hi folks,
it's been discussed over and over again if past spins influence the outcome of future spins.
in the book "entropy demystified" the author kind of turns the question around an asks:
"do present events affect the probability of past events?" :o
I have attached the relevant pages to this post and hope this doesn't break any copywrite laws.
unfortunately for a detailed solution to this question the author refers to another book which I haven't read, yet. but he states that present events DO influence past events probability wise.
I'd really like to hear your opinions on this issue.
cheers
hans
of course I mean copyRIGHT not copyWRITE *lol*.
unfortunately I can't find the "modify button". :'(
On a 1-on-1 consideration, the previous spins have absolutely no correlation to the future spins. However, the next spin is 1 second away from being past history, and a part of the entirety of statistics and it will conform with the statistics. Over the enormously huge long term, we can expect that there are only a certain number of 32s to be spun, as they will eventually only make up 1/37 of all the spins.
I could be swayed to acknowledge that spins are related in the super-macro sense, but not in any way that we can use in betting contexts.
Consider this: let's say that in the past 100 spins 60 reds, 40 blacks, and 0 greens occurred. Did that segment of 100 spins have its own statistics? Let's also stipulate that at spin 50 of this same segment there were 30 reds and 20 blacks. Do the temporary odds of the first half of this segment confirm a state of continuation in the second half?
Is there a type or study in math that regards temporary states or a kind of temporary condition of statistics? If not then why not?
The odds, in Roulette, are fixed - they don't change.
Maybe in an alternate universe Roulette is different but past spins mean nothing to future spins and future spins mean nothing to past spins in our universe.
MS, with that logic if 100 spins happens then all the spins that ever happend on earth either never happend or the 100 spins that just happend never happend. The good news is that you are in a great situation where you will never have a clue how to use randomness or trends.
Hi Hans,
the answer is in the book: conditional probabilities should, in general, not be confused with cause and effect. In the example the sample space decreases with every draw, so the probability that I drew a white ball indeed changes under the condition that I draw a white ball now!! This has nothing to do with present spins influencing previous spins.
There are therefor 2 reasons why this text does not apply to roulette at all:
1. the sample space of roulette does not change, there are always 37 or 38 numbers to choose from
2. RNG's or roulette tables are Software or Mechanical implementations of a random generator, to their best possibilities these are random in the sense that:
a. numbers are unpredictable (BM: true, in the past Shannon et all succeeded using a roulette computer, 1961 if I'm not mistaken, RNG: true in the past there were really lousy SW algorithms)
b. numbers are independent (again: if the croupier would be a robot or if we have a really lousy RNG, than there might be dependence)
c. numbers are unbiased (=uniform distribution)
This implies that, if all is OK, conditional probabilities are meaningless (P(1/2)=P(1)*P(2))
reddwarf
Hi Gizmotron,
It all depends: i could build an RNG that shows biases on the short term, but is unbiased on the long run. However, this would imply that, as a feature of short term, that it would be possible to identify short term blocks of numbers! This then violates randomness, so actually this is a lousy RNG, or stated in technical terms, the dimensionality is very low.
The question is solved for RNG's (if we assume they are not hampered with): the current algorithms are so sophisticated that every person on the planet has to test the RNG till the universe is supposed to end before they will have a hint of a significant pattern
For roulette wheels the questions remains open: if the croupier is a robot, if the starting speed is constant and if the intervals between spins are exactly identical, then yes, you probably have a lousy embodiment of a random generator.
But apart from this ramble of mine, if your question is: couldn't there be an underlying process that forms pools of correlated spins in the sea of random numbers. If that is your underlying question: my answer is - I do not know, actually nobody knows. hell the Chinese thought there was (I Tjing), Princeton did some research (You might want to read this (link:://noosphere.princeton.edu/))
reddwarf
Quote from: Gizmotron on Jan 18, 12:12 PM 2012
Consider this: let's say that in the past 100 spins 60 reds, 40 blacks, and 0 greens occurred. Did that segment of 100 spins have its own statistics? Let's also stipulate that at spin 50 of this same segment there were 30 reds and 20 blacks. Do the temporary odds of the first half of this segment confirm a state of continuation in the second half?
Is there a type or study in math that regards temporary states or a kind of temporary condition of statistics? If not then why not?
Gizmo, regression to the mean suggests that if the percentages are as you say at spin 50, then it's more likely than not that in the second half the proportions of R/B will be more nearly equal. Note this is NOT gambler's fallacy - the odds are still fixed and it doesn't mean that black will try to "catch up" somehow, it just means that rare events are more likely to be followed by "average" events. The rarer the event, the stronger the regression effect.
@ reddwarf, that article you linked to seems like new age gobbledegook to me. It's one of my pet peeves that quantum physics is often invoked to apparently justify all kinds of nonsense.
Hi Bayes,
i have no opinion about that article, to be honest, i did not even read it. I just added the link because some might find it interesting, and it illustrates that more people ask themselves if RNG is really RNG.
I am a strong believer in Occam's razor (link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor).
greetings reddwarf
On the other hand, if you don't know the probability distribution, and assume nothing (the wheel may be biased for all you know), then you should go with the empirical evidence. Thus, if you see 10 reds in a row, the smart bet is on red. If you see 30 reds in the first 50 spins, you should bet red for the next 50 (or until the empirical evidence suggests otherwise).
Quote from: reddwarf on Jan 20, 05:14 AM 2012
I am a strong believer in Occam's razor (link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor).
greetings reddwarf
Me too, but note "Controversial aspects of the razor".
Hi bayes,
Yeah: Occam's razor is a tool to be used within a paradigm, everything else being equal and stuff.
By the way, this reminds me of a story I once read and it goes something like this: there was this maths PhD and a successful business man who only learned to read and write. Both sat in a casino at the same table, after 100 reds in a row a guy asked both the question what he should bet. The maths guy said: it doesn't matter (blah blah you know the drill). The business guy shook his head and said: red of course, this wheel is surely biased.
reddwarf
It's a good example of how sometimes the "mathboyz" can be completely blinkered in their thinking. :thumbsup:
Quote from: MauiSunset on Jan 20, 01:34 AM 2012
Your views on randomness are just insane - sorry to inform you.....
You proved you can't debate in another forum here when you deleted my posts.
Can't take the heat can you......
Maui, I don't have any argument with you, but do you use any kind of bet selection process in the way you play, or do you rely purely on money management?
If you do have a method of selecting your bets, then why do you believe that this method is superior to betting the same location spin after spin, or just randomly?
On the other hand, if you DO bet randomly, and rely on pure MM, surely you know that it's mathematically impossible to win consistently just by manipulating your stakes?
Either way, I think you're being inconsistent and/or hypocritical, given that you've said (on the VLS forum) that you ARE winning consistently.
Just posted a new thread in the testing zone which can add to this discussion...........
Parrondo's Paradox
link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=8672.msg75055#msg75055 (link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=8672.msg75055#msg75055)
Maui, so it all boils down to luck, then?
Why not just scatter a handful of chips over the table in a random way? why bother to make any effort at all?
My point was, that if you try to increase your chances of winning in any way, by any kind of structured method (which you obviously do), then this makes your views on randomness just as "insane" as Gizmo's.
Quote from: Bayes on Jan 20, 10:25 AM 2012
Maui, so it all boils down to luck, then?
Why not just scatter a handful of chips over the table in a random way? why bother to make any effort at all?
My point was, that if you try to increase your chances of winning in any way, by any kind of structured method (which you obviously do), then this makes your views on randomness just as "insane" as Gizmo's.
It would take me an entire website to explain my views on Roulette - luckily I have one....
Why is it that every form of a roulette bet is gamblers fallacy EXCLUDING the person complaining about gamblers fallacy?
Ken
I'm with Ken, on this one.
This has nothing to do with "independent events". Also these sorts of past events are virtually-independent, but that doesn't stop us from knowing each.
The issue here is of the distinction from future events to past ones. But these all become the SAME sort of outcomes, eventually. (Past ones were once future ones.)
Think about it.
QUESTION: Are there not different examples of past numbers, may or may not 'help' with temporary future betting? Meaning.....I'll give two different examples:
A) in my opinion, useless information.....the 1 hit and then the 2 hit. The 3 is now due to hit.
B) in my opinion, this CAN BE useful information.....in the last 25 spins, the 34 has hit six times.
Both A and B deal with PAST EVENTS but is somebody gonna tell me BOTH are the same? You're crazy. :o
Ken
I see your point from a mathematical point of view Maui.
But, can you then tell me why there haven't been 100 consecutive red's or blacks? For some reason, this DOES not happen, I never seen it happen, and I bet no one here has seen it happen ever, not in RNG, not in real life, it's not even a rare event, it's an incredibly irrealistic event (it may happen one day... but I guess I won't be here to see it). I won't even be here to see 50 red's in a row!
What happens next is simply this, the more consecutive reds come out, the closer we get to this irrealistic event. After 25 reds (the most I have ever seen in a row, but I have eard stories of 29), you are now 25 steps closer to complete the irrealistic event. Next 10 spins will change to black, and you can play a progression of 10 spins here on black, I'm 99,9999% sure of that (unless you are witnessing the happening of the irrealistic event itself, or you are playing on a biased wheel).
This said, I challenge you to get not 100 red spins, not 50, but something far more easy, 35 red or black spins in a row, in a real wheel.
Good luck with that mate :)
@MauiSunset >> Can you PM me a link to your site? I'd like to JUDGE whether or not you use gamblers fallacy. Thanks man!
Ken
Let me restate Gambler's Fallacy:
A wacky idea that past events can change fixed probabilities/odds of future events.
It's that simple folks.
I flip a coin 10 times and the last 9 times heads comes up.
The odds for a head appearing again is 50% and 50% it will be tails; the odds don't change.
Same with Roulette - the odds never change in Roulette under ANY circumstances......
"Let me restate Gambler's Fallacy" >>> Hmmm, my above question MauiSunset.
Are both A and B the SAME in your opinion?
Ken
Quote from: MauiSunset on Jan 20, 06:36 PM 2012
A wacky idea that past events can change fixed probabilities/odds of future events.
You can't even have future events without having past ones. And, the future ones are just "past ones which haven't happened yet".
I was not talking about probability... It would be more close to what Ion Saliu called "degree of certainty", if I'm not mistaken in the term.
Maui- " A RNG or Roulette wheel spits out random numbers thathave all kindsofpatterns-means nothing at all in the real world. No one here can point to any scientific evidence that exists."
You are the lab rat. So you see one of those pattern you suggest that you can see. You observe that it continues to occur. Had you placed bets that go along with it you would have won all those bets. But you didn't we'll say. Guess what? It continues to keep happening. You don't have the mental capacity to take advantage of an obvious opportunity. So, the lab rat that you are, you lash out at others that have no trouble taking advantage of conditions like this. The obvious conclusion is that the experiment confirms the diminished capacity in some lab rats and thier continuous defensive reaction to others.
Quote from: MauiSunset on Jan 20, 11:20 PM 2012
I don't know how to answer gibberish - with gibberish?
What was spun out on a Roulette wheel 1 year ago means nothing, 1 month ago means nothing, 1 hour ago means nothing and the last spin all mean nothing towards the next spin.
No science supports the wacky idea that past spins can be used towards forecasting the next spin - you can not supply one link anywhere to any scientific study.
So why debate gibberish?
Try again. So in your OPINION, A and B are exactly alike. Correct?
Ken
MauiSunset - " Gizmo; your wacky theories are not supported by another living humanbeing thatI amaware of."
Someone please send this pest to hell. There's no scientific proof there is a hell. Even so, please give it a go.
THANKS
I agree Gizmo. This is a post of mine from earlier >>
I don't mind the person who posts his/her view, no problem. However, when it turns into CONSTANTLY JAMMING YOUR VIEW DOWN EVERYBODYS THROAT, that's something different.
MauiSunset gave his OPINION, he should be done giving his OPINION.
Ken
@MauiSunset >> Ok, I briefly read over your goofy site. You sound like another ex-member from here that went rogue a couple months ago (lol). In my view, you really painted yourself into a corner. You slammed AP (we actually agree on that), you said your method (may I call it that?) is due to come out soon? FREE of charge? When it does come out, is it open just like any other method to be tested, perhaps 800,000 trials? Same rule for everyone. Using *ONE* past number is gamblers fallacy, same rule for everyone. ;)
Is it gonna be something like....just bet what you feel should hit, garbage like that? You see folks, 'they' like to use certain language SOOOOO, it cant be tested. That way, they're in the clear, not accountable. Any which way you spin your trash, I've seen it all before and have read EVERY excuse in the book as to why "it can't be tested". The AP crew also use this TACTIC. Come February 1st, I guess we'll see.
Ken
Your signature says >> "It's all about statistics and luck".
Ok fine but dont 'statistics' come from PAST results (gamblers fallacy)?
Ken
Quote from: MrJ on Jan 21, 12:21 AM 2012
Your signature says >> "It's all about statistics and luck".
Ok fine but don't 'statistics' come from PAST results (gamblers fallacy)?
Ken
You seem to be confused as to what gamblers fallacy is - I gave the definition and I'll give it again:
Gambler's Fallacy is the insane idea that the fixed odds change for magical reasons.
The odds for Roulette are well known and don't change - ever.
If you believe that they magically change you have fallen for Gambler's Fallacy.
I don't know how to make it any clearer.
Quote from: MrJ on Jan 21, 12:12 AM 2012
@MauiSunset >> Ok, I briefly read over your goofy site. You sound like another ex-member from here that went rogue a couple months ago (LoL). In my view, you really painted yourself into a corner. You slammed Advantage-play (we actually agree on that), you said your method (may I call it that?) is due to come out soon? FREE of charge? When it does come out, is it open just like any other method to be tested, perhaps 800,000 trials? Same rule for everyone. Using *ONE* past number is gamblers fallacy, same rule for everyone. ;)
Is it gonna be something like....just bet what you feel should hit, garbage like that? You see folks, 'they' like to use certain language SOOOOO, it can't be tested. That way, they're in the clear, not accountable. Any which way you spin your trash, I've seen it all before and have read EVERY excuse in the book as to why "it can't be tested". The Advantage-play crew also use this TACTIC. Come February 1st, I guess we'll see.
Ken
I'm going to categorize 300 - 500 Roulette systems that I've found. The totally worthless ones, 90% of them, are free and available to anyone. The 3 I use and the other marginal ones will be made available to members who contribute to the site.
The site is really for me to summarize ALL known Roulette systems and a place where serious studying of Roulette systems takes place.
Then there are the monthly contests I will be holding.....
Quote from: MauiSunset on Jan 21, 12:28 AM 2012
You seem to be confused as to what gamblers fallacy is - I gave the definition and I'll give it again:
Gambler's Fallacy is the insane idea that the fixed odds change for magical reasons.
The odds for Roulette are well known and don't change - ever.
If you believe that they magically change you have fallen for Gambler's Fallacy.
I don't know how to make it any clearer.
(LMFAO).....So I am correct, you do use PAST RESULTS. There are alot of people (myself included) that use a few past numbers *BUT* I have NEVER heard of someone thinking that the ODDS WILL CHANGE. Here where I play (00 wheel, 5.26%)......so when I'm playing my method, do you think that I'm thinking......YES!!!! The H.A. is now down to 1.4%.
I've done threads on this before, its AMAZING how many different definitions there are for gamblers fallacy. So let me ask you this. >>> Lets say I use the last 10 numbers for a method but I do NOT think in anyway shape or form, the odds will change for me. Am I using gamblers fallacy?
Ken
Quote from: MauiSunset on Jan 21, 12:35 AM 2012
I'm going to categorize 300 - 500 Roulette systems that I've found. The totally worthless ones, 90% of them, are free and available to anyone. The 3 I use and the other marginal ones will be made available to members who contribute to the site.
The site is really for me to summarize ALL known Roulette systems and a place where serious studying of Roulette systems takes place.
Then there are the monthly contests I will be holding.....
So the 3 methods you use, will pass a test of 800,000 trials and if it fails (and it will), your response will be what?
"made available to members who contribute to the site" >>> Contribute how and how often?
"The totally worthless ones" >>> That'll be your OPINION, nothing more.
"The site is really for me to summarize ALL known Roulette systems" >>> Again, its your OPINION.
Ken
Quote from: MrJ on Jan 21, 12:49 AM 2012
So the 3 methods you use, will pass a test of 800,000 trials and if it fails (and it will), your response will be what?
"made available to members who contribute to the site" >>> Contribute how and how often?
"The totally worthless ones" >>> That'll be your OPINION, nothing more.
"The site is really for me to summarize ALL known Roulette systems" >>> Again, its your OPINION.
Ken
Hey it's my website - I built it for research - some folks may like it and some won't.
That's life.
Quote from: MrJ on Jan 21, 12:41 AM 2012
(LMFAO).....So I am correct, you do use PAST RESULTS. There are a lot of people (myself included) that use a few past numbers *BUT* I have NEVER heard of someone thinking that the ODDS WILL CHANGE. Here where I play (00 wheel, 5.26%)......so when I'm playing my method, do you think that I'm thinking......YES!!!! The H.A. is now down to 1.4%.
I've done threads on this before, its AMAZING how many different definitions there are for gamblers fallacy. So let me ask you this. >>> Lets say I use the last 10 numbers for a method but I do NOT think in anyway shape or form, the odds will change for me. Am I using gamblers fallacy?
Ken
I now understand why you believe in Gambler's Fallacy.
I have no desire to change your mind :)
Your last two posts, I love how you dont like to answer questions. Hmmm....
Ken
A) So the 3 methods you use, will pass a test of 800,000 trials and if it fails (and it will), your response will be what?
B) "made available to members who contribute to the site" >>> Contribute how and how often?
C) Lets say I use the last 10 numbers for a method but I do NOT think in anyway shape or form, the "odds will change for me" (those are YOUR words). Am I using gamblers fallacy?
Ken
I'll put $500 on it.......He's one of these guys that uses past numbers (gamblers fallacy) and at the SAME TIME, will insult others that use past numbers. I am 10000000% correct on this.
Ken
Quote from: MrJ on Jan 21, 12:59 AM 2012
A) So the 3 methods you use, will pass a test of 800,000 trials and if it fails (and it will), your response will be what?
B) "made available to members who contribute to the site" >>> Contribute how and how often?
C) So let me ask you this >>> Lets say I use the last 10 numbers for a method but I do NOT think in anyway shape or form, the "odds will change for me" (those are YOUR words). Am I using gamblers fallacy?
Ken
You sound like a typical American with their hand out - I'm not feeding freeloaders I'm going to work with folks who reciprocate and I learn something from them too; kind of like backscratching.
As to your total confusion of Gambler's Fallacy - I have no desire to help you out of your predicament; it's your problem and not mine....
Quote from: MrJ on Jan 21, 01:02 AM 2012
I'll put $500 on it.......He's one of these guys that uses past numbers (gamblers fallacy) and at the SAME TIME, will insult others that use past numbers. I am 10000000% correct on this.
Ken
No need to put up $500, just $100 is sufficient.
Sign up for my May $1,000 give away contest if you are so certain of your prowess at Roulette - enrollment starts mid-May; the instructions are on my website.
I'm GLAD you won't answer. It exposes you and guess what? That's my JOB to expose you... SCAMMER.
If the guy will not answer SIMPLE questions folks, don't follow him down a path of broken promises.
Ken
Quote from: MauiSunset on Jan 21, 01:08 AM 2012
No need to put up $500, just $100 is sufficient.
Sign up for my May $1,000 give away contest if you are so certain of your prowess at Roulette - enrollment starts mid-May; the instructions are on my website.
No, no, no......this is about you, who will SOON be scamming people. This has nothing to do with my methods but nice try with the misdirection. The thread is now locked until Steve boots your sorry a** off to scammer land.
(BTW, I gave the guy plenty of time to answer SIMPLE questions, I dont need to hear......how can he answer if the thread is locked? lol)
Ken