Yep, more gamblers fallacy for you. GOOD TIMES!

[MrJ]

Great question Skakus and whats my guess? I bet it'll be around even, back and fourth, not one sided under your EXACT way of asking the question.

Ken

[MrJ]

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

You bet. For example like I said, I bet on one number, I keep track of the last 22 hit but as each new number gets added, the last number gets dropped etc. Its a constant rolling method........."temporary state of the statistics".

Ken

[MrJ]

PERFECT example of what I'm talking about. This quote is from a pro (Frank Scoblete) >>>

If I play a number long enough in roulette will it come up? One of the typical gambling systems in roulette is to look at numbers that have not hit, and say, "well if I bet the number that hasn't come up, sooner or later it'll come up" - this is a fallacy. That number may not come up for many hours or it might come up on the very next spin. Roulette is random, and betting in this way is risky. <<<

You ever notice that when the pro's talk about gamblers fallacy, the example they use is almost always the SAME one? Sticking to one number because its DUE. How often do the, "Hey, its gamblers fallacy" guys talk about the kind of things we discuss? My point once again, not every method can be linked to gamblers fallacy. The people that don't win with this game just so happen to use that phrase the most often.....Hmmm, kind of odd.

Ken

[kelly]

Scoblete is a pro writer, author, actor, publisher, radio host etc. you name it. But never a pro gambler.  Funny how people without any solid background,  sometimes ends up as experts. "Get the edge at roulette" was a part of a serie from scoblete but was written by Pawlicki.


PS: The only pros that i know of or have have ever even heard of, were all advantageplayers.  Like it or not. If you can name me a pro system/method pro who has been a pro for more than 6 months, please speak up. 

[MrJ]

Scoblete is a pro writer, author, actor, publisher, radio host etc. you name it. But never a pro gambler.  Funny how people without any solid background,  sometimes ends up as experts. "Get the edge at roulette" was a part of a serie from scoblete but was written by Pawlicki.


PS: The only pros that i know of or have have ever even heard of, were all advantageplayers.  Like it or not. If you can name me a pro system/method pro who has been a pro for more than 6 months, please speak up.

"Scoblete is a pro writer, author, actor, publisher, radio host etc. you name it. But never a pro gambler" >>> This is the same thing they do at the Wiz board. They kind of re-structure my comments (or a misspelled word) and then feel they're off the hook. Whatever TITLE you want to give Frank, thats fine but my POINT stays the same. When people talk about gamblers fallacy (regardless of who they are), almost ALWAYS, the only example that comes to mind is the........."Betting on a number because it has not hit in a very long time so now its DUE to hit" <<<< Example. Thats all 'they' ever dish out. Its pure laziness to claim to be into AP (in my opinion).


"The only pros that i know of or have have ever even heard of, were all advantageplayers"

>>> I said it before, you can hand out whatever TITLES you feel most comfortable with, I do not mind (lol). There could be an AP (cough) guy who proclaims he kicks a** and netted 1K at the casino OR a guy using a method that he has tested/studied/played for a LONG time and he just netted 4K at the casino.

Title or no title, I want to sit down with the method guy, buy him a couple beers and pick his brain but hey, thats just me I guess.

Ken

[Bayes]

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."

Nice twist, Skakus. 

The results are probably not what you would have expected:

Hot = 51,771   Cold = 48,229   percentage difference is 7.3%

I ran several tests and the average % difference was higher than the first test! (between 6.5 and 8.0). Note that the total number of sessions in this test adds up to 100,000 because of simply picking the 3 hottest and coldest numbers, so there is no constraint that there must be exactly 3 hot numbers which have hit exactly 3 times in the last 47 spins.

I should really do another test picking both groups randomly, stay tuned...

[Bayes]

Hang on guys, I think there may be a mistake in my code here... 

I wasn't taking due account of tie situations, which may be biasing the results.

[kelly]

Judging the rising percentages i was wondering about the code was right.  I tried simulating the same game with my software, but its quite limited in some situations and this one it can`t do.

[Bayes]

Yeah, that was it. My bad, sorry guys. 

I should have been suspicious - if the simulation doesn't agree with the math, the simulation must be wrong.     

This explains why the shorter simulations didn't show any difference, and why taking more spins increased it. If the code was correct, it should have been the other way around. The problem with simulations is that they can only tell you what happens in the long run, which we know anyway because of the math. The math, by definition, can't say anything meaningful about the the typical session of a couple of hundred spins, or less. You can simulate 100 spins over and over, but then you end up back in the "long run".

Anyway, here's the corrected code:

Code Select Expand

include misc.e
include roulette.e
sequence wheel, spins, s, cold, hot, sc
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}
sc = {0,0}
cold = {}
hot = {}
spins = {}
constant SAMPLE = 600

procedure bet()
    sequence score
    integer x
    score = {0,0} -- initialise scores (hot is 1st element, cold is 2nd)
    while 1 do
    x = wheel[rand(37)] -- get next number
    if find(x, hot) then
        score[1] += 1
    end if
    if find(x, cold) then -- outcomes NOT mutually exclusive!
        score[2] += 1
    end if
    if score[1] = 2 and score[2] = 2 then -- a tie
        exit
    elsif score[1] = 2 and score[2] < 2 then  -- hot numbers won
        sc[1] += 1
        return
    elsif score[2] = 2 and score[1] < 2 then  -- cold numbers won
        sc[2] += 1
        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 = roul_freq(spins, 37)  -- 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 = roul_freq(spins[$-46..$], 37)  -- 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
? sc -- print output


Typical run gives Hot = 37137,   Cold = 36853   Not a significant difference.

[MrJ]

@Bayes >> You mean its wrong in terms of what Skakus asked or ALL OF IT?

Ken

[Bayes]

All of it. Nothing gets any better (or worse) than picking numbers randomly. But I still think there's merit in following hot rather than cold, and even the AP guys will agree with that.

[MrJ]

All of it. Nothing gets any better (or worse) than picking numbers randomly. But I still think there's merit in following hot rather than cold, and even the Advantage-play guys will agree with that.

The HARD CORE AP guys will admit to *NOTHING* other than AP and thats their right and I respect it. I dont agree with it but I respect it. Playing the hottest number in the last 22 spins, thats it for me.

Ken

[kelly]

If an AP had only those 2 choices he would pick the hot numbers.  If its a unbiased wheel it doesnt matter which choise he picked anyway. If the wheel IS biased a sleeping number is not gonna pick up, quite contrary. Vice versa with the hot number which probably will remain hot.

[MrJ]

You see Bayes? 'They' will NEVER admit to it. They inject AP into every conversation. I drank my coffee with AP. I took a shower with AP. I talked on my AP cell phone. etc.

Kelly said: "If its a unbiased wheel it doesn't matter which choice he picked".

They feel if they say it ENOUGH, then it must be true. People will eventually conform to their thinking. They prove nothing but talk AP up pretty good. Its a myth folks, nothing more. I'm sure it worked just fine in 1923.

Ken   

[kelly]

I just told you WHY the AP would pick the hot numbers if he only had the 2 choices, since you seems a bit confused about the whole AP - GF conspiracy against roulette systematics. 


YOU brought the AP that wont admit to anything,  into the picture not me.