Regression toward the mean--another form of Gambler's Fallacy

[Skakus]

 

…The trick is to find the right entry point…

Don’t forget the exit point, that's just as important.

...Regression happens in different spin frames simultaneously

Ah, the moving target.

You need to track multiple events - … The accuracy will be improved if you act when multiple events "point" to the same outcomes. If there is conflict, don't make the bet...

Excellent Advice.

[Drazen]

 
Don’t forget the exit point, that's just as important.

Very important, true.


You will always be multifold outnumbered, but don't let ever be outgunned 

[TwoCatSam]

"but that's what actually happens" 

If you changed that to "sometimes that's what actually happens", I would agree with you. 

If you visited my state you might notice that many of our trees lean toward the North.  You might ask why.  It's because we have a predominately South wind that blows--on average--17mph daily.  Those trees do not lean for no reason.  A force in nature causes them to lean.

Either you believe in a causeless universe or a non-causeless universe.  I vacillate.

You see, Drazen, I've posed this question a dozen times over the years and no one has chosen to even take a whack at it.  Poor Drazen.  He ignored the question totally.

Again:  If you have a horrible imbalance of red vs black in your first hundred spins and you feel it will correct itself in the next hundred spins, what force in the universe causes that phenomenon to happen?  Why should the second hundred be different that the first?  If there is a logical answer, I have never heard it.  And what force in the universe says you will not get six runs of 100 spins all with an imbalance toward red?

You can say, "Well, it just happens."  Then I could easily say, "Sometimes red follows black."  We all know that fact.  Can any one person make money from it?  No.

When I hear folks talk about RTM, my mind hears:  OK, we got way too many reds on that trot and now we are going to get a lot more blacks on the next trot and when we look at the two trots added together, it will even out. 

Can you say it "definitely" will or it "may?  If it definitely will, you will become rich.  If it may, then it's no different than seeing 10 reds and saying black is "definitely" due.

As to tracking several things at once, that's what if three people each tracked one each?  Is one person guaranteed a winner.  Entry point:  How do you know when to enter?  When to exit?  Honestly, it people knew that, there would be casinos!! 

Lastly, when you use the word "poor" it can be construed thusly:  I am superior; too bad the poor devil is not like me.   

Should never have started this thread.  All I wanted was a discussion of the supposed "facts". 

Sam

[TwoCatSam]

You will always be multifold outnumbered, but don't let ever be outgunned


What in the name of God does that mean? 

Sam

[TwoCatSam]

APOLOGY

I never should have opened this thread.  I simply wanted a discussion.  I guess I come across a bit on the harsh side.

Did not mean to offend anyone.  We are all entitled to our beliefs.

Sam

[iggiv]

dont be oversensitive over some words with no abusive meaning guys. No conflict here, just some different expressions of different opinions.

peace to all

[Turner]

Sam..it was a good subject. This subject (RTM) is bit esoteric and covert. Kinda..
I could tell ya...but id have to kill ya.
It never seems to get to example...always stays in soundbites and theory.
Id like to know more about it having said all that
Turner

[Skakus]

From my experience with EC’s the first thing that happens when the results start to move away from the mean is one EC starts to dominate. I want to be on that EC, and I want to stay on that EC. With correct MM there should be some profit in it.


Then, from my experience with EC’s the first thing that happens when the results start to move toward from the mean is one EC starts to dominate. I want to be on that EC, and I want to stay on that EC. With correct MM there should be some profit in it.


Now if a second me sits down at the table when the RTM begins, the second me will be seeing the results start to move away from the mean with one EC starting to dominate. The second me wants to be on that EC, and wants to stay on that EC. With correct MM there should be some profit in it.


So the behavior of the results is perceived as doing opposite things according to the viewpoint of each player. The wheel really doesn’t know what it’s doing. We as players allot different conditions to the outcomes in an effort to understand what it’s doing for ourselves.

[iggiv]

who is "the second u"? is there the third, forth, fifth? How many of You are out there? This posting looks like done by a few people typing together.

[Skakus]

who is "the second u"? is there the third, forth, fifth? How many of You are out there? This posting looks like done by a few people typing together.

[Turner]

From my experience with EC’s the first thing that happens when the results start to move away from the mean is one EC starts to dominate. I want to be on that EC, and I want to stay on that EC. With correct MM there should be some profit in it.


Then, from my experience with EC’s the first thing that happens when the results start to move toward from the mean is one EC starts to dominate. I want to be on that EC, and I want to stay on that EC. With correct MM there should be some profit in it.


Now if a second me sits down at the table when the RTM begins, the second me will be seeing the results start to move away from the mean with one EC starting to dominate. The second me wants to be on that EC, and wants to stay on that EC. With correct MM there should be some profit in it.


So the behavior of the results is perceived as doing opposite things according to the viewpoint of each player. The wheel really doesn’t know what it’s doing. We as players allot different conditions to the outcomes in an effort to understand what it’s doing for ourselves.

Skakus mate....
how can you notice ECs have "started" to move away from the mean..see the EC which will dominate, and notice they have started to move towards the mean whilst sat at a roulette table in the casino. Please explain.

[Drazen]

 

APOLOGY

I never should have opened this thread.  I simply wanted a discussion.  I guess I come across a bit on the harsh side.

Did not mean to offend anyone.  We are all entitled to our beliefs.

Sam

Ok you still wouldnt insulted me with any of your examples in prevous post there...

"I guess I come across a bit on the harsh side." â€"which harsh side and to whom? I haven't noticed  nor tryed to send even slightest negative vibra. Why are you feel some sort of negativity here all the time?

And about our „word“ in the end, anyway I think i found better word. I should say: Sam I am sorry, it is pity what happened to you . Find insult in this 

Sam roulette game is based on randomness and randomness is based on LAW OF LARGE numbers.  And those large numbers for roulette game ar realy large... We talk over thousands of spins.  RTM in full is living over much larger number of spins, more then  you would like to see all in overview of just 100-200 spins sequnce. You can read something about that here.

link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

So knowing roulette numbers are based on LAW OF LARGE NUMBERS someone can say that using probability and statistics can't be realiable ( as statistical measures are only average ones, and they apply in the longterm after many thousands of spins) on shorter, daily basis playing sequences... (lets take 350 as average for example)... That just can't be true becasue of one simple logical thing. IF spins didn't  obeyed to RTM in the short term (at least „mildly“) they couldnt accumulate in the longer term to expected probabilities.. Simple as that. Spins ALWAYS have tendency to arrange in the way they are supposed to. It is a fact.

You asked when to enter and to exit.  As I see here people who were mentioned and Skakus talking in this thread , who are also exploring this beside me,  all use different entry and exit points then me. We all use deviations, but Speed for example is using positivie progressions beside all, (I use negative), Skakus actualy combination of both If I am not wrong , and also as he says for example bets all events under 3.0 STD ( I bet all above).. Different ways of exploration for the same thing. So I can't say my way is better then  their for example... Everyones overall strategy is at its own understanding, exploration and realization. 

Anyhow not easy and simple in the end as you are might expecting.. I told you that.

Outnumbered and outgunnedâ€" sort of a joke.

Best

Drazen

[TwoCatSam]

"I guess I come across a bit on the harsh side." which harsh side and to whom?

Drazen

I am saying I come across harsh to you.  I'm sorry; I apologize. 

Some days I have a hair trigger and forget that what is an insult in my country may just be a translation problem.  In our country if you say to a person, "I feel so sorry for you!" that can be interpreted, "I am so much better off--smarter-richer-handsomer-sexier-and on and on that YOU."

Our expression of sympathy is often:  Man, that sucks!

Whether or not you believe it, I have studied the Law of Large Numbers, the "so called" Law of the Third and many, many other theories.  Theories are worthless unless you can make a dollar from them.

Maybe you guys are right.  I am going to dig out the old SuperRoulette bot and program it to look for an imbalance in the ECs.  We'll see if it makes money.  I can tell you with a lot of certainty that it did not in the past.

It's not whether the wheel will return all things to normal.  I can read the Zuma tester and see the numbers.  I can read the Spielbank report and read the numbers.  The question is this:  Can you--to a point of profitability--begin your betting at the right time and make money when it corrects.  Or will you miss your "guess" and find the reds just keep coming until you're broke.

I strongly suspect the later, or bots would be cleaning out the casinos.

Sam

[Ralph]

We have problem with it, we are not sure it will change how many runs ever we do, a small fraction of the possible streams of number will never or almost never come back.  In a million spins a 50/50 chance will almost every time have less then a 1% in difference. 1% is 10000.
5% in hundred is only 5.
It is not  sure it will ever catch up.  We can use it, but never 100% beat the game every time. It is one of the few things we can use, and the phenomena exist, as a probability, not any sure. We should if so every time win if we play long enough, we know we win in shorter runs, and the chance we lose increase in longer runs.  Not any bankroll can stand the worse case, the table limit is set lower at NOZ.

[TwoCatSam]

"In a million spins a 50/50 chance will almost every time have less then a 1% in difference. 1% is 10000."

Ralph

That was exactly my point. 

If a person could say:  In 100 spins, we will achieve equality between red and black, then it would be a gold mine.  But it just isn't so.

If a person could say:  In my first trot, if I have a 60/40 divide my next trot will have the same and opposite divide.  Again, we could get rich.  But it just ain't so.

It's like the old saying:  If you put salt on a bird's tail, he cannot fly and you can catch him.  What bird will hold still for a good tail-salting?

TwoCat