Why random results are NOT independent

[Blue_Angel]

It is sometimes said that probabilistic combinatorics uses the fact that whatever happens with probability greater than 0 must happen sometimes;

One may say with equal justice that many applications of probabilistic number theory hinge on the fact that whatever is unusual must be rare.

If certain algebraic objects (say, rational or integer solutions to certain equations) can be shown to be in the tail of certain sensibly defined distributions, it follows that there must be few of them;

This is a very concrete non-probabilistic statement following from a probabilistic one.

From Wikipedia: link:s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorics

[falkor2k15]

Could you please elaborate in laymen's terms? Just sounds like rhetoric waffle written by academics pretending to be intelligent.

[Blue_Angel]

Could you please elaborate in laymen's terms? Just sounds like rhetoric waffle written by academics pretending to be intelligent.

If you (or anybody else) can say that this event has slim chances to occur, this  is a certain definition.

If you also say that this or that event happens frequently, this is a specific definition.

If casinos didn't have a clue about what could happen, how would they be able to establish payouts for all bet types?

All of the above statements mean that there is a degree of certainty, which it could never existed  with completely independent outcomes!

[falkor2k15]

I don't know how they could design such an almost flawless game in the first place... but I heard the inventor went mad when he couldn't beat his own creation... a bit like 2d Schmup game I made back in uni... I still can't get past level 3.

I think they set the payouts to break even in the long run - then added the zeroes to give them the house edge.

The best explanation I ever heard was from Priyanka: everything is random play unless you include a non-random component.

Before Priyanka, whenever I tested something the results would be independent, i.e. equally likely - or if I tried to look for triggers with the law of third then the results would be different across different data sets.

Manrique (Priyanka's supposed teacher) believed that all bet selections were the same, i.e. they are all designed to break even over the long run, so his specialty was trying to manipulate the negative distribution/variance known as dispersion (opposite: concentration). However, Priyanka seems to have pioneered a method of not only killing dispersion, but also gaining edge using Non-Random components that creates dependency so that bet selections in certain situations no longer break even but begin to tilt towards profit.

I think Priyanka is set to become the most influential guru of Roulette in the 21st century. What he says seems to make sense, and I've glimpsed this "edge" with my own testing...

[Blue_Angel]

I don't know how they could design such an almost flawless game in the first place... but I heard the inventor went mad when he couldn't beat his own creation... a bit like 2d Schmup game I made back in uni... I still can't get past level 3.

I think they set the payouts to break even in the long run - then added the zeroes to give them the house edge.

The best explanation I ever heard was from Priyanka: everything is random play unless you include a non-random component.

Before Priyanka, whenever I tested something the results would be independent, i.e. equally likely - or if I tried to look for triggers with the law of third then the results would be different across different data sets.

Manrique (Priyanka's supposed teacher) believed that all bet selections were the same, i.e. they are all designed to break even over the long run, so his specialty was trying to manipulate the negative distribution/variance known as dispersion (opposite: concentration). However, Priyanka seems to have pioneered a method of not only killing dispersion, but also gaining edge using Non-Random components that creates dependency so that bet selections in certain situations no longer break even but begin to tilt towards profit.

I think Priyanka is set to become the most influential guru of Roulette in the 21st century. What he says seems to make sense, and I've glimpsed this "edge" with my own testing...

I don't know what Priyanka is using, but you just confirmed indirectly what I said.

[MrJ]

  then added the zeroes to give them the house edge.

The zeros have very little to do with the H.E.

A 0 is no different than a 34.

Ken

[The General]

The house edge exisrs on every number because the payout on a win is short of what the odds dictate as being fair.

[Blue_Angel]

The zeros have very little to do with the H.E.

A 0 is no different than a 34.

Ken

Actually is about the payout, x36 instead of x37.
I consider it as taxation  on profit.

[MrJ]

Actually is about the payout, x36 instead of x37.
I consider it as taxation  on profit.

I always laugh when somebody is playing the 1st and 2nd dozen (as an example) and the zero hits. They get all pissed off..."that damn zero screwed me up" ... "not the zero again".

The ball hitting the 29 is no different than hitting the 0.

Ken

[MrJ]

(I should be more specific).....In some casinos (0 wheel) losing half your bet on that 0 playing the EC's I THINK is the rule?? I've never seen it before.

Ken

[Blue_Angel]

Why probability is (almost) never being confirmed?

For example you start a session and after 10 results or more you hardly find a balance on EC's, most of the times there will be at least a few hits difference on every EC pair and even if they do balance it doesn't last for long but just a few spins.
The name is Even Chances, do you see the irony?

After 37 spins you are looking the numbers and never notice 37 different numbers in 37 spins, so here goes the 1/37 too!
Seems that law of thirds is overriding 1/37 probability fortunately for the casinos and unfortunately for gamblers.

[MrJ]

I would rather drag my nutsack through 5 miles of broken glass compared to playing the EC's.

You have zero (pardon the punn) chance of winning long term with the EC's. Sorry, its my view.

Ken

[Blue_Angel]

I would rather drag my nutsack through 5 miles of broken glass compared to playing the EC's.

You have zero (pardon the punn) chance of winning long term with the EC's. Sorry, its my view.

Ken

A winning EC strategy is possible, but the profit would be so puny in comparison with inside payouts.
A player should play with "blacks" in order to worth bothering.

[denzie]

(I should be more specific).....In some casinos (0 wheel) losing half your bet on that 0 playing the EC's I THINK is the rule?? I've never seen it before.

Ken

It's called "la partage"

[Blue_Angel]

It's called "la partage"

It's hard to find at Europe, let alone rest of the world.