I feel like blowin' in the wind..............
Is there a regression toward the mean? Sometimes. Does red follow black? Sometimes.
When you run robots and study the trots you will find that when things go wrong, they can stay wrong for eternity. "The wheel can remain erratic longer than you can stay solvent."
Last week, running the L v F ExcelBot, I saw it go bad. Since it was play money then, I just let it run to see if it would turn around. 200 Euro later, it had not. How many real Euro would you truly invest to see if it turned around? 400? 1,000? Yeah, in the funny papers.
I've seen the SuperRoulette bot run for hours producing twice as many reds as blacks. I lost 34,000 real pennies over night expecting it to turn around. It never did.
This bottom line is this: It MAY regress to the mean and it MAY NOT. Like everything in roulette, it is not etched in stone. So don't bet the farm on it.
Sam
No Sam.
Regression toward mean is not falacy at all. It is scientificaly provable phenomenon.
In some other thread I explained what it means. But what bothers you here is not that... Unfortunately you felt on your skin actual strenght and full meaning of it...
Even if you started at 3.0 STD playing continuosly it could stretch long enough for you to be busted. At my time I paid that lesson too...
That was ineventable to happen for you or anyone else playing that way. I knew that will happen and as author of that thread claims that way of betting is more superior then any other 18 vs 18, he is also in big big fallacy. He will attribute loss due to playing on RNG as he doesn't have confidence in it thinking they cheated you. That is not true because BV RNG is the only one RNG you can be sure it produces real not cheating random, becasue it gets it from physical resource and outcomes can't be changed after they generate sequence.
RTM worked perfectly as it should
This destroyed you, not RTM. RTM is harmless, just behaves as it should. No harm feelings from it LoL
If you were using a D'Alembert, it's effectiveness wears off very quickly when the stakes get too high. Increasing the stakes from 2 units to 3 is a 50% increase, but raising from 10 to 11 only gives a 10% increase, and from 20 units to 21 units only a 5% increase - see what I mean? the bigger the stake the less effective is any increase at overcoming any deviation, and if you hit a longer ecart you NEVER catch up. And that is excatly what happened. You wouldnt have chance even if you started at lets say 3.0 and playing conitnuosly, and you, poor guy were rushing on full strength of variance like ruffian.
Like mouse is rushing onto elephant, or even ant is rushing ont elephant?? Oh dear..
Sorry for your loss. Welcome to the world of deviations.
Slightest better chances you would have with this:
Use something like a D'Alembert BUT don't let the stake get so high that it becomes ineffective, if you're losing, cut back the stake to a maximum of one half and either keep it at that while you're still losing or raise by 1 unit after each loss and lower by 1 unit after each win.
Best
Drazen
Drazen
You have every right to be wrong.
Sam
Wrong about what Sam?
When you/and other gents/on this forum grasp what is;LEVELING D'ALEMBERT PROGRESSION----which I
have writen of in several methods,with all explanations how to addopt it throughout any session......
you may become a winner.Nobody here seem to be interested about it....as they learned classical 1+1-
without any improvements.....This most don't understand.
Hi Sam . . .
Yes, I believe there is a regression toward the mean (RTM). But the key word here is "TOWARD".
Eventually, over the long run, there will be a regression TOWARD the mean, it may never achieve the mean but it will move closer to it, or it may actually achieve a balance, but most often it does not.
What I have found interesting is most people assume that if you have a dominance of 60 Blacks and 40 Reds in 100 spins, that the bet should be on RED, as most assume it is "Due". (Gambler's fallacy).
I too thought that way until I tested this theory in one of our bots. When Black was dominant I would bet on Red, sometimes I would win but most times it would take forever for Red to regress toward the mean and most times it never achieved it. No flat betting or progression would help.
Now, we have a bot that has tracks several statistics, one of them being dominance. When we get a 60% Black and 40% Red in 100 spins, we bet the BLACK dominance will continue in the short term. This bet selection we find more profitable.
Good topic . . .
Nick
What is the deal?
I wrote several hundred words, posted it, read it and now it's gone.
Who does this stuff and why?
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Feb 28, 03:56 PM 2013
What is the deal?
I wrote several hundred words, posted it, read it and now it's gone.
Who does this stuff and why?
Type in Word, Sam.
For betting on EC’s a modified D’Alembert can be a very strong MM.
The thing to remember with RTM is that everything about roulette is a moving target. It never stands still. This includes the number stream used to measure the deviation you are hoping will RTM.
Drazen makes a similar point to me when he says to modify or cap you progression. That’s what I meant by, don’t chase the rabbit too far down the hole.
Conversely you should also include a cap or modification to your D’Alembert for winning periods. Don’t chase the monkey too far up the tree either.
I prefer to play EC’s for dominance to continue over short bursts. RTM can occur at any time over any quantity of spins, or it can disappear for ages, and capping both ends of the betting spectrum keeps you inside the moving target more effectively.
When results move well outside the 3std point, whether winning or losing, that is a good time to make adjustments or apply modifications to the progression. If things remain the same you still win, if things RTM, you still win. Without some mod’s to the progression, if things remain the same you still win, if things RTM, you will lose some or all of what you won and possibly more.
Quote from: Skakus on Feb 28, 04:53 PM 2013
For betting on EC’s a modified D’Alembert can be a very strong MM.
The thing to remember with RTM is that everything about roulette is a moving target. It never stands still. This includes the number stream used to measure the deviation you are hoping will RTM.
Drazen makes a similar point to me when he says to modify or cap you progression. That’s what I meant by, don’t chase the rabbit too far down the hole.
Conversely you should also include a cap or modification to your D’Alembert for winning periods. Don’t chase the monkey too far up the tree either.
I prefer to play EC’s for dominance to continue over short bursts. RTM can occur at any time over any quantity of spins, or it can disappear for ages, and capping both ends of the betting spectrum keeps you inside the moving target more effectively.
When results move well outside the 3std point, whether winning or losing, that is a good time to make adjustments or apply modifications to the progression. If things remain the same you still win, if things RTM, you still win. Without some mod’s to the progression, if things remain the same you still win, if things RTM, you will lose some or all of what you won and possibly more.
Ok, I'm not an expert in this, but I understand all you say...and Drazen. what i do understand is Blackjack..and there is a standard basic stratedgy. if this...do this...if that, do that. it can be memorised, and on first glance, it looks like a cheat sheet on a piece of paper, but it is actually a very complete view of best practice.
In theory, RTM must evoke best practice and basic stratedgy, just like blackjack.
Why do you not see cheat sheets being produced on this subject if you "just wait" until results are moving sround 3STD . This subject is portrayed as mechanical as BJ basic stratedgy.
like Speed used to say....when 3STD this that and the other, simply do this. Simples!!
Like we are all refused membership so some esoteric club.
Skakus
You have a point. I should write it in word and the paste it.
Not accusing anyone of anything; my computer was screwey all day.
But I remember reading it. Made a couple of changes.......
Maybe FLAT is right after all--I have lost me marbles!
I'll re-do it later.
Sam
Regression toward the mean. No fallacy at all.
link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean (link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean)
Quote from: Turner on Feb 28, 06:50 PM 2013
Ok, I'm not an expert in this, but I understand all you say...and Drazen. what i do understand is Blackjack..and there is a standard basic stratedgy. if this...do this...if that, do that. it can be memorised, and on first glance, it looks like a cheat sheet on a piece of paper, but it is actually a very complete view of best practice.
In theory, RTM must evoke best practice and basic stratedgy, just like blackjack.
Why do you not see cheat sheets being produced on this subject if you "just wait" until results are moving sround 3STD . This subject is portrayed as mechanical as BJ basic stratedgy.
like Speed used to say....when 3STD this that and the other, simply do this. Simples!!
Like we are all refused membership so some esoteric club.
I’m no expert either. Anything I say is just my opinion.
Blackjack and roulette differ because in blackjack past results are not reintroduced back into the game whereas in roulette they are. This makes blackjack more suitable to mechanical strategies with best practice cheat sheets, etc. But yes, in theory RTM must evoke best practice and basic strategy, just like blackjack.
I don’t know how Speed or anyone else plays, but I don’t wait for 3std’s I bet until the results thus far breach 3std’s or so, then I close that window and open a new window to play on with fresh results as they happen, not looking back to the older results anymore.
Works well enough for me until I find something better.
I am no mathematician or statistician. I don't mean to put on that hat. I read what iggiv linked.
Let us take an exaggerample. Say the wheel produced 100 reds in a row. Or ten. Or twenty. Any number. We have our number and we say the wheel must now regress toward the mean. Why? Why is a legitimate question. Newton asked why when the apple fell and hit him on the head. (I know it's not true!!)
So we have X number of reds and we feel it will correct itself in the next X spins. If that is true, something must make red less likely to hit and black more likely to hit. When each spin is a unique event in the universe, why is this true?
As Normy said, it may regress toward the mean but never get there. How exactly does that help us? And is there any guarantee it will even regress? What if more reds come?
The closest real explanation comes from R.D. Ellison. He spoke of statistical pressure. He said the numbers “seem†to want to even out.
If there were a true regression toward the mean, all we would have to do is program a bot to seek a certain Z score or whatever and begin betting. We would always win. Folks, it just ain’t so. I've tried it.
Lastly, many people confuse what is regressing. Is it the actual numbers or the percentages? I won't do the math again, but being 60/40 in 100 spins and 60/40 in a million spins is two totally different things. While the percentage shrinks, the actual number of R v B increases. How will you profit from that?
Drazen
When you say “poor guy†the meaning is not lost. You are saying “poor ignorant Samâ€. “Poor silly Sam.†“Poor loser Sam.†So you've won enough for a villa in France, huh? Since you opened the door to insults, you are one of those people who talk a good talk, but you don't walk an inch. Why not make some videos or post some screen shots of how much you make? Take a page out of Ralph's book.
I hear you good people say time and time again you just don't trust the casino. B.S. Dublin is as honest as they get. If you wanted to show us how good you are, you'd be on there letting it all hang out. BV is an honest RNG. Why not get on there and show your stuff?
Van Cliburn just died. You suppose he ever ranted about how well he could play the piano but never graced a seat with his butt? Nope, he played.
So to anyone who says they can make money from regression toward the mean, I ask you to show us. Otherwiseâ€"as far as real-money gambling is concernedâ€"it’s pure fallacy.
Sam
Oh Sam c mon , why are you so offensive and interpret any my statement to you in that direction? I didn't had slightest aim toward that direction... I am not best foreign English speaker but I still do understand some words I use. If you see a pedestrian hit by a car, wouldnt you run over him to help saying oh poor guy, I hope he will be ok?
When you see starving kids in Africa on TV, don't you say: Oh poor fellows I whish I could help them by getting them some food to eat... You use that words but you feel emphaty, don't you?
I have seen people who speak native English and they used this phrase excatly in that direction. And I can still say poor ignorant Sam (to have same feeling as above) thinking he is not aware/doesn't understands what got onto him.. It is not an insult. So what is wrong with that word here?
Second of all, I don't have to prove anything to anyone nor I will ever intend to. I am not guru of roulette of any kind and I don't know best and don't want to brag about anything. I am raised to be modest at first place, and like that I behave in roulette world also.
Ok back to our roulette subject.
I have written with big bolded letters one word. Have you seen it? RTM is not causable phenomenon and you obviously want it to be, and getting mad why it isnt. Simply becasue it isnt. It means RTM doesn't casue future spins. A sequence with a strong deviation doesn't CAUSE the following sequence to be closer to the average, but that's what actually happens. The trick is to find the right entry point.
...Regression happens in different spin frames simultaneously and in multiple aspects, but obviously it always tends to be interpreted as some form of fallacy, and that's not what I mean. Another way is saying that events tend to "balance". They do, but the trick is to not rely on a single probability as a guide. By that I mean; don't assume that because red and black will balance out you should always bet for it every time you see an imbalance (e.g. you see 10 blacks in a row, then bet red). You need to track multiple events - calculate the expectation for each event and act on the basis of deviations from it. The more events you have, the better. 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...
What it does though is keep the deviations to an acceptable (lower) level such that is easyer to make something using money management and progressions. This is called diversification and that is also mathematicaly provable to help to reduce variance. Bayes helped me a lot in pointing and understanding pletny of things, to say in the end. I am fan of his in way.
You can read about that here:link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversification_%28finance%29 (link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversification_%28finance%29)
In other words, there is still no magical triggers and will ever be...What all those deviations do is just make you bets SLIGHT easyer but still all is on your judgment and evaluating situation. There is no SURE and MAGIC triggers. Deal with it.
If this way of play works for one, doesn't means it will for someone else... Overall it is still enough hard, don't worry. And I didn't said I can win easy, without stress and quickly. Too bad it doesn't go so... :-\
I am saying all the time, one just has to find its own way.
Best, sir
Drazen
Quote from: Drazen on Mar 01, 03:21 AM 2013
…The trick is to find the right entry point…
Don’t forget the exit point, that's just as important.
Quote from: Drazen on Mar 01, 03:21 AM 2013...Regression happens in different spin frames simultaneously
Ah, the moving target.
Quote from: Drazen on Mar 01, 03:21 AM 2013
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.
Quote from: Skakus on Mar 01, 04:07 AM 2013
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 8)
"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
You will always be multifold outnumbered, but don't let ever be outgunned
What in the name of God does that mean?
Sam
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
dont be oversensitive over some words with no abusive meaning guys. No conflict here, just some different expressions of different opinions.
peace to all
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
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.
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.
Quote from: iggiv on Mar 01, 05:45 PM 2013
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.
(link:://i499.photobucket.com/albums/rr351/skakus/standingout_zpsb79dc03d.jpg)
;D
Quote from: Skakus on Mar 01, 04:55 PM 2013
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.
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Mar 01, 01:06 PM 2013
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 :girl_to:
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 (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
"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
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.
"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
Sam...so whats the upshot from your original question.....a question that kinda had to be asked for me. Im with you on the fact it seems unclear....unexplained, and unexampled (is that a word?)
Turner
Turner
What is "Gambler's Fallacy"? To me, it is a false belief that something will or will not happen. It might happen; it might not happen.
Regression to the mean might happen. But before it happens, you can be broke.
So to me it is yet another fallacy.
That's just me.
I have not been up the mountain!
Sam
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Mar 04, 07:08 PM 2013
Turner
What is "Gambler's Fallacy"? To me, it is a false belief that something will or will not happen. It might happen; it might not happen.
Regression to the mean might happen. But before it happens, you can be broke.
So to me it is yet another fallacy.
That's just me.
I have not been up the mountain!
Sam
Sam!
When we play EC,and use any information from the past, regression towards the mean is a good guess, but still a guess.
If we for any reason use whatever, and we win it is easy to think it is the method. We know the ball can not care about the numbers.
It is like that one who start eating a banana just before the train he was travelling in entered a dark tunnel, and come to the conclusion."Never eat bananas during a train trip, you get blind for some minutes". We see some of this quite often.
Sam, i am very surprised that after so many years of being into roulette u ask this question. There is a clear explanation, and i gave a link to it so many times, but i will do it again
link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler_fallacy (link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler_fallacy)
It is mistake to call anything u don't believe in a "gambler fallacy", like some people here used to do. There is a classical Gambler Fallacy, and it is NOT THE SAME as regression toward the mean.