with me? The general will say it's because I've essentially been lucky (riding a temporary positive variance), but I know enough about probability and statistics to know that it can't be so, because "luck" runs out eventually. I also know a few others who have been similarly "lucky".
So I propose the following hypothesis which may account for my success. The random game of roulette really only exists in some Platonic realm where mathematical equations are real (not just models of the world) and *dictate* outcomes, which is absurd. There is the random game of roulette and there's the real game which the general exploits because real wheels are not Platonic wheels.
So in the real world we can strike out one of the twin pillars of randomness - that outcomes are equally likely - at least sometimes and for some wheels it is not the case. Is it so absurd, then, to suggest that the remaining pillar of randomness - independence - also exists only in a Platonic realm?
After all, you can't *prove* independence. You can test for it, and of course outcomes really are independent in the sense that each pocket remains on the wheel between spins, but independence can be violated in other ways, and the tests for independence such as Chi-Square etc are just that - tests. And there are any number of ways of testing. Do you know how many statistical tests are out there? literally hundreds, and more being invented all the time.
Testing a simple scenario like "after 10 reds in a row black is more likely" will always return the apparently obvious and common sense result that these events are independent when using the simple tests which everyone knows about (well, all statisticians anyway). No argument from me there, but is that sufficient to put an end to the matter? I don't believe so.
You may argue that non-bias and independence are fundamentally different beasts and that no-one has ever found a wheel which generates dependent outcomes, but plenty of wheels have been found to be biased. But that just begs the question - it *assumes* the very thing to be proved.
Also, without wishing to deflect from the topic, there's a massive inconsistency going on here between Turbo and the general. I have great respect for both you guys but Turbo ain't no AP. If "math beats a math game" (and I agree, taking a broad view of "math"), how come the general always backs up Turbo when he obviously believes no such thing? The general believes that "Physics beats a physics game", and that *anything* else is fallacious. Yet he apparently indulges *Turbo's* fallacy while trashing everyone else's.
I re-read this topic again.
Great reply by Bayes. :thumbsup:
He has gained my respect.
Besides the math of RANDOM that's a non-discussion actually, this thread gives insight into many other aspects when read between the lines. I am indeed enlightened.
Btw anyone knows what's happened to Bayes ?
Thanks for bringing thread back up.
Spend some time with the proposed proof and assumptions.
Here is proof Roulette CAN be beaten.
Of course it can be.
Why use a trial of RX?
Quote from: Mr.66 on Apr 27, 05:46 PM 2018
Here is proof Roulette CAN be beaten.
No, this is the proof that only rx-roulette can be beaten.