According to current probabilities theory, roulette is a game of independent trials and independent probabilities. No mainstream professor on probabilities would accept that past results can influence future results.
One of the reasons for this thesis, is that academics care about "single spin" probabilities than groups of spins. (but more on roulette group probabilities in the future)
Anyway, if someone can prove that previous spins can give us information for next spins, he would turn mainstream probability theory upside down, and most probably would win a Nobel prize.
Here's a simple test to prove that previous spins offer info for following spins.
Research
1. Take a database of past roulette spins - like that of Wiesbaden (link:://adf.ly/3SgQO)
2. Search for series of 50 consecutive spins with less than 12 appearances of one color. (that is around three standard deviations from normal distribution)
3. Record the appearances of that color in the following 50 consecutive spins.
Result
Theoretically in step 3, both colors have the same probabilities of appearing. For example, in 20 tests, 10 times should be in favor of the one color (the prevailing color in the previous 50 spins) and 10 times in favor of the other (the less appearing color in the previous 50 spins).
However, real tests show that the next 50 spins are in favor of the color that did not appear in the previous 50 spins.
Test for yourself.
However, real tests show that the next 50 spins are in favor of the color that did not appear in the previous 50 spins.
Test for yourself.
Kav,
Few years back,on old VLS we tested it on all outside E/C in cycles of 80 spins,
and it is fact that in almost 85% next 80 spins would be in favour of opposite.
FLATman
I hereby confer on you the "KNOW BELL" prize. (If you knew Bell like I knew Bell, you'd understand.)
Sam
All joking aside, how can an intimate object have any knowledge of any kind?
My bowling ball is embarrassed because it only got four pins last shot. This time it will get a strike.
Other than memory, what other personification could be applied to rocks and things.
Sam
Well we know to whom the bell tolls , dont we?
Cheers
Drazen
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Oct 15, 12:01 PM 2012
FLATman
I hereby confer on you the "KNOW BELL" prize. (If you knew Bell like I knew Bell, you'd understand.)
Sam
Don't know Bell as you do.....but do know you have witnessed this phenomena of 80 spins.
Remember secret Compas section.
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Oct 15, 12:03 PM 2012
All joking aside, how can an intimate object have any knowledge of any kind?
My bowling ball is embarrassed because it only got four pins last shot. This time it will get a strike.
Other than memory, what other personification could be applied to rocks and things.
Sam
Sam...you really love your bowling ball dont you? Thats why you said intimate instead of inanimate
Turner
Hello Kav
Can you provide any statistics regarding this phenomena? So the idea is to flat bet next 50 spins the less dominant chance? Flat mentioned that it happens in 85% of 80 spins cycles.
-
You need a march to capitalize on something that has not show during a window of events or after 3.00 STD - i have already post a full working playing model regarding this flat betting with users that report back they have success.
Then when you deal with underrepresented and overrepresented events the correction comes with tiny waves or medium waves or large waves.
Is not a law - but we know that correction exist and always is present after a strong imbalance based upon a valid playing model.
You need to aim for plus 1 to get it to work then apply regression or lower you bet size.
As if you can get plus 1 to overcome the amount of attempts doing so - then you have positive expectation flat betting.
I should also add that i have provide every one with free software to run there own simulations and get significant statistical results based upon the same principal as this topic.
Hello all,
Thanks for the constructive replies.
We already have two confirmations that such phenomena is observed (by F_LAT_INO and ego).
Guys, do you understand, if true, how remarkable and groundbreaking such an observation is, in relation to mainstream probability theory? Therefore, I urge anyone interested to do their own tests and report back. We need a bigger sample, more tests. Could someone make a little program so we can test many spins?
ego,
could you please post links to your strategy and software?
So the first step is to confirm that indeed corrections to take place in the frame of 100 or 160 spins (and win the Nobel prize)
The next step is to find out how to capitalize on that.
While I also believe in corrections finding 12 or less in 50 would take some time.
Quote from: MuppetMan on Oct 16, 10:31 AM 2012
While I also believe in corrections finding 12 or less in 50 would take some time.
If you are alone and not have a team - then you track all three even money positions.
That is total around 900 trails during 8 hours collecting data.
Then you will get at least one up to three or four 3.0 STD during each week.
@Kav send you a PM about the this topic.
Just food for thought--it's kept me up many nights.
Suppose it's not a memory, but a principle.
I could build a refrigerator that would run off a horse. Seriously. Or an ox. Or many men. Suppose I took this refrigerator--via the TwoCat Time Machine--to the year 1,500 A.D. Suppose I made ice. I would be burned at the stake.
The principle of refrigeration would seem black magic to them.
Suppose there is a principle concerning numbers that is as foreign to us as to refrigeration is to them.
I have long theorized that certain groups of numbers inspire or incite other numbers to come. I have witnessed this phenomenon for years. I believe it has something to do with chaos theory and strange attractors. (I am just guessing!)
Imagine a scoreboard at a basketball game. It is not the score, it only reports the score. What if a roulette wheel is only reporting the numbers? It does not choose the numbers, but reports for a "higher authority"? Study on that one for a while!! :)
And it works exactly the same with BV RNG. Or Random.org.
TwoCat
Sam I like that, we should allways be open to "OUT OF THE BOX"
The Swedish Central Bank has create the world crisis, just by invented a Nobel Prize in economics.
The Guys (yes its male) get a prize for saying MAN is rational in economics.
Everyone should know it is not rational thinking in shopping, or chose a car.
The prize has reputation, and this guys influence the politics, and there we are!!!!
Swedish Central bank got power, not by the SEK, by the illegal price which was not i Alfred Nobles will.
Thanks, Ralph. If my wife could, she'd put me back in the box!! ^-^
Doing a lot of testing lately. On Murph's numbers, he says do not bet the 0,8,17,26 or 35. I am amazed as I look over my sheets how connected these numbers are. Rarely will one hit that another does not within seven spins. Many hit three and four times before they stop.
This is numbers flocking like birds on a wire. Saw it years ago when working on the CHICO/MURPH system and it's still happens years later.
There has to be a winning idea there somewhere.
Sorry, I got off topic a bit........
Sam
Quote from: Kav on Oct 16, 03:49 AM 2012
Hello all,
Thanks for the constructive replies.
We already have two confirmations that such phenomena is observed (by F_LAT_INO and ego).
Guys, do you understand, if true, how remarkable and groundbreaking such an observation is, in relation to mainstream probability theory? Therefore, I urge anyone interested to do their own tests and report back. We need a bigger sample, more tests. Could someone make a little program so we can test many spins?
ego,
could you please post links to your strategy and software?
So the first step is to confirm that indeed corrections to take place in the frame of 100 or 160 spins (and win the Nobel prize)
The next step is to find out how to capitalize on that.
Kav (Roulette Probabilities (link:://:.x))
Kav
You can test it until you drop dead on RX. Just put auto spin on 50 spins and go to statistics on Even money bets. If you get results with SD higher than 3 just auto spin next 50 spins. The subject of capitalizing on a heavy imbalance (expecting SD not to continue over 3 in following spins) was discussed before. Two keywords are Marigny de Grilleau and regression toward the mean. Unfortunately if you get like in your example 12/38 breakdown in your first 50 spins then even if SD drops below 3 it would not necessarily mean that a less dominating EC would hit at better than 50% ratio. Its a nice concept to work on but of no practical value in constructing a winning bet.
Quote from: Robeenhuut on Oct 17, 02:27 AM 2012
Kav
Unfortunately if you get like in your example 12/38 breakdown in your first 50 spins then even if SD drops below 3 it would not necessarily mean that a less dominating EC would hit at better than 50% ratio. Its a nice concept to work on but of no practical value in constructing a winning bet.
That's exactly my point.
I make the case that the less appearing EC
will indeed hit at better than 50% ratio in most of the cases. (not all the cases but more than 50%).
If this is true, if corrections of heavy imbalances do happen, in a predictable way, not in billions of spins but in like 100-150 spins, then this discovery is of amazing practical value!
Kav
Many don't understand this concept and i can read the confusion about this topic.
When you deal with trails and not events it is very difficult to define what is underrepresented and make it very difficult to develop a march to catch strings of correction.
This is not the case when you deal with the law of series - then the underrepresented events become very clear and you know exactly what to observe as part of correction and its more easy to develop a march upon does principals.
Quote from: Robeenhuut on Oct 17, 02:27 AM 2012
Kav
Unfortunately if you get like in your example 12/38 breakdown in your first 50 spins then even if SD drops below 3 it would not necessarily mean that a less dominating EC would hit at better than 50% ratio. Its a nice concept to work on but of no practical value in constructing a winning bet.
For me, the practical value in betting of observing the imbalance is the probability of (at least) a lower variance in the next sample of spins.
Usable 'correction' can be as little as a lower dispersion. Lower dispersion helps most MM's.
A correction of hits above 50% ratio is a bonus.
We should also add that we deal with three present states after the imbalance stop growing.
One is that the state start hovering around zero where there is no continues imbalance or continues correction - i regard this state as part of correction based upon my definition upon this methodology.
Then there is the raw correction state that is a direct opposite effect that can come as a small, medium or large strings of events.
At last it can stop growing and then fall back to back to certain degree - but as we not chasing for events that does not matters so much based upon this methodology or as to speak you follow the flow.
Confirmation Bias:
" A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way." (Wikipedia)
Well that is true and we could state the wheel has 37 degree of freedom - so no matter what state is present it still has 1 in 3 as red and black is 50/50 ...
But after significant statistical results and observation so does correction exist.
The main focus do is not many understand what correction is.
I would say when the events - can be any - hit the bell curve top - then it can continues as the bell curve it self has no limit - but sooner or later no matter what any one claim - so does correction states appear - the events stop growing and start to hovering or getting small, medium or large drawdowns.
Any Monkey can simulate it and you don't need a wiki to understand the concept.
Then what it boils down to is if a march is the same with the same probability chasing events as any other bet selection - the answer is no - as you know what the future hold up front and you use the tendency towards that direction to capitilazie - that make it different then trending or betting with or against any other kind of events or bet selections.
It like creating a loophole and there is only one way out.
confirmation bias
That's the term I've been trying to remember.
Thanks, Giz.
Sam
Confiramation bias is exactly why I asked any and all of you to do your own tests and report your unbiased results.
I fully understand it is easier to copy wikipedia than testing Wiesbaden spins. But at least don't act like a smart-ar*e.
Quote from: MuppetMan on Oct 16, 10:31 AM 2012
While I also believe in corrections finding 12 or less in 50 would take some time.
That's true. That's why I asked for help in testing. But if we confirm that the principle is true it should also hold true (to a different extent) in even less extreme situations.
In my limited testing, after 12 or less color appearances in 50 spins, the missing color dominated (more than 50% appearances) the next 50 spins in more than 50% of the tests.
It should be easy for a programer to program such a test and test thousands of spins. (regrettably I don't have RX)
Quote from: Kav on Oct 17, 06:41 PM 2012
Confiramation bias is exactly why I asked any and all of you to do your own tests and report your unbiased results.
I fully understand it is easier to copy wikipedia than testing Wiesbaden spins. But at least don't act like a smart-ar*e.
...It should be easy for a programer to program such a test and
test thousands of spins. (regrettably I don't have RX)
I am a programmer. I don't suffer from the bias of magical thinking. Do the work. I've done
mine. By the way, You need to test with more than ten million spins changing the random
seed every half million spins at a time. People that put down Wikipedia as a defence
mechanism don't impress me much.
Quote from: Gizmotron on Oct 17, 08:19 PM 2012
I am a programmer. I don't suffer from the bias of magical thinking. Do the work. I've done
mine. By the way, You need to test with more than ten million spins changing the random
seed every half million spins at a time. People that put down Wikipedia as a defence
mechanism don't impress me much.
Hey Mr. "living proof that Roulette can be beat every time you set out to beat it",
Apart from arrogance is there anything constructive you have to offer to the masses?
Wikipedia is not a reliable reference for evaluating creative thinking. It's just a compilation of mainstream views. If you read an encyclopedia in 1900 it would say that nothing weighting more than air could ever fly. Yet today there are planes weighting tons. Don't believe everything you read on wikipedia as absolute, eternal truth.
Quote from: Kav on Oct 17, 06:41 PM 2012
Confiramation bias is exactly why I asked any and all of you to do your own tests and report your unbiased results.
I fully understand it is easier to copy wikipedia than testing Wiesbaden spins. But at least don't act like a smart-ar*e.
That's true. That's why I asked for help in testing. But if we confirm that the principle is true it should also hold true (to a different extent) in even less extreme situations.
In my limited testing, after 12 or less color appearances in 50 spins, the missing color dominated (more than 50% appearances) the next 50 spins in more than 50% of the tests.
It should be easy for a programer to program such a test and test thousands of spins. (regrettably I don't have RX)
You can get RX trial version for free from uxsoftware.com.
Quote from: Kav on Oct 18, 03:21 AM 2012
Hey Mr. "living proof that Roulette can be beat every time you set out to beat it",
Apart from arrogance is there anything constructive you have to offer to the masses?
Just this. Your research will validate the normal results and aspects found in binomeal distribution. If you get any other significant result beyond what would be found in a study of "large numbers" then your data set will be considered flawed.
There is no reason for Roulette acting magical. Your results will confirm what I'm saying. Everyone needs to learn. Your approach is the very best way. Do the work.
I knocked up this little tool for experimenting -
[attachimg=2]
But don't get too excited, for one thing, I coded a win to count as "not a loss" (ie; win or break even).
Also, it's one thing to get > average in the next sequence MOST of the time, but that's not the same as making a profit overall, you have to take into account how much you LOSE in those sessions where you get less than average. Another thing to be aware of are those cases where you get a rush of wins early on and then losses later; just betting the next X spins mechanically through to the end may not be the best way to test the hypothesis. I tend to agree with Ego in that the best way is to wait for the correction to manifest before you start your attack.
Note that the 2nd sample (the one you would actually be betting in) doesn't have to be the same length as the first sample (but obviously, the trigger has to be less than the first sample!). Play around with different figures and see what you get.
I haven't actually implemented the file option yet, so you're stuck with RNG for now. Also, it can take a long time to do the analysis (250,000 spins are taken at a time), so be patient. It takes 2-3 minutes on my computer.
I'm pretty sure I coded this idea years ago and the end result in terms of profits was... you guessed it - right on the mathematical expectation.
[attachmini=1]
Hi Bayes,
Great to have you contribution. Could you please explain how exactly the app works?
update:ok now the images show up and I think I understand how it works
I cant run it.
I can open it, but it freezes.
I think .dll is missing in the attach?
Cheers
Drazen
Hi Drazen,
No dll needed, it freezes because it takes time to do the analysis. Be patient. :thumbsup:
The numbers are adjusted by the sliders. The trigger value is what the program looks for (number of wins) in the first sample. So in the screenshot the number of wins is 12 in the last 50 spins (1st sample). The program then starts from the first spin in the sequence of 250,000 spins and advances by 1 spin at a time checking each 50 spin sequence for 12 wins OR LESS. When it finds such a sequence, it jumps to the next sequence of spins the length of which is given by the number you input for the 2nd sample (again, 50 in the screenshot).
When you've entered these 3 numbers, hit GO! and WAIT. ;)
After a few minutes, the list will fill with numbers. The numbers on the left are the trigger values (so they will be the trigger value or LESS), and the numbers in the right column are how many WINS you got betting the entire 2nd sample sequence. So if for example this number is 28 (and the 2nd sample value was 50), it means you would have made 3 units profits when betting the spins which followed the sample which contained the underrepresented side.
Clear?
Yes, thanks. It worked after few minutes of waiting :)
But all this hm.. very familiar to me from somwhere.. Why I am not surprised with the results?
But I will psstt... every man for himslef..
Cheers
Drazen
First of all thanks for this little program.
Quote from: Bayes on Oct 18, 11:37 AM 2012
I knocked up this little tool for experimenting -
But don't get too excited, for one thing, I coded a win to count as "not a loss" (ie; win or break even).
Are you kidding me? I do get excited!
Do you understand that this program along with real life observations from myself, ego, F_LAT_INO and many others is contrary to current mainstream probability theory!? According to it in the next 50 spins both colors should have equal probability. But it seems they do not! Believe me if we publish a paper about this, it will create a lot of controversy.
Quote from: Bayes on Oct 18, 11:37 AM 2012
Another thing to be aware of are those cases where you get a rush of wins early on and then losses later; just betting the next X spins mechanically through to the end may not be the best way
Very good point, especially in making a profit.
I guess this could work great flat betting.
Quote from: Bayes on Oct 18, 11:37 AM 2012
I tend to agree with Ego in that the best way is to wait for the correction to manifest before you start your attack.
Remember we look for deviation in 50 spins, not continuous losses. It's impossible to decide when the correction starts.
thank you
Dear mr. Kav
I don't know what numbers you entered and can I ask are you sure you understand those numbers?
First of all you said this could work great flat bet. Well actualy it can't at all. Hillarioulsy can't work flat bet if you will notice. For that you would need to reach extremly high deviations for which you should wait and wait and wait... >:D
But is there still a way you can don't give a s*it for not winning flat bet :question: Just maybe.
Also I am pretty sure this program doesn't count zero so that is one reason more why it can't work flat bet... hehe
Whatever you do, be careful if playing with deviations. It can be pretty devastating nasty if you don't do it right way and enter when isnt "best suitable" moment for entering. I felt that few times on my skin.
And that should be confirmed only statistcaly, no way with just a feeling or after some very long sequence you think well it has to now. That sequence usualy continues in that way becasue it is part of some bigger picture which you cant see.
This game is very powerfull, and its strongest weapon is excatly enormous strenght of deviations if they are not treated from some "safer point"...
Regards
Drazen
Kav
I am looking forward to your findings.
Sam
Quote from: drazen_cro on Oct 18, 01:20 PM 2012
Dear mr. Kav
Drazen
Dear Drazen,
To make it easy for you: this program confirms real life observations by many players that
PAST SPINS OFFER INFORMATION ABOUT FOLLOWING SPINS (and we are talking about 50-100 spins, not millions of spins). If you understood the boldness of this claim, you should be shocked and unable to speak or write for the next day or so.
Thanks for your kind comments - totally disagree.
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Oct 18, 01:22 PM 2012
Kav
I am looking forward to your findings.
Sam
Sam,
My findings in short (using the program): when in 50 spins a color hits 12 times (or less), in the next 50 spins, it has over 65% probability of being the dominant color with over 25 hits.
Quote from: Kav on Oct 18, 01:30 PM 2012
Dear Drazen,
To make it easy for you: this program confirms real life observations by many players that PAST SPINS OFFER INFORMATION ABOUT FOLLOWING SPINS (and we are talking about 50-100 spins, not millions of spins). If you understood the boldness of this claim, you should be shocked and unable to speak for the next day or so.
Thanks for your kind comments.
Mr. Kav
For all my shocks casino stuff is in charge to handle. So it becomes their shock ;) If you will understand.
With all due respect i don't know who will need few days to be unable to speak? :thumbsup:
But I can tell you one thing, after that state of bening unable to speak, you will like it, and you might wanna get a zipper for mouth hehe
So you open it only when you sit at the table, and then talk bla bla bla to make up all you missed 8)
That is all
Good luck
The most important point here is;
How to find EC bet with smallest deviation possible
of hundreds of these that could be applied in roulette.
The fact is that some show above tendencies and from
my test-observing 2 such bets/tested hundred/S of sessions
over 300 spins/are showing incredible evenly balanced flow.
Too early to come out with that.
Quote from: drazen_cro on Oct 18, 01:20 PM 2012
Also I am pretty sure this program doesn't count zero so that is one reason more why it can't work flat bet... hehe
It does take into account the zero. It tracks hi-lo and any number < 19 counts as a loss, so there are 19 losing numbers and 18 winning numbers.
If you look at "moderate" deviations, it seems to be the case that you're actually better off picking the winning side in the sample (betting for the deviations to continue, not correct), at least for my results so far. ECs have the highest standard deviation of any bet on the table, maybe that explains why.
Quote from: Bayes on Oct 18, 01:42 PM 2012
It does take into account the zero. It tracks hi-lo and any number < 19 counts as a loss, so there are 19 losing numbers and 18 winning numbers.
Wow! Even better 8)
Cheers
Drazen
That is a great contribution by Bayes - in the past when he code Marigny software for me - then i specific ask for the software to pin point out the window with imbalance or 3.00 STD.
I explain the rules and then we add a spin button.
Why is that way or line of thinking superior - i tell you.
Then you can observe how the distribution unfold and you can develop your own march based upon your statistical observations - i did.
So next time if Bayes has time and want to make a effort - then i would ask for a simulation software that pin point out the window of imbalance and from that moment you can spin the future and see how the distribution unfold - that way you can develop a march.
Note and i repeat my self - you would not play or attack until the correction has manifest.
That way you catch the tendency towards the right direction with out chasing things to happen.
Quote from: Kav on Oct 18, 01:37 PM 2012
Sam,
My findings in short (using the program): when in 50 spins a color hits 12 times (or less), in the next 50 spins, it has over 65% probability of being the dominant color with over 25 hits.
Go ahead then, publish your findings. I have before.
link:://blog.richmond.edu/physicsbunn/2009/01/27/what-is-probability/ (link:://blog.richmond.edu/physicsbunn/2009/01/27/what-is-probability/)
I know about enthusiasm of the excitement. It pulls you strongly towards
wishful thinking.
Quote from: Gizmotron on Oct 18, 02:18 PM 2012
Go ahead then, publish your findings. I have before.
link:://blog.richmond.edu/physicsbunn/2009/01/27/what-is-probability/ (link:://blog.richmond.edu/physicsbunn/2009/01/27/what-is-probability/)
I know about enthusiasm of the excitement. It pulls you strongly towards
wishful thinking.
The thing is that all interpretations of probability agree on the results, on the bottom line! Otherwise there would be different probabilities (percentages) according to different interpretations. Which is not the case.
The issue you raise is very important but theoretical/philosophical.
Quote from: Kav on Oct 18, 02:56 PM 2012
The thing is that all interpretations of probability agree on the results, on the bottom line! Otherwise there would be different probabilities (percentages) according to different interpretations. Which is not the case.
The issue you raise is very important but theoretical/philosophical.
It's more pragmatic in fact. I know what you will find as the proof pretty soon. Assuming
that you intend to get to the bottom line, you will have passed one of the few very big
lessons in researching Roulette. This is your baptism of fire. Hopefully it will not kill off
your effort to find a great solution to beating this game.
Interesting, i see Flatino is now expert for deviations :wink:
Quote from: speed on Oct 18, 03:51 PM 2012
Interesting, i see F_LAT_INO is now expert for deviations :wink:
I see Flatino is a generous poster who shares his ideas
possible
Quote from: Kav on Oct 18, 01:37 PM 2012
Sam,
My findings in short (using the program): when in 50 spins a color hits 12 times (or less), in the next 50 spins, it has over 65% probability of being the dominant color with over 25 hits.
Kav
Lets say that you tested 10000 50 spins sessions where 65% ended with a less dominant color hitting more in following 50 spins. Do you think that you tested enough sessions to give you a statistically reliable breakdown and in real sessions you will be able to get this ratio?
Quote from: Turner on Oct 18, 05:08 PM 2012
I see F_LAT_INO is a generous poster who shares his ideas
--And I'm Croatian and this Speed chap is Serbian....that's why
these sarcastic remarks,Turner.But me don't bother,let him bark.
Kav & RH,
So many theories are put forward on these forums but hardly any of them are adequately tested. My money is on the mathematical orthodoxy to prevail but it's fun to test the ideas so let's see what we get after 10,000 runs. Then we can abide by the result whatever it is, and move on to explore other ideas.
So here are my first set of results using the software. I encourage anyone who's downloaded it to post theirs too, that way we can get to the 10,000 session target more quickly.
The settings are: trigger = 12, 1st sample = 2nd sample = 50.
[attachimg=1]
So these results give a % of 508/924 = 55% :-\
Not looking so good now.
The % has to be significantly above this (at least 25 wins in 50 spins):
[attachimg=2]
Kav -" Do we believe that past spins have no relevance or do we believe that (in certain situations) past spins can offer a guide for future results?"
This topic has been discussed for years. "Each spin is an independent trial."
But that doesn't prevent anyone from assigning meaning to sequences of
spins in order to identify typical occurring patterns or characteristics. At no
time does this form of assignment provide a source of prediction. It can
only provide as a source for confirmation, after the facts. Confirmation of
continuing events can serve as a bet selection method. At no time does it
serve as a predictor.
Now in your hypothesis if certain thing happens then something else will
happen in the following 50 spins. That's impossible. What force could cause
a thing to happen? Roulette is an independent game from spin to spin.
R.D. Ellison had a long a tiring discussion with three math professors--or was it two? I believe it was two. Anyway, he posed such questions to them that they had to admit there was some sort of memory, but they could not understand what it was. Ellison called it the statistical "pressure" to conform to the norm....some such wording.
Anyway, I've studied Ellison's 3QA system enough to know there is something behind it. Memory--whatever--there is something there.
Sam
Kav
I totally understand what you're saying. Studied and thought much on it. I'd love to see it come out of Bayes program--namely, the second fifty catches up somewhat with the first fifty........all the time every time.
A guy based a system I have on this idea; the Magic Five, I think. Says it makes a whopping profit. He only uses five spins.
Sam
Edit: What force, Giz asks. There's the rub.
Regression to the mean is a real phenomenon, but it only says that given an extreme event, the following event will be less extreme - the vast majority of the time. That's a long way from saying that events are governed by an invisible elastic band which somehow pulls the outcomes back to balance in the short term. In fact the opposite is the case - RATIOS will tend to balance, but not absolute numbers, which actually diverge as you get more results.
Hello Kav,
This is what you wrote:
But the big thing is this:
Do we believe that past spins have no relevance or do we believe that (in certain situations) past spins can offer a guide for future results?
This is really big!
********************************************
As some members already know I play the dealers signature.
Each Dealer has his own Signature if they spin the Ball & Wheel , as soon as another Dealer takes over the system fauls.
So you have to wait for at least 10 spins as a "new" Dealer takes over , I also call it the Dealers KEY.
I'm honest to you that I know nothing of Math in Roulette , I concentrate on the numbers on the bord , take f.i. Dublinbet they show you the last 10 numbers that has been hit.
It is the "TRICK" to find the right combi to make a good profit , the strange thing is that this key always work , but don't forget that each Dealer has his own key.
So if you ask yourself the question is there a memory in the past spins...I have to say yes..but a key sounds better to me.
Have a nice weekend
John Rotterdam
Mr. Bayes if you could please explain this thing for me, and say few words, or maybe coded something like this to check?
How could we expect to behave/or what distribution to get in 2nd group after our first deviation, but if 2nd is same as first?
Ok lets take that our famous example with 12 wins in 50 spins which is std over 3 already, and next 50 spins sequence we get same distribution again, which would be very strong deviation nicely over 4std (very very rare but still possible knowing roulette deviations)?
We can be sure that in 3rd measured group we cant have such situation again because that would be std that isnt recorded in roulette history. But again is now sure that we will must have over 50% of wins?
How regression would behave now?
Maybe I asked this question clumsy, but I think you could assume what i wanted to ask? :)
Regards
Drazen
We can be sure that in 3rd measured group we can't have such situation again because that would be std that isnt recorded in roulette history. But again is now sure that we will must have over 50% of wins?
We can be sure we'd grow old (older) waiting for this phenomenon.
Sam
Some more sessions and an update on the winning % :
[attachimg=1]
So pooling these results with my previous sessions, we have a total of 924 + 742 = 1666 sessions, and a total of 508 + 351 = 859 winning sessions, giving a current winning % of 859/1666 = 51.6%
Quote from: Kav on Oct 19, 11:29 AM 2012
That is a very common misconception.
This is like saying that an imbalance would never be turned over; that if a color would establish a dominance it would keep it forever. Which is not the case.
To understand my way of thinking you can also read about the ergodic hypothesis (link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergodic_hypothesis).
Here is a link to Ellisons article about (link:://:.x/2010/04/law-of-statistical-propensity.html) The Law of Statistical Propensity (link:://:.x/2010/04/law-of-statistical-propensity.html) Sam is referencing.
Kav (Roulette probabilities (link:://:.x/2010/04/expectation-and-probabiity.html))
Ok, your point about dominance is a fair one. It would be more accurate to say that imbalance in terms of R vs B doesn't
systematically tend towards a limiting value, as the ratio does. What happens is that the difference between reds and blacks diverges and converges (in a cyclic fashion), but the number of "equalizations" is much much less than you would think. John Haigh covers this in his book "
Taking Chances". There is even a formula which tells you the number of times you can expect red and black to balance in X spins, and the most likely scenario is 0 times.
Regarding Ellison's article, he seems to be trying to make the case that there's an inconsistency between statistical independence and the law of large numbers, but surely it's just common sense that the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Yes, there is a "statistical propensity" for numbers to equalize, but this is just a consequence of the symmetry of the wheel. If there is symmetry in the device which generates the outcomes, then the obvious "solution" is simply that the symmetry determines that each number or group of numbers will show the same number of times (in the absence of any bias). The number 13 will hit as many times as any other number because it's the "nature" of 13 to tend towards 1/37, just like any other number, and what would be odd is if that
didn't happen. So it seems to be sophistry on Ellison's part, and you admit yourself that the article was a plug to sell his book.
Quote from: drazen_cro on Oct 19, 09:06 PM 2012
We can be sure that in 3rd measured group we can't have such situation again because that would be std that isnt recorded in roulette history. But again is now sure that we will must have over 50% of wins?
How regression would behave now?
You can't be sure that in the 3rd session you would get at least 50% wins, but you can be pretty sure that you wouldn't get a repeat of the first 2 sessions (12 or less wins). I've seen this scenario in some of the program output, where both sessions produced only 12 wins (giving a total z-score over the 100 spins of -5.2 :o ).
Maybe I'll add some code to the program so that it looks at the 3rd session if the 2nd session is very close to the results of the 1st.
Quote from: Bayes on Oct 20, 07:15 AM 2012
You can't be sure that in the 3rd session you would get at least 50% wins, but you can be pretty sure that you wouldn't get a repeat of the first 2 sessions (12 or less wins). I've seen this scenario in some of the program output, where both sessions produced only 12 wins (giving a total z-score over the 100 spins of -5.2 :o ).
Maybe I'll add some code to the program so that it looks at the 3rd session if the 2nd session is very close to the results of the 1st.
Nothing really surprising in my opinion. Z-score of an extreme value can continue for a long time. Number 50 is just a number. Whats the number of spins after it goes down and does that mean that one EC hits more than the other in this period? On other hand if i saw RED hit 30 times in 100 spins i would flat bet BLACK for a while ;D Would you?
Quote from: Kav on Oct 18, 03:21 AM 2012
Hey Mr. "living proof that Roulette can be beat every time you set out to beat it",
Apart from arrogance is there anything constructive you have to offer to the masses?
Now that you are beginning to see the light of day, look at this. If you were
willing to wait for 50/12 to occur, to get a trigger, then look at this phenomena.
Almost every 150 spins one to three of the dozens/columns sleeps for at least
15 consecutive spins. Now who among you can't figure out a way to exploit that?
I do it by trial and error. I use flat betting and all the other opportunities found
in randomness to stay even while waiting to get in on any of these 1-3 opportunities.
Once you win 2 units in each attempt you are in +. Go ahead and program for the
existence of sleeping doz / col. Randomness, and nothing else, kicks these opportunities
out day in and day out. 150 spins on a real table only takes five hours. That's a
practical reality.
Quote from: Gizmotron on Oct 20, 08:38 AM 2012
Now that you are beginning to see the light of day, look at this. If you were
willing to wait for 50/12 to occur, to get a trigger, then look at this phenomena.
Almost every 150 spins one to three of the dozens/columns sleeps for at least
15 consecutive spins. Now who among you can't figure out a way to exploit that?
I do it by trial and error. I use flat betting and all the other opportunities found
in randomness to stay even while waiting to get in on any of these 1-3 opportunities.
Once you win 2 units in each attempt you are in +. Go ahead and program for the
existence of sleeping doz / col. Randomness, and nothing else, kicks these opportunities
out day in and day out. 150 spins on a real table only takes five hours. That's a
practical reality.
So Gizmo if i understand it correctly you would flat bet 2 dozens or columns that hit last and hope to gain few units by having 15 straight wins if you catch a sleeper? Can you elaborate more on this?
Quote from: Robeenhuut on Oct 20, 09:31 AM 2012
So Gizmo if i understand it correctly you would flat bet 2 dozens or columns that hit last and hope to gain few units by having 15 straight wins if you catch a sleeper? Can you elaborate more on this?
What I mean by trial and error is that I use four sleepers in a row and then try it. Now I know full well that some sessions work better than others using four in a row before jumping in. So if a session works better with three or five then I use those. I watch closely the effectiveness. Does any of that make any sense?
Quote from: Gizmotron on Oct 20, 10:21 AM 2012
What I mean by trial and error is that I use four sleepers in a row and then try it. Now I know full well that some sessions work better than others using four in a row before jumping in. So if a session works better with three or five then I use those. I watch closely the effectiveness. Does any of that make any sense?
Not sure if i understand what you mean by four sleepers in a row? Do you bet on four consecutive dozens or columns that you consider sleepers? And what do you consider a sleeper? Just one spin or more without showing?
Let's say that the sleeping dozen is 1-12. I wait for those numbers not to hit four
spins in a row. Then I start betting on the other two dozens that are hitting. I need
to get to step six just to break even. So any sleeper bet that reaches at least step
seven puts me up one unit. Say step eight lands on the number eleven. I lose that
bet. So I'm up one unit for the attempt. But if I do hit the long sleeper I win a lot.
Quote from: Gizmotron on Oct 20, 10:51 AM 2012
Let's say that the sleeping dozen is 1-12. I wait for those numbers not to hit four
spins in a row. Then I start betting on the other two dozens that are hitting. I need
to get to step six just to break even. So any sleeper bet that reaches at least step
seven puts me up one unit. Say step eight lands on the number eleven. I lose that
bet. So I'm up one unit for the attempt. But if I do hit the long sleeper I win a lot.
Thanks for an explanation. Now its clear ;D
Post deleted wrong topic.
Quote from: Gizmotron on Oct 20, 10:51 AM 2012
Let's say that the sleeping dozen is 1-12. I wait for those numbers not to hit four
spins in a row. Then I start betting on the other two dozens that are hitting. I need
to get to step six just to break even. So any sleeper bet that reaches at least step
seven puts me up one unit. Say step eight lands on the number eleven. I lose that
bet. So I'm up one unit for the attempt. But if I do hit the long sleeper I win a lot.
I like the idea of using evenly balanced flat bet and wait for the opportunity to capitalize on some streaks like sleepers here. Its like opposite of waiting for SD to correct itself. Kav started this thread with this approach. But both offer some chances. The drawback is that it is sometimes a slow process. There is a tracker made by Stef in the original FIVE thread that shows you a behavior of dozens in series of 500 spins.