Here is a question I asked at the Wiz site. I can always tell when its a good question based on if I get few responses. People are so inconsistent when it comes to GF.
A) All 38 numbers are in a hat. I blindly pick one number, its the #17. I go to the casino and make a small bet on the 17, for ONE spin, never bet again and then went home. Did I just use gamblers fallacy?
B) One day later I change my mind, went back for ONE MORE SPIN of the 17. Did I NOW use gamblers fallacy?
Ken
A) no - if you used wishfull thinking.
B) no - but if you keep coming back for the same bet then you might.
"B) no - but if you keep coming back for the same bet then you might" >>> This is where the s**t gets tricky. Keep coming back? How many times? 7 times? 40 times? Over what period? What if it was 15 times but over nine months, is that gamblers fallacy? What if it was a different table but sticking with the #17, gamblers fallacy? What about a different casino but sticking with the #17, gamblers fallacy?
Ken
Ken, what if you determined that 17 was currently in a state of being the hottest number?
Is your question in regards to my question or is this example something different?
Ken
There's no determinating anything. The 17 was pulled from a hat and the history board is not working.....you have no stats.
Ken
In this case it is your belief which is important. If you picked 17 out of a hat and had decided to bet whatever came out of the hat, it is NOT GF. You just didnt have a clou what to bet and let the hat decide.
If you came back the day after and decided to do a repeat because it went well yesterday it still wouldnt be GF.
If you think 17 is due because it also came yesterday at 18.00 sharp, it IS GF.
As for DS your hero Allan Kriegman believes in dealers signature. Like it or not.
I guess I blended two active threads here. Any time someone expects anything is due, for any reason, that includes the odds, then that's some form of gamblers fallacy.
An oldie but a goodie but I have to post it again. I love the different answers.
Gamblers fallacy will never help you? Hmmm
I'll pick 3 numbers for you and 3 numbers for myself, all flat betting.
I have tracked the last 600 spins. The 3 numbers I choose for you, are the 3 with the fewest hits. (BTW, there is no damn bias in the wheel)
For myself, whatever 3 numbers have three hits on it, most recently.....in the last 'X' number of spins. In other words, presently hot.
We keep betting until 2 of our 3 numbers gets a hit, thats the winner. If we did this experiment 500 times, it SHOULD come close to you winning 250 times and I win 250 times, correct?
(Close to 250, I'm not saying it would be perfect)
Who would say 'YES Ken', it would be around 250 and 250 over and over again?
Ken
Quote from: Gizmotron on Jan 21, 02:13 PM 2012
I guess I blended two active threads here. Any time someone expects anything is due, for any reason, that includes the odds, then that's some form of gamblers fallacy.
But does 'due' ONLY mean furthest back? What if the 18 has hit six times in the last 22 spins and I'm betting on it (hot). Does that mean I think the 18 is due?
Ken
In one single test it could go either way but if you did the experiment with some 100 samples of 600 spins you would come out equal. You probably dont believe it if your only test tool is some numbers and a pen and paper but if you can run it on a computer on a larger scale you would be surprised what you see because the computer can run much more samples much faster. Handtesting with pen and paper is the perfect illousion tool in roulette system development. Many productive man hours has been lost on that account.
Ken - " Who would say 'YES Ken', it would be around 250 and 250 over and over again?"
You might know this or you might not but I spent a decade learning how to detect hot numbers. On every 300 spins you get three hottest numbers. Almost all hot streaks of a single number end by 450 spins. Guess what? The same thing holds true for the coldest numbers. So your 600 is far to much into the natural location for change to have occured. This is best learned from computer simulation research. My answer is yes based on this.
I'm a hot number fan, cant help it. I bet one number per spin these days.
Ken
I know Ken. I've been listening.
A: No.
B: Depends. I think if you expect a hit in less than 36 spins, you're trying to be lucky. And past 36 spins, you're betting because it's "due to happen".
At least that's what maths and the gamblers "fallacy" is based upon...
It's just theory, I've yet to see a working system based on one or the other. people also like to name it positive progression & negative progression, from your expectation of making a profit in a given time. What it really is is flat betting a number..
I dunno. Its all the same In My Humble Opinion.
Different words. Different thinking.
Quote from: MrJ on Jan 21, 02:14 PM 2012
An oldie but a goodie but I have to post it again. I love the different answers.
Gamblers fallacy will never help you? Hmmm
I'll pick 3 numbers for you and 3 numbers for myself, all flat betting.
I have tracked the last 600 spins. The 3 numbers I choose for you, are the 3 with the fewest hits. (by the way, there is no darn bias in the wheel)
For myself, whatever 3 numbers have three hits on it, most recently.....in the last 'X' number of spins. In other words, presently hot.
We keep betting until 2 of our 3 numbers gets a hit, that's the winner. If we did this experiment 500 times, it SHOULD come close to you winning 250 times and I win 250 times, correct?
(Close to 250, I'm not saying it would be perfect)
Who would say 'YES Ken', it would be around 250 and 250 over and over again?
Ken
Ken, can you give me a number for X? I'd like to do some tests on this.
It would depend.....meaning, which ever are the most CURRENT last 3 numbers with three hits on it. The third number of the group could go as far back as 47 spins (thats the extreme end).
Ken
Quote from: nitrix on Jan 22, 12:41 AM 2012
A: No.
B: Depends. I think if you expect a hit in less than 36 spins, you're trying to be lucky. And past 36 spins, you're betting because it's "due to happen".
At least that's what maths and the gamblers "fallacy" is based upon...
It's just theory, I've yet to see a working system based on one or the other. people also like to name it positive progression & negative progression, from your expectation of making a profit in a given time. What it really is is flat betting a number..
I dunno. Its all the same In My Humble Opinion.
Different words. Different thinking.
You bring up a good point, I could do another thread just on this.
NEW question: We know if you win on the 36th try, you break even. We're gonna bet on that #17 (pulled the number from a hat). Let say one guy is flat betting but only up to 36 attempts, then stop. Another guy flat bets until the 35th attempt but then adds one unit on for the 36th and last attempt, then stop. Is one guy using gamblers fallacy and the other not? Are they both using it or are neither of the guys using gamblers fallacy? (lol) This s**t drives me crazy.
Ken
Ken I'm glad to know I'm not alone! I usually do the braistorming alone though.
I say nobody wants to stop at the break-even point, don't we all want to make a profit? So I think the legetimate way to do it is by adding an unit one spin before the break-even point. Thus 35th in our case.
But is it gambler fallacy? Every system is based on an observation... it's your call. I prefer terms like "calculated risk". Sometimes you can risk less or more money depending on your bankroll.
The way I play at the moment; I take a simple system like "Tier et tout", and if it loses more than the break even point, a start over and multiply my bets by a number... say fibonnaci, marty, any neg. progression.
It's like.. a system playing sessions of another system. Inception much.
Quote from: MrJ on Jan 22, 09:51 AM 2012
It would depend.....meaning, which ever are the most CURRENT last 3 numbers with three hits on it. The third number of the group could go as far back as 47 spins (that's the extreme end).
Ken
So it has to be 3 numbers with EXACTLY 3 hits up to a max of 47 spins back, right?
It may happen that the 2 numbers which hit belong to both groups, in which case I would call it a draw. ;)
Ok, I've done a simulation.
Get 600 spins, and pick the 3 numbers which have hit the least number of times, then pick 3 numbers which have hit exactly 3 times going back no more than 47 spins. Continue to get spins, and the winner from the 2 groups of 3 numbers is that group which is the first to get 2 hits.
Here are some results using 500 sessions at a time (note that the numbers in each pair don't add up to 500 because in 20%+ of sessions there were less than 3 numbers in the last 47 which hit exactly 3 times. If the there were MORE than 3 numbers which hit 3 times, 3 of them were selected randomly):
Hot Cold
183, 181
189, 198
175, 187
184, 192
193, 166
178, 197
189, 172
196, 189
208, 166
170, 203
The numbers in red are those sessions in which the hottest numbers hit twice first. So it seems to be a draw. However, I noticed that there is a slightly larger gap between the pair when the hot numbers won, so I ran a longer test of 100,000 sessions. The result was:
Hot Cold
38,192 36,340
A percentage difference of around 5%.
I was surprised at this, so I ran a few more tests and got similar results each time. So on the basis of this test, there does seem to be some support for the claim that hot numbers are a better bet.
I used RNG for this, I'll run another test using actuals and report back. I only have 1M actuals so it won't be so conclusive, but interesting to see nevertheless.
Quote from: MrJ on Jan 22, 10:01 AM 2012
NEW question: We know if you win on the 36th try, you break even. We're gonna bet on that #17 (pulled the number from a hat). Let say one guy is flat betting but only up to 36 attempts, then stop. Another guy flat bets until the 35th attempt but then adds one unit on for the 36th and last attempt, then stop. Is one guy using gamblers fallacy and the other not? Are they both using it or are neither of the guys using gamblers fallacy? (LoL) This s**t drives me crazy.
Ken
You can't really answer these types of questions on the basis of observed behaviour, because GF is a BELIEF. If the guy believes that the number is "due" on the 36th attempt and that's WHY he increases the stake, then it's GF, but you can't say whether or not it's GF just by observing him increasing the stake, because he may have other reasons for doing it.
Quotethere does seem to be some support for the claim that hot numbers are a better bet
Well, with my tracker I have now added a bit of code to print out every 250 spins, 250,500,750,1000 for the auto spin on BV, I'm asking it to print out which number has hit most at those points, I haven't done many tests yet but, whichever number is ahead at 500 seems to stay ahead at the 1000 spin point. The number ahead at 250 doesn't seem to be the one to win the race.
Was going to run a few more tests thi smorning but BV is down for maintenance.
Just tested my file of actuals, there were 1239 sessions of 600 spins -
Hot Cold
638, 601
Again hot numbers are the winner in the race (around 6% difference).
Thanks for all your hard work Bayes.
(I deleted that thread of yours last night)
Ken
Quote from: superman on Jan 23, 04:33 AM 2012
Well, with my tracker I have now added a bit of code to print out every 250 spins, 250,500,750,1000 for the auto spin on BV, I'm asking it to print out which number has hit most at those points, I haven't done many tests yet but, whichever number is ahead at 500 seems to stay ahead at the 1000 spin point. The number ahead at 250 doesn't seem to be the one to win the race.
Was going to run a few more tests thi smorning but BV is down for maintenance.
There's some interesting stats for ECs on this. You'd think that there would be many times R/B would "cross over" in a few hundred spins, meaning R would overtake B and vice-versa, but it turns out that's not the case (there's even a formula which tells you the actual probability), so if R starts out winning, the chances are that after a couple of 100 spins it will still be in the lead. Maybe that applies to single numbers too.
Quote from: MrJ on Jan 23, 06:50 AM 2012
Thanks for all your hard work Bayes.
(I deleted that thread of yours last night)
Ken
No worries, Ken. And thanks for deleting the thread. :thumbsup:
QuoteYou'd think that there would be many times R/B would "cross over" in a few hundred spins
Yes you would, but I have to agree more often than not there is no cross over as I have tried chasing (flat betting) the colour/EC behind and yes you make a few chips but the percentages don't switch over most of the time.
Side not: BV finished the maint so I looged in and started auto spinning then placed a few chips on numbers unhit after 70 spins and the game told me to log out, so I did then they went into maint mode again for about 45 mins, now, I log back in and my balance is missing the 8 chips, I've emailed them to see what they say, I never got a result so how can my chips vanish LOL
Quote from: superman on Jan 23, 07:01 AM 2012
Side not: BV finished the maint so I looged in and started auto spinning then placed a few chips on numbers unhit after 70 spins and the game told me to log out, so I did then they went into maint mode again for about 45 mins, now, I log back in and my balance is missing the 8 chips, I've emailed them to see what they say, I never got a result so how can my chips vanish LoL
That happens if you close the game window without exiting from it in the normal way (like if you have to quit because of an error). Your balance might say zero but if you login and start another game it will tell you that there's a game in progress (the game you didn't quit from properly), that's when you'll see your balance. It is a bit alarming when that happens for the first time though. ;D
QuoteThat happens if you close the game window without exiting from it in the normal way (like if you have to quit because of an error). Your balance might say zero but if you login and start another game it will tell you that there's a game in progress (the game you didn't quit from properly), that's when you'll see your balance. It is a bit alarming when that happens for the first time though
Yes I understand all that, the balance did say zero so I resumed the game and the chips were missing still, they haven't replied yet either, I WANT MY 8 CENTS BACK LOL
What about all the posts and graphs that 'Turbogenius' did which showed there was no difference between hot and cold numbers?
I will need to go back and read them all now. ;D I never agreed with him. I thought most people would run out of bankroll and patience waiting for things to eventually catch up.
One thing I have found in all my testing is that you get longer losing runs of events as opposed to winning runs. I make money at this game betting for something to stay cold as opposed something staying hot. The only caveat there is that the bet is not static. The principle is the same however.
Just a warning!
I went to look at the Turbogenius site and my security system said it was an 'unsafe' site and blocked it. Just telling you guys in case it has a virus or something.
Maybe 'The Donald' has got to him after all these years. That system in the safe was a dead duck, lol.
Quote from: flukey luke on Jan 23, 08:15 AM 2012
What about all the posts and graphs that 'Turbogenius' did which showed there was no difference between hot and cold numbers?
I will need to go back and read them all now. ;D I never agreed with him. I thought most people would run out of bankroll and patience waiting for things to eventually catch up.
One thing I have found in all my testing is that you get longer losing runs of events as opposed to winning runs. I make money at this game betting for something to stay cold as opposed something staying hot. The only caveat there is that the bet is not static. The principle is the same however.
Here's the thing.....it really all depends on HOW the experiment is laid out. Its quite possible the stats Turbo put out were correct but he chose the WORDING of hot and cold differently than I did. It took me a long time to WORD my question the way I wanted. Why did I go through all this trouble? Because the anti-method (AP) crew, say that under *NO* conditions, can a certain number be 'better' to bet on compared to a different number. I say thats bulls**t.
If 'they' were to ever agree with my experiment (the way I worded it) it would DESTROY every insult they ever posted against a method person, it would make them look weak and worse....WRONG. 'They' will NEVER admit to being wrong, never never never never never!!
Then what will happen, they'll do their own testing and GUESS WHAT??? (lol) By some crazy surprise, their stats will show that its more or less even, no 'advantage' betting on a hot number or two. (I'm not talking about betting on 10 hot numbers) Its called fudging the numbers....keeping the AGENDA going at ANY cost.
Fake results, fake user names etc., whatever it takes.
Ken
Quote from: MrJ on Jan 23, 11:32 AM 2012
Because the anti-method (Advantage-play) crew, say that under *NO* conditions, can a certain number be 'better' to bet on compared to a different number. I say that's bulls**t.
It can all get very confusing.
For example: If I bet on the 4 5 6 street, IMO, that street does not mathematically have any more chance of coming out over any other street BUT there has to be a pattern of results.
Say the next 5 streets are 1, 6, 7, 7, 8. I could bet them all and show a profit BUT I honestly think I would be wrong to say any of those streets had an advantage of appearing over any other.
This is where it gets confusing, because if you can do that regularly enough to show a long term profit, how would you describe that?
You can show it's not luck by making a few calculations. But can you give an excact figure/explanation on what your edge/advantage is. And if not, WHY not?
Tricky 'eh. So you could be an advantage player yourself (which would be kind of ironic) without even knowing what the hell you were doing to achieve it. And this takes me to my final point. All these arguments will just continue to go around in circles because there are just too many paradoxical contradictions that NO side can really answer with 100% certainty.
You make a couple good points.
I did a thread on this before >>> "But can you give an excact figure/explanation on what your edge/advantage is. And if not, WHY not"?
I did a thread on this before >>> "So you could be an advantage player yourself (which would be kind of ironic) without even knowing what the hell you were doing to achieve it".
Ken
Quote from: Bayes on Jan 23, 04:24 AM 2012
You can't really answer these types of questions on the basis of observed behaviour, because GF is a BELIEF. If the guy believes that the number is "due" on the 36th attempt and that's WHY he increases the stake, then it's GF, but you can't say whether or not it's GF just by observing him increasing the stake, because he may have other reasons for doing it.
You bring up an interesting point Bayes. Now we can add a 'feeling' OR a 'belief' into the possible definitions of gamblers fallacy. (LoL)
If I BELIEVE the #13 should hit within the next 20 spins because it has not hit in a long time, I guess that's gamblers fallacy. If I bet on the #13 for the next 20 spins because I was born on the 13th (my lucky number), I guess that's NOT gamblers fallacy? Geez, my head is spinning!
Ken
Bayes -" I was surprised at this, so I ran a few more tests and got similar results each time. So on the basis of this test, there does seem to be some support for the claim that hot numbers are a better bet."
Can you run the same 100,000 spin test to see the hot / cold numbers, where 300 & 450 are compaired to 600 used in the same way?
Quote from: Gizmotron on Jan 23, 01:55 PM 2012
Bayes -" I was surprised at this, so I ran a few more tests and got similar results each time. So on the basis of this test, there does seem to be some support for the claim that hot numbers are a better bet."
Can you run the same 100,000 spin test to see the hot / cold numbers, where 300 & 450 are compaired to 600 used in the same way?
I think KEN is also involved in this (lol). Like I said, it ALL DEPENDS on how you word the testing/experiment. I could probably re-word a hot and cold numbers test where the results would come damn close to breaking even.
Ken
Ken, I didn't want to piss you off either. LOL! Bayes has a sim all written up. I just wanted him to trade out 600 for 300 & 450.
I know, only joking. I'll tell you something, regardless of how any tests turn out, I'm still sticking with playing a hot number(s). Years ago I played only the sleepers......trial and error I guess. ::)
Ken
Ken, you must have a great deal of experience regarding some of the characteristics of randomness. With a full study of hottest numbers added to this you will soon learn that much faster scenarios exist in simple things like the outside bets. You will soon learn that it's all the same the way that randomness acts. Things like the hottest dozen. Things like a dominent EC or a sleeping dozen happen all the time. They are very powerful and are easiest to work with than long tracking hot numbers.
Following some great hints on Kens Blog I recently threw the net over a few groups of two target numbers only, in the last ten sessions where I have recorded live spin data.
Because the individual numbers pay 35-1 and by encountering a significant number of targets that bounced along hit after hit, in two cases of the ten sessions, a start bank of 200 units would have finished at +1000 units if allowed, as there were nine wins in the string.
In the other cases the sessions were either break even or achieved a modest 10-15% gain on RB.
I simply followed the guidelines Ken had published that had been learned through valuable trial and error.
Such levereaged returns would not be available to outside table bets, although they certainly have their place in conservative play.
Perhaps my sample was fortunate but by following the smart money management guideline recommended, had the sessions not fired, the net loss would have been small.
By definition, if they are hot, the results will be hot.
No fallacy in that test.
Quote from: Gizmotron on Jan 23, 01:55 PM 2012
Can you run the same 100,000 spin test to see the hot / cold numbers, where 300 & 450 are compaired to 600 used in the same way?
Ok, using my file of actuals - results for 300 spins -
Hot Cold
1116, 1116
For 350 spins -
Hot Cold
1086, 993
For 450 spins -
Hot Cold
823, 799
It's tempting to think there may be a "sweet spot" at 350, but I wouldn't read too much into it. I'll do a longer test using RNG to get the long term stats. The trouble with betting only a few numbers is that you need a LOT of tests to determine whether there really is a difference, or whether it's just randomness/variance.
Quote from: Gizmotron on Jan 23, 10:25 PM 2012
Ken, you must have a great deal of experience regarding some of the characteristics of randomness. With a full study of hottest numbers added to this you will soon learn that much faster scenarios exist in simple things like the outside bets. You will soon learn that it's all the same the way that randomness acts. Things like the hottest dozen. Things like a dominent EC or a sleeping dozen happen all the time. They are very powerful and are easiest to work with than long tracking hot numbers.
I tend to agree. One of the things which surprised me when I first started looking into this was the sheer number of spins that a trend can continue for, and I was concentrating on the ECs, which is a relatively low variance bet. Someone could go for years playing 1 or 2 numbers at a time and thinking they had roulette beat, when all the time it was just a temporary peak.
I'm not saying that playing just a few numbers is a bad way to play, just that you need to crunch an awful lot of data to be sure of any conclusions you come to.
Results from running the test over 100,000 sessions -
Spins, Hot, Cold, % difference
300, 37415, 37129, 0.77
350, 37588, 36694, 2.44
400, 37414, 36942, 1.27
450, 37890, 36755, 3.1
500, 37645, 36821, 2.44
550, 37852, 36491, 3.73
600, 38019, 36246, 4.9
For each number of spins looking back, the hot numbers were winners, but in general the trend is that the % difference increases the further back you go.
Gambler's fallacy? ;D
Bayes - " For each number of spins looking back, the hot numbers were winners, but in general the trend is that the % difference increases the further back you go."
Wow, that's impressive. In fact it's significant compared to a couple of years ago when several of us ran the same rules on several different computers and programming languages.
Could you post your source code for the RNG test? I would like to test it in Xtalk on a Mac OS.
In the past test we used one simple rule to attempt to successfully avoid the zeros. We tested over a billion spins for those tests.
I am the master at predicting how certain threads end up.
These tests (this thread) will simply fade over time. In a month or two, we'll be back reading (from the anti-method crew), you can't win and it makes NO DIFFERENCE what numbers you bet, its all the same, blah blah blah.
The people at the Wiz board are well known for this TACTIC. Flag the thread, don't talk about thinking outside the box, go along with the masses in terms of opinions, no original thoughts of their own, gang-like attacking of other members etc.
Some will disagree with this......the Wiz board is not too different from GG. Its like the wild, wild west over there.
Ken
Bayes - " Get 600 spins, and pick the 3 numbers which have hit the least number of times, then pick 3 numbers which have hit exactly 3 times going back no more than 47 spins. Continue to get spins, and the winner from the 2 groups of 3 numbers is that group which is the first to get 2 hits."
Ken, here is your thread in a nutshell. Hot numbers are due. It's not a fallacy.
"Ken, here is your thread in a nutshell. Hot numbers are due. It's not a fallacy" >>> Thanks, much appreciated. Trial & error, I can't say it enough.
Ken
Ken, I find this thread most interesting. I spent a full decade studying 300 spins at a time. I did notice a fall off at 450 spins. But I never looked at 600 spins. Have you ever heard of a standing wave? There might actually be natural lower point at 450, between 300 & 600. If so I suspect it has something to do with the concept of a law of thirds. I'm going to begin studying this with simulations. It's nice to learn something new after all these years.
The data produced on Rapid Roulette screens showing 4 hot numbers is in theory useful but actually is a further weapon to confuse the masses.
The hottest number may actually be cooling and the 200 spread is way too vague.
The most effective criteria in my experience are the short trends, and by short I mean within 20-50 spins. The hot sequence may well continue for several hundred spins and of course in some instances I have seen it continue for days, but in applying the most efficient and effective bet I believe it wise to look right under your nose.
When I have had streaks of 9 or more win cycles playing two hot numbers, they have little relation to the four hot numbers published appearing say 12/15 times over 200 spins. They are getting hot and hotter and get dropped before they cool. Thats the ideal.
Quote from: MrJ on Jan 24, 12:53 PM 2012
The people at the Wiz board are well known for... don't talk about thinking outside the box, go along with the masses in terms of opinions, no original thoughts of their own, gang-like attacking of other members etc.
The Wiz is "filling his own pockets" at their expense. Like all the other scammers, he makes his money without ever placing a bet. (He replied to that over there, "I don't force anyone to bet". Out of the other side of his (bodog) mouth comes, "Be a player.")
Still Garnabby... aka the Streak Fighter.
I'll be honest guys, for MYSELF, this thread has nothing to do with a method. You might come up with one on your own, have a blast. My only purpose was to show that in SOME FASHION, choosing certain numbers over other numbers is 'better', even though its called gamblers fallacy. That's all I was out to do.
Ken
I have a question guys.....it'll be kind of tough to answer, you might not even want to answer and to be honest, the question is a bit rhetorical, I somewhat know the answer.
A lot of us here will agree that betting on a couple (whatever) HOT numbers is 'better' to bet on compared to the cold numbers. Like I said though, its all in the wording of the method/test.
Anyways, why is it when I bring this very SAME subject up at the Wizard board, it gets shot down, laughed at, flagged (deleted) etc.
Like I said, the goofs over there like to post in unison, all agreeing with each other (LoL).
I think some of them LIE when they tell me they don't agree with my view(s). If I had a nickel for everytime I heard......"it makes no difference which numbers you bet", I'd be a millionaire today.
Ken
Quote from: Gizmotron on Jan 24, 12:34 PM 2012
Could you post your source code for the RNG test? I would like to test it in Xtalk on a Mac OS.
No problem, the code is fairly simple but I've added some comments to make it easier to understand. Note that the
raw_frequency() function analyses a list of spins and returns a sorted list with the most frequently hit numbers at the head of the list and coldest at the tail.
include std/stats.e
include std/sequence.e
sequence wheel, spins, s, cold, hot, scores
wheel = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,
21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36}
scores = {0,0}
cold = {}
hot = {}
spins = {}
constant SAMPLE = 600
procedure bet()
sequence score = {0,0} -- initialise scores (hot is 1st element, cold is 2nd)
integer x
while 1 do
x = wheel[rand(37)] -- get next number
if find(x, hot) then
score[1] += 1 -- if it's in the hot list, increment hot count
elsif find(x, cold) then
score[2] += 1 -- otherwise, increment cold count
end if
if score[1] = 2 then -- if cold numbers have "won"
scores[1] += 1 -- chalk up a win for cold
return
elsif score[2] = 2 then -- otherwise
scores[2] += 1 -- chalk up a win for hot
return
end if
end while
end procedure
for i = 1 to 100000 do -- 100,000 sessions of 600 spins
for j = 1 to SAMPLE do
spins &= wheel[rand(37)] -- get a spin
end for
s = raw_frequency(spins, ST_ALLNUM) -- get list of frequencies (sorted from hot to cold)
s = reverse(s)
for k = 1 to 3 do
cold &= s[k][2] -- get the 3 coldest numbers
end for
s = raw_frequency(spins[$-46..$], ST_ALLNUM) -- get list of frequencies for last 47 spins
for l = 1 to length(s) do -- find the hot numbers
if s[l][1] = 3 then -- number must have hit exactly 3 times
hot &= s[l][2] -- add it to the list
if length(hot) = 3 then -- exit loop if 3 hot numbers are found
exit
end if
end if
end for
if length(hot) = 3 then -- only start betting if 3 hot numbers have been found
bet() -- goto procedure
end if
spins = {} -- reset arrays for next session
cold = {}
hot = {}
end for
? scores -- print output
Quote from: MrJ on Jan 24, 08:42 PM 2012
Anyways, why is it when I bring this very SAME subject up at the Wizard board, it gets shot down, laughed at, flagged (deleted) etc.
The Wiz makes his views on systems quite clear, maybe they're just sucking up to him? To be fair, it does seem reasonable to assume that because all numbers are equally likely to hit, then there should be no advantage in betting one group over the other, but as you say - it depends on how you define "hot" and "cold". The basic symmetry of the game isn't present under ALL conditions and definitions, and the maths shows this too. For example, I mentioned in another thread that you'd intuitively expect R/B to "cross over" (R & B have an equal chance of being in the lead), but that's not the case, and in fact whichever EC is in the lead will tend to stay in the lead for 100's or even 1000's of spins.
The key IMO is to find some kind of asymmetry in the game (which is all the AP's are doing too) then figure out a way to exploit it.
If you don't really believe it can be done (or are just too lazy to find out), then it's easier to go along with the received "wisdom" of the simplistic mathematical model, and dismiss it all as nonsense.
I'm with Bayes for the Asymetrical thing that can be exploited.
Sorry its 3am and I'm really tired. I want to say I'll follow every threads and give a chance to every ideas. Even the oldest ones like Martingale, coupled with the right missing piece could be our winner.
Nobody knows who's on the right track or isn't. I try to learn from everyone, do my own experiments and share my results. I don't care what the guys at Wizard thinks.
You guys alone are a gold mine of informations and idea. We just need someone "stupid" enough to think outside of the box. Most great discoveries were a mistake afterall...
Quote from: Bayes on Jan 25, 02:14 AM 2012
The Wiz makes his views on systems quite clear, maybe they're just sucking up to him? To be fair, it does seem reasonable to assume that because all numbers are equally likely to hit, then there should be no advantage in betting one group over the other, but as you say - it depends on how you define "hot" and "cold". The basic symmetry of the game isn't present under ALL conditions and definitions, and the maths shows this too. For example, I mentioned in another thread that you'd intuitively expect R/B to "cross over" (R & B have an equal chance of being in the lead), but that's not the case, and in fact whichever EC is in the lead will tend to stay in the lead for 100's or even 1000's of spins.
The key in my opinion is to find some kind of asymmetry in the game (which is all the Advantage-play's are doing too) then figure out a way to exploit it.
If you don't really believe it can be done (or are just too lazy to find out), then it's easier to go along with the received "wisdom" of the simplistic mathematical model, and dismiss it all as nonsense.
"The basic symmetry of the game isn't present under ALL conditions and definitions" >>> BAM, out of the park!!
"If you don't really believe it can be done (or are just too lazy to find out), then it's easier to go along with the received "wisdom" of the simplistic mathematical model, and dismiss it all as nonsense" >>> BAM, out of the park!!
Ken
Ken, it sounds like you agree with a concept of a temporary state of the statistics.
Bayes - " Get 600 spins, and pick the 3 numbers which have hit the least number of times, then pick 3 numbers which have hit exactly 3 times going back no more than 47 spins. Continue to get spins, and the winner from the 2 groups of 3 numbers is that group which is the first to get 2 hits."
What would result if - " Get 600 spins, and pick the 3 numbers which have hit the most number of times (any ties picked randomly), then pick 3 numbers which have hit the least going back no more than 47 spins (any ties picked randomly). Continue to get spins, and the winner from the 2 groups of 3 numbers is that group which is the first to get 2 hits."
Great question Skakus and whats my guess? I bet it'll be around even, back and fourth, not one sided under your EXACT way of asking the question.
Ken
Quote from: Gizmotron on Jan 25, 01:45 PM 2012
Ken, it sounds like you agree with a concept of a temporary state of the statistics.
You bet. For example like I said, I bet on one number, I keep track of the last 22 hit but as each new number gets added, the last number gets dropped etc. Its a constant rolling method........."temporary state of the statistics".
Ken
PERFECT example of what I'm talking about. This quote is from a pro (Frank Scoblete) >>>
If I play a number long enough in roulette will it come up? One of the typical gambling systems in roulette is to look at numbers that have not hit, and say, "well if I bet the number that hasn't come up, sooner or later it'll come up" - this is a fallacy. That number may not come up for many hours or it might come up on the very next spin. Roulette is random, and betting in this way is risky. <<<
You ever notice that when the pro's talk about gamblers fallacy, the example they use is almost always the SAME one? Sticking to one number because its DUE. How often do the, "Hey, its gamblers fallacy" guys talk about the kind of things we discuss? My point once again, not every method can be linked to gamblers fallacy. The people that don't win with this game just so happen to use that phrase the most often.....Hmmm, kind of odd.
Ken
Scoblete is a pro writer, author, actor, publisher, radio host etc. you name it. But never a pro gambler. Funny how people without any solid background, sometimes ends up as experts. "Get the edge at roulette" was a part of a serie from scoblete but was written by Pawlicki.
PS: The only pros that i know of or have have ever even heard of, were all advantageplayers. Like it or not. If you can name me a pro system/method pro who has been a pro for more than 6 months, please speak up.
Quote from: kelly on Jan 26, 12:06 PM 2012
Scoblete is a pro writer, author, actor, publisher, radio host etc. you name it. But never a pro gambler. Funny how people without any solid background, sometimes ends up as experts. "Get the edge at roulette" was a part of a serie from scoblete but was written by Pawlicki.
PS: The only pros that i know of or have have ever even heard of, were all advantageplayers. Like it or not. If you can name me a pro system/method pro who has been a pro for more than 6 months, please speak up.
"Scoblete is a pro writer, author, actor, publisher, radio host etc. you name it. But never a pro gambler" >>> This is the same thing they do at the Wiz board. They kind of re-structure my comments (or a misspelled word) and then feel they're off the hook. Whatever TITLE you want to give Frank, thats fine but my POINT stays the same. When people talk about gamblers fallacy (regardless of who they are), almost ALWAYS, the only example that comes to mind is the........."Betting on a number because it has not hit in a very long time so now its DUE to hit" <<<< Example. Thats all 'they' ever dish out. Its pure laziness to claim to be into AP (in my opinion).
"The only pros that i know of or have have ever even heard of, were all advantageplayers"
>>> I said it before, you can hand out whatever TITLES you feel most comfortable with, I do not mind (lol). There could be an AP (cough) guy who proclaims he kicks a** and netted 1K at the casino OR a guy using a method that he has tested/studied/played for a LONG time and he just netted 4K at the casino.
Title or no title, I want to sit down with the method guy, buy him a couple beers and pick his brain but hey, thats just me I guess.
Ken
Quote from: Skakus on Jan 25, 03:55 PM 2012
What would result if - " Get 600 spins, and pick the 3 numbers which have hit the most number of times (any ties picked randomly), then pick 3 numbers which have hit the least going back no more than 47 spins (any ties picked randomly). Continue to get spins, and the winner from the 2 groups of 3 numbers is that group which is the first to get 2 hits."
Nice twist, Skakus. :)
The results are probably not what you would have expected:
Hot = 51,771 Cold = 48,229 percentage difference is 7.3%
I ran several tests and the average % difference was higher than the first test! (between 6.5 and 8.0). Note that the total number of sessions in this test adds up to 100,000 because of simply picking the 3 hottest and coldest numbers, so there is no constraint that there must be exactly 3 hot numbers which have hit exactly 3 times in the last 47 spins.
I should really do another test picking both groups randomly, stay tuned...
Hang on guys, I think there may be a mistake in my code here... :(
I wasn't taking due account of tie situations, which may be biasing the results.
Judging the rising percentages i was wondering about the code was right. I tried simulating the same game with my software, but its quite limited in some situations and this one it can`t do.
Yeah, that was it. My bad, sorry guys. :(
I should have been suspicious - if the simulation doesn't agree with the math, the simulation must be wrong. ;D
This explains why the shorter simulations didn't show any difference, and why taking more spins increased it. If the code was correct, it should have been the other way around. The problem with simulations is that they can only tell you what happens in the long run, which we know anyway because of the math. The math, by definition, can't say anything meaningful about the the typical session of a couple of hundred spins, or less. You can simulate 100 spins over and over, but then you end up back in the "long run".
Anyway, here's the corrected code:
include misc.e
include roulette.e
sequence wheel, spins, s, cold, hot, sc
wheel = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,
21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36}
sc = {0,0}
cold = {}
hot = {}
spins = {}
constant SAMPLE = 600
procedure bet()
sequence score
integer x
score = {0,0} -- initialise scores (hot is 1st element, cold is 2nd)
while 1 do
x = wheel[rand(37)] -- get next number
if find(x, hot) then
score[1] += 1
end if
if find(x, cold) then -- outcomes NOT mutually exclusive!
score[2] += 1
end if
if score[1] = 2 and score[2] = 2 then -- a tie
exit
elsif score[1] = 2 and score[2] < 2 then -- hot numbers won
sc[1] += 1
return
elsif score[2] = 2 and score[1] < 2 then -- cold numbers won
sc[2] += 1
return
end if
end while
end procedure
for i = 1 to 100000 do -- 100,000 sessions of 600 spins
for j = 1 to SAMPLE do
spins &= wheel[rand(37)] -- get a spin
end for
s = roul_freq(spins, 37) -- get list of frequencies (sorted from hot to cold)
s = reverse(s)
for k = 1 to 3 do
cold &= s[k][2] -- get the 3 coldest numbers
end for
s = roul_freq(spins[$-46..$], 37) -- get list of frequencies for last 47 spins
for l = 1 to length(s) do -- find the hot numbers
if s[l][1] = 3 then -- number must have hit exactly 3 times
hot &= s[l][2] -- add it to the list
if length(hot) = 3 then -- exit loop if 3 hot numbers are found
exit
end if
end if
end for
if length(hot) = 3 then -- only start betting if 3 hot numbers have been found
bet() -- goto procedure
end if
spins = {} -- reset arrays for next session
cold = {}
hot = {}
end for
? sc -- print output
Typical run gives Hot = 37137, Cold = 36853 Not a significant difference.
@Bayes >> You mean its wrong in terms of what Skakus asked or ALL OF IT?
Ken
All of it. Nothing gets any better (or worse) than picking numbers randomly. But I still think there's merit in following hot rather than cold, and even the AP guys will agree with that.
Quote from: Bayes on Jan 27, 11:37 AM 2012
All of it. Nothing gets any better (or worse) than picking numbers randomly. But I still think there's merit in following hot rather than cold, and even the Advantage-play guys will agree with that.
The HARD CORE AP guys will admit to *NOTHING* other than AP and thats their right and I respect it. I dont agree with it but I respect it. Playing the hottest number in the last 22 spins, thats it for me.
Ken
If an AP had only those 2 choices he would pick the hot numbers. If its a unbiased wheel it doesnt matter which choise he picked anyway. If the wheel IS biased a sleeping number is not gonna pick up, quite contrary. Vice versa with the hot number which probably will remain hot.
You see Bayes? 'They' will NEVER admit to it. They inject AP into every conversation. I drank my coffee with AP. I took a shower with AP. I talked on my AP cell phone. etc.
Kelly said: "If its a unbiased wheel it doesn't matter which choice he picked".
They feel if they say it ENOUGH, then it must be true. People will eventually conform to their thinking. They prove nothing but talk AP up pretty good. Its a myth folks, nothing more. I'm sure it worked just fine in 1923.
Ken
I just told you WHY the AP would pick the hot numbers if he only had the 2 choices, since you seems a bit confused about the whole AP - GF conspiracy against roulette systematics.
YOU brought the AP that wont admit to anything, into the picture not me.
I'll re-ask the question. This is for Kelly or any Advantage-play person. >> A wheel is 99.999% balanced, no bias. Would you pick the hot number(s) to play OR it makes no difference? If you would choose the hot number(s), why?
Ken
If im guaranteed no bias i will just flip a coin since it dont mean a shit. But since such a guarantee will have to be renewed from time to time i would probably still pick the hot numbers so i wont be trapped with physicly cold numbers before the guarantee was renewed.
A quote from myself: "If you would choose the hot number(s), why?"
Here is the answer you will NOT hear from the Advantage-play crew >> "......because the
hot number(s) have a better (or higher) chance of hitting".
Once they say that, they are fu**ed !!! Why? Its ADMITTING, it is possible to make some good money WITHOUT using Advantage-play and that puts them on the spot......afterall.....they could be wrong.
Ken
"If I'm guaranteed no bias i will just flip a coin since it don't mean a thing" >>> Thank you.
Ken
Just look at bayes test. There is no need to bring up AP in this, since its an entirely different story. Fact is, it doesn`t matter wether you play hot or cold numbers. I have done tons of tests on real spins from Hamburg, Wiesbaden, Hittfeld, Hohensyburg you name it, and it doesn`t matter. The result is ALWAYS in the area of -2.7% of the wager. You are wearing black AP patches in front of your eyes.
"Fact is, it doesn`t matter wether you play hot or cold numbers" >>> I will not tolerate you using the word 'fact'. I'll chase you around every forum if I have to. You will NOT inject your beliefs....thats all they are, beliefs !!! If you say 'fact' 500 times, I'll disagree with you 500 times.
Ken
The fact is that the tests shows that there is no difference. Even Bayes last test shows it. Turbo genius tests showed it. Thats fact.
I'll repeat this 10,000,000 times. You should not put every example of gamblers fallacy into one nice, convenient group. Playing the #20 TEMPORARILY because it has hit 5 times in the last 16 spins is NOT the same as playing a Marty or playing the #17 because it has not hit in the last 300 spins (due). They are ALL NOT the same.
Ken
Quote from: kelly on Jan 27, 12:58 PM 2012
The fact is that the tests shows that there is no difference. Even Bayes last test shows it. Turbo genius tests showed it. that's fact.
What about money in a wallet? (Alot of money I might add) Does that play a part in the tests?
Ken
The results are the same. We can run whatever combination with whatever name you wanna call it, the return of the wager is the same.
So I've been getting LUCKY for the last 4.5 years? So on my next casino visit,
I should not play a pre-chosen method, just take a few chips, toss them in the air and bet where they land. Its the EXACT SAME THING, CORRECT?
Ken
There are winners and losers every day in the casino. You might have won, what do i know. If i come into the casino and puts a bet on 22 i refuse to believe that just because you came 2 hours earlyer, has an advantage on betting 23 because it has hit a few more times recently. Unless......you know the swear word (bias)
PS: Dont know. You were betting sleepers for 2.5 years and winning, now you are betting hot numbers and winning. As i see it, you might as well just toss the chips on the table, you are always winning,
"You were betting sleepers for 2.5 years and winning" >>> Please quote all my posts not just the ones making me look bad. I have said MANY times....yes I did make ALOT of money from sleepers (using progressions) but it all came falling down. Each of my losses was over 3K and there were quite a few. You make it sound like I've been betting on hot number for 13 days. And when I say hot, I'm talking 1-2 numbers (once in a blue moon, 3). I dont see the LOGIC, some people will post, play 5 hot numbers. I disagree with that.
Ken
I think your 4.5 year winning time line is a bit skewed then. This is some 19 months ago. Posted: 04-Apr-10 [/size]The way I do it...A street must not hit for at least 36 spins. This is more common than people think. I then wait for it to hit. My average for that is 14 more spins. After it hits, I then start a 42 step progression. My other way of playing.....Same rules but after it hits, bet the other two numbers in that street, 56 step progression. Ken[/size]
Lets do this again. I have been playing (losing or winning) for around 8.5 years (est.) For around the last 4.5 years (est.) I am UP quite nicely. *MIXED* in with that 4.5 years is, the beginning of the end for sleepers, hot numbers and 3-5 other methods not related to hot or cold. Its not like one day a person is playing sleepers and the next day, they say f**k it, from now on, I'll play hot numbers. Who switches over night?
Its almost 1pm here, I'm off to the casino AGAIN for a few hours before the weekend rush. Yesterday, +$800 playing ONE hot number. Today? Who knows, I sure hope I get 'lucky'.
Ken
Im sure you do.
This might be a first for me or maybe its not? Back to back exact days. Same number of hours played and exactly +$800. Hottest number in the last 22 spins. Wait, wait......it can't be so. Perhaps I should of left an $800 tip? :-X I dont deserve that money.
Ken
:)
Quote from: Bayes on Jan 27, 10:53 AM 2012
Yeah, that was it. My bad, sorry guys.
I should have been suspicious - if the simulation doesn't agree with the math, the simulation must be wrong.
This explains why the shorter simulations didn't show any difference, and why taking more spins increased it. If the code was correct, it should have been the other way around. The problem with simulations is that they can only tell you what happens in the long run, which we know anyway because of the math. The math, by definition, can't say anything meaningful about the the typical session of a couple of hundred spins, or less. You can simulate 100 spins over and over, but then you end up back in the "long run".
Typical run gives Hot = 37137, Cold = 36853 Not a significant difference.
Hey Bayes, thanks for further testing this with my twist.
I was actually expecting the hot numbers to still outperform the cold, and they did but not by much, eh.
Given a choice, I also would prefer to bet the hot numbers, but many players swear by the cold numbers so who are we to judge.
If hot numbers stay hot for statistically significant samples then the possibility of a bias would merit consideration. As Kelly said, in this case the cold numbers aren't going to heat up.
But the reality is that on a fair wheel the cold numbers will eventually heat up, and then to the casual observer those will actually be the hot numbers. Both the hot and cold numbers are aberrations from the norm and the norm only exists in light of the aberrations.
You can simply observe this regular behavior, and past behavior is a good indicator of future behavior, or you can try and do something with it. Mr.J has decided to encapsulate this behavior within a 22 spin cycle, and limit his focal point to 2 numbers. Just one way of many.
The thing is, if there were a bias present then from time to time whether by giving or taking it will contribute to these natural aberrations by way of hot & cold numbers. Therefore the chance of a player such as Ken sporadically melding his bets with the bias is strong.
With this scenario being a distinct possibility, why would you play cold numbers?
Besides, it makes no sense because you want them to hit, and hopefully a few times, so to win they need to get hot, don't they?
"But the reality is that on a fair wheel the cold numbers will eventually heat up" >>> Absolutely they will......but not during my 22 spins. ;)
Ken
Quote from: Bayes on Jan 27, 10:53 AM 2012
Yeah, that was it. My bad, sorry guys. :(
I should have been suspicious - if the simulation doesn't agree with the math, the simulation must be wrong. ;D
This explains why the shorter simulations didn't show any difference, and why taking more spins increased it. If the code was correct, it should have been the other way around. The problem with simulations is that they can only tell you what happens in the long run, which we know anyway because of the math. The math, by definition, can't say anything meaningful about the the typical session of a couple of hundred spins, or less. You can simulate 100 spins over and over, but then you end up back in the "long run".
Anyway, here's the corrected code:
include misc.e
include roulette.e
sequence wheel, spins, s, cold, hot, sc
wheel = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,
21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36}
sc = {0,0}
cold = {}
hot = {}
spins = {}
constant SAMPLE = 600
procedure bet()
sequence score
integer x
score = {0,0} -- initialise scores (hot is 1st element, cold is 2nd)
while 1 do
x = wheel[rand(37)] -- get next number
if find(x, hot) then
score[1] += 1
end if
if find(x, cold) then -- outcomes NOT mutually exclusive!
score[2] += 1
end if
if score[1] = 2 and score[2] = 2 then -- a tie
exit
elsif score[1] = 2 and score[2] < 2 then -- hot numbers won
sc[1] += 1
return
elsif score[2] = 2 and score[1] < 2 then -- cold numbers won
sc[2] += 1
return
end if
end while
end procedure
for i = 1 to 100000 do -- 100,000 sessions of 600 spins
for j = 1 to SAMPLE do
spins &= wheel[rand(37)] -- get a spin
end for
s = roul_freq(spins, 37) -- get list of frequencies (sorted from hot to cold)
s = reverse(s)
for k = 1 to 3 do
cold &= s[k][2] -- get the 3 coldest numbers
end for
s = roul_freq(spins[$-46..$], 37) -- get list of frequencies for last 47 spins
for l = 1 to length(s) do -- find the hot numbers
if s[l][1] = 3 then -- number must have hit exactly 3 times
hot &= s[l][2] -- add it to the list
if length(hot) = 3 then -- exit loop if 3 hot numbers are found
exit
end if
end if
end for
if length(hot) = 3 then -- only start betting if 3 hot numbers have been found
bet() -- goto procedure
end if
spins = {} -- reset arrays for next session
cold = {}
hot = {}
end for
? sc -- print output
Typical run gives Hot = 37137, Cold = 36853 Not a significant difference.
Hi Bayes. I was wondering in regards to my reply #8. Can you code/test this EXACTLY how I asked the question?
Ken
Quote from: MrJ on Jan 28, 10:51 AM 2012
Hi Bayes. I was wondering in regards to my reply #8. Can you code/test this EXACTLY how I asked the question?
Ken
Ken, I thought I'd done that - what did I miss?
Fact and Fiction.1. One thing roulette system player can not change is 37 or 38 degree of freedom.
I assume that pepole don't understand what that means.
As there is so littel understanding about the game and what happens when one dealer spin the ball.
If pepole would understand the physics they would see why there is no probability that dictate that just there number would show up in the future.
The common phrase regarding that is just that nothing is due to happen, because you have 37 or 38 degree of freedom.
2. The explanation is very simple.
a) When a dealer release the ball, he or she will do so with a different snap/force or could try to do it with similar behavior, it does not matter.
Same apply to when the dealer push the rotor to move with certain speed.
First the ball traveling time will be different every time from beginning to end.
Rotor speed will be pretty much the same from beginning to end of the ball spin or during that time - but rotor speed after rotor speed will not be the same.
So we have two moving parts witch is uniq every time or session.
b) Then at the end of the spin the ball will strike different deflectors and jump or scatter random on the rotor before it lose its total force to rest in one pocket or one winning number.
Each time rotor position or numbers will be at different places deepening on speed and witch deflector that strike.
During this time you have four random factors that will occur each time the dealer spin the ball - so there is no way to tell what the next number will be, ever.
That is what your "Gambler Fallacy" is about or why your past result does not matter as its only about if you can "F u c k Lady Luck" from behind or not.
Cheers
QuoteHere is a question I asked at the Wiz site. I can always tell when its a good question based on if I get few responses. People are so inconsistent when it comes to GF.
A) All 38 numbers are in a hat. I blindly pick one number, its the #17. I go to the casino and make a small bet on the 17, for ONE spin, never bet again and then went home. Did I just use gamblers fallacy?
B) One day later I change my mind, went back for ONE MORE SPIN of the 17. Did I NOW use gamblers fallacy?
Ken
There are VERY FEW guarantees in roulette, something that is 99% a SURE THING, even the Advantage-play (cough) goofs can't deny this >>> In a short period of spins.......25?....37/38?.......there will be number(s) that will get 3 hits on it. Why not take this 99% fact and *TRY* to make something of it? Now don't even tell me, a person witnessed every number hitting in 37 spins. (LoL)
I know the anti-method AGENDA is strong but come on. Look how many methods there are out there (including my own) that are NOT 99% guaranteed something will happen. If a person really has their s**t together, they can come quite close to having a Hol. Gra. with repeaters (it must be flat betting, no progressions).
Ken
@Bayes >> I guess I don't understand these 2 comments.
"I wasn't taking due account of tie situations, which may be biasing the results"
"This explains why the shorter simulations didn't show any difference, and why taking more spins increased it"
(Also, why cant anybody PM you?)
Ken
Quote from: ego on Jan 29, 08:47 AM 2012
Fact and Fiction.
1. One thing roulette system player can not change is 37 or 38 degree of freedom.
I assume that pepole don't understand what that means.
As there is so littel understanding about the game and what happens when one dealer spin the ball.
If pepole would understand the physics they would see why there is no probability that dictate that just there number would show up in the future.
The common phrase regarding that is just that nothing is due to happen, because you have 37 or 38 degree of freedom.
2. The explanation is very simple.
a) When a dealer release the ball, he or she will do so with a different snap/force or could try to do it with similar behavior, it does not matter.
Same apply to when the dealer push the rotor to move with certain speed.
First the ball traveling time will be different every time from beginning to end.
Rotor speed will be pretty much the same from beginning to end of the ball spin or during that time - but rotor speed after rotor speed will not be the same.
So we have two moving parts witch is uniq every time or session.
b) Then at the end of the spin the ball will strike different deflectors and jump or scatter random on the rotor before it lose its total force to rest in one pocket or one winning number.
Each time rotor position or numbers will be at different places deepening on speed and witch deflector that strike.
During this time you have four random factors that will occur each time the dealer spin the ball - so there is no way to tell what the next number will be, ever.
That is what your "Gambler Fallacy" is about or why your past result does not matter as its only about if you can "F u c k Lady Luck" from behind or not.
Cheers
vs.
Quote(Advantage-play is for suckers) Gambler's Fallacy is a term coined by unsuccessful gamblers to validate their reasons for losing.
What a joke.
Cheers
Quote from: MrJ on Jan 29, 01:12 PM 2012
"I wasn't taking due account of tie situations, which may be biasing the results"
Ok, suppose after collecting the hot and cold numbers, they were:
hot = 13, 21, 7
cold = 34, 13, 17
The first program (the one which gave the hot numbers an apparent advantage) would finish the session immediately when a group (hot or cold) got 2 wins, but what happened when number 13 hit TWICE?
The first time it hit, the program recorded a win for cold and hot (so the score was 1 - 1), but when the number 13 hit again, HOT was recorded first, and having reached the "winning" score of 2, the session would end. But of course, this wasn't really a win for the hot numbers - it should have been a TIE.
If you were recording results manually, you wouldn't think twice about this, but computers are VERY dumb, so if you don't think about what's happening and tell the computer to do it, that's when mistakes get made.
Quote"This explains why the shorter simulations didn't show any difference, and why taking more spins increased it"
This relates to the first point about the tie situations. Because it's a relatively rare event that you get 2 (or more) numbers the same in each group, then a tie won't happen that often, so in a smaller test it's unlikely to show up in the stats (the randomness will swamp out the effect), but in a much longer test the outcomes will tend to stabilise to the true result. Nothing strange about that; it's why you need to test systems over many spins before you can be confident it's not just luck.
Quote(Also, why can't anybody PM you?)
Sorry, I'll add you to my "buddy" list. Nothing personal, there was time a while ago when I was getting a lot of pms and I just got tired of reading them, so I cancelled all pms. ;)
Anyone who disagrees with this, please chime in >> In 37/38 spins (most likely less than that) we will have number(s) with 3 hits on it. Anyone disagree?
Ken
(thanks Bayes for your response)
Yes i disagree,its more like 36 numbers you will get 3 hits. This is a fact not a faint hearted notion. >:(
Quote from: macduff on Jan 29, 03:41 PM 2012
Yes i disagree,its more like 36 numbers you will get 3 hits. This is a fact not a faint hearted notion. >:(
?? Thats what I said. So *WITHIN* 37/38 spins (or less) we will get number(s) with 3 or more hits. So this is a FACT, correct?
Ken
My point/question being, how many positive FACTS can you name within roulette? Why not take a POSITIVE fact and try to make it into a decent method?
Ken
Yes Yes Yes its correct, was only making polite conversation, and only realised you had said or less after i had posted. ???
Quote from: macduff on Jan 29, 04:08 PM 2012
Yes Yes Yes its correct, was only making polite conversation, and only realised you had said or less after i had posted. ???
No problem buddy.
Ken
Quote from: MrJ on Jan 29, 04:02 PM 2012
My point/question being, how many positive FACTS can you name within roulette? Why not take a POSITIVE fact and try to make it into a decent method?
Ken
I think the fortress system is a decent method, though a progression is needed for constant profit, have you looked at that???????????
Quote from: macduff on Jan 29, 04:30 PM 2012
I think the fortress system is a decent method, though a progression is needed for constant profit, have you looked at that? ??? ??? ??? ?
Nope, I dont read other methods. 99.999999% of the time, myself and the author do not have the same views.
Ken
As goofy as I think MauiSunset is, I do agree with his view regarding AP (cough) >>>
Advantage Play†(APAdvantage Play - the wacky idea that studying the Roulette wheel and the dealer will help you with Roulette - maybe 200 years ago but not today) is a gambling term that means you can gain the advantage over Roulette by studying the wheel and the croupier/dealer (I use the term dealer â€" I’m an American).
You can tell these folks are at your table since they all wear tin-foil hats â€" they are all wackos; they are living a life from 200 years ago. They have a smug attitude about themselves that they’ve discovered the Holy Grail and you are just too stupid to appreciate them.
Basically they write down numbers trying to find a “defect†in the wheel and/or the “dealer’s signature†of spinning the ball. Never mind the fact that in 200+ years the Roulette wheel is now so highly balanced, by computer lathes, that no amount of analysis of the spins will tell you anything. The Roulette wheels are swapped out in a random sequence at most casinos and there is no way to tell if the wheel at your table today was there a month ago. Also, the dealer is swapped out every hour for a break and a new dealer has a new “signatureâ€.
AP gamblers have a cult following â€" they have given up on statistics and live in a world that doesn’t exist â€" maybe 200+ years ago AP worked but not today. Also, AP Roulette players shun away from computerized Roulette games (Random Number Generators â€" RNGRandom Number Generator - hardware or software that generates random numbers) and must play on live Roulette tables.
Don’t listen to anything they have to say â€" it’s all psychobabble.
So Mr J, advantage play are you for or against. :)
;) ;) ;) Hmmm, let me think. I'm sure AP (cough) worked great back in 1923......in 2012? ^-^
Ken
I've never really taken roulette seriously, so far as spending too much time theorizing about, and playing, it. However, one can't overlook the game while focusing on a few of the others. In general, the HE is relatively-high, as slots; and when fairly-delivered, there's no way to undermine it.
Specifically, today's elaborately-constructed wheels would simply fail before reaching the sorts of concentrated combinations in device-biases required to show up any useful scientifically-qualitative/quantitative correlations of those (even after the obligatory tens-of-thousands of spins for a statistical determination of that), given the limitations in modern bearing-sizes, etc. Further still, the "randomness" of the fair wheels, the majority after all, will get you into possibly millions of spins of "suspicious looking" data. (As per "random walk" theory, in which the probabilities, or the ratios, of the outcomes can be approached to any given degree of accuracy but while the additive differences of each type of outcome may become arbitrarily large.) And a bias could eventually counter another, or fade away on its own.
And, today's rules for spinning the ball, and the wheel, completely preclude even the theoretical values of things like roulette-computers, VB, and DS. Even though it's not really about randomness, itself, it's still involves too many variables.
"involves too many variables" >>> :thumbsup:
Ken
To clarify. That i think it can't be "undermined", doesn't mean that it can't be consistently, or inconsistently, beat. There may, or may not, be other sorts of games to play within this one.
So please answer this. There are 38 slots on this wheel. The odds on any spin are 38 to 1 for any hot number to hit. Is it fallacy to expect it to act like these odds hour after hour? I almost never see the gaps occurring at the expected odds. I guess the odds are a moving target in the short run. They almost never fall on the expectation.
Quote from: Gizmotron on Jan 30, 01:05 PM 2012
So please answer this. There are 38 slots on this wheel. The odds on any spin are 38 to 1 for any hot number to hit. Is it fallacy to expect it to act like these odds hour after hour? I almost never see the gaps occurring at the expected odds. I guess the odds are a moving target in the short run. They almost never fall on the expectation.
The odds in Roulette are fixed and posted - they don't change - not in 200 years.
If the odds don't change then there is no such thing as a "hot" or "cold" number. You may assign the title of Hot or Cold or MIA or whatever you want - means nothing to Roulette.
MauiSunset - " If the odds don't change then there is no such thing as a "hot"or "cold"number."
Some people see 200 and only see the law of large numbers. Then they spout their own fundamentalist dogmatic form of a modern day mathematical theology.
I'm sorry, my posts keep getting deleted so this is my last post on this website.
Best of luck to all of you..................
Quote from: MauiSunset on Jan 30, 03:36 PM 2012
I'm sorry, my posts keep getting deleted so this is my last post on this website.
Best of luck to all of you..................
Ya, i know the "feeling". Do stop posting in forums/threads started by the guy(s) who just starts deleting you. (Isn't "the name of game", here and there, to drop some good hints, "make good"... and then say, "LoL, i even left some hints.")
GARNishment, when the pseudo mathematical fundamentalists disrupt threads with never ending interruption of thread distraction I FLUSH!
"so this is my last post on this website" >>> Ok bye bye, take care!
Ken
I'm sorry, but that was really funny Maui. You gotta laugh, stay lighthearted........
Hmmm, let me think. I'm sure Advantage-play (cough) worked great back in 1923......in 2012?
At least real advantage play worked in 1923, your kind of hot numbers advantage don`t work in 2012 and didn`t work in 1923 either.
"At least real advantage play worked in 1923" >>> I agree with that 100%.
Ken