I would like to discuss a thing that was in my mind for many years after I read first time about it in a German roulette forum. -
The individual Permanence.
The basic idea is that Random is not a thing that is independent from a person. Or more philosophically random materializes (becomes truth) only when perceived.
That means that Anyone can, in our case play roulette, at any time in any place at any table. Stop at one table continoue at an other table or at an other time. And the results will be the same for continous play and the socalled Hit and Run style.
For every person the result will be the same in the LONG RUN. And this means really many games 50.000 +
It is not possible to look at random as and person-independent thing. Like I read at this forum statments like:" Losses will occure, but with Hit and Run you will not be there to experience them".
As I'm a great fan of the work of JohnLegend I had to test and look for evidence.
So I got some 65.000 real wheel spins from Homborg casino and did some coding in visual basic in EXCEL so see how it works out in continous play and HnR by skipping about 50 spins after a game to simulate HnR.
The result: There was no difference. Random is Random, this or that way and sticks to the numbers (probability) in the long run.
That was tested for the 2 most promising Methods on this forum:
Pattern Breaker and Code 4 DC
So what ever divagation is observed or reported is normal based on the probaility for the methods. Just for example: I saw winning streaks from 2 games up to 500 games with Code 4 that has a 1/80 math strike rate. But at the end every game averaged and ate winnings.
Random is not blind for our games and spins.
So what to do?
The only chance is the bet size / staking. Because random is blind for the amount we bet.
So my very basic idea is to note down the personal Win / Lose sequence in order to deduce according to the probability of the game we play when to increase or decrease the stake level we play.
But I don't have a clue how to do that. This is where your brain power is needed.
What do you think?
cheers
Hello Rolletti,
I think the thing we have to remember is that software testing by definition, is different from actual play. From your example one can only really say if HIT AND RUN works after 50,000/65,000 LIVE spins. I estimate that JohnLegend has played this many spins so his results would reflect if HIT AND RUN is effective.
Quote from: Rolletti on Jan 27, 05:45 AM 2012
The basic idea is that Random is not a thing that is independent from a person. Or more philosophically random materializes (becomes truth) only when perceived.
Einstein "wrestled" with, and lost, his own argument, loosely that, "A rat can not bring about the determination of a (quantum-mechanical) probability-based event simply by its looking to those outcomes." Meaning that a computer, along with its external apparatus, can as-well observe such outcomes... to the extent in which involvement is possible.
Thanks for your posts.
Yes you are right. JL has about 45.000 spins as I just calculated approximate with 2000 games played on average duration 45 spins and 2 games H/L O/E simultaneously.
To may judgment he is still on the positive "lucky" side of naturally occurring swings. But we will see at his next update, how it develops.
As I said I'm a fan of JL so I'm trying to confirm his theory of HnR for big numbers. So don't misunderstand my efforts.
I will put in more time and efforts to simulate his play.
amk would you agree that it is proper to take a real wheel permanence from Homborg Casino Table, randomly find a entry point, simulate the game, randomly pause and start over for a later entry spin again. 5 times per 1-day permanence???
This it not a pure computer testing. It requires some manual manipulation of the data, at least with my current coding skills.
So give me some days, I will try for 100.000 spins if you agree with the procedure to be realistic in order to test HnR.
cheers
Hello Rolletti,
It might be best to contact JohnLegend and see what he thinks. If you haven't read JL's last few posts you should, gives good insight into his HIT AND RUN approach. Have you looked at my latest posts on OPPOSITE? There are about 360 four wide dozen patterns PER 24 HOURS on a roulette wheel, only about 3 to 6 of these patterns will make us lose. If we only play five to ten times per day we have a good chance of avoiding these patterns for a very longtime.
Quote from: GARNabby on Jan 29, 06:44 PM 2012
Einstein "wrestled" with, and lost, his own argument, loosely that, "A rat can not bring about the determination of a (quantum-mechanical) probability-based event simply by its looking to those outcomes." Meaning that a computer, along with its external apparatus, can as-well observe such outcomes... to the extent in which involvement is possible.
Randomness is just an expression of our ignorance, there is nothing inherently random in any event or object, the concept itself is incoherent. See
link:://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0611245 (link:://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0611245)
Quote from: Rolletti on Jan 30, 10:44 AM 2012
amk would you agree that it is proper to take a real wheel permanence from Homborg Casino Table, randomly find a entry point, simulate the game, randomly pause and start over for a later entry spin again. 5 times per 1-day permanence???
Hi Rolletti,
I already did that with actual spins, the result showed that hit & run gave no advantage whatsoever. And it seems that no-one else has been able to replicate JL's results. Draw your own conclusions.
Quote from: Bayes on Feb 03, 04:35 AM 2012
Randomness is just an expression of our ignorance, there is nothing inherently random in any event or object, the concept itself is incoherent. See
link:://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0611245 (link:://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0611245)
An excerpt, from the above excerpt, "Quantum mechanics generally does not permit all the information to be obtained, even in principle, just as in relativity information from outside the past light cone cannot be obtained. But probabilities do not imply indeterminism. Instead, quantum mechanics is more deterministic than classical mechanics."
Randomness isn't quite the same as indeterminism. Roughly, the latter is the state of several, or infinite, as-possible recourses; and the former as the sequential decimals of an irrational number, e.g., however deterministic such a number may be in concept.
Asfaras even the absolute being "an expression of our ignorance", blah, blah, i think we really ought to wait a bit more on that before arguing upon which of the others is more-actually deterministic.
Hi,
I have simulated Pattern breaker for 150.000 real wheel spins. 1 year of Homborg Casino.
HnR simulation gave me about 5000 games.
Strikerate 1:8
with zero cover still profitable thanks to low double loss rate.
will the next days compare with continous play.
cheers
Sometimes to understand something you need to see it in simplest of terms. A Roulette wheel is nothing more than a mechanical devise that produces independent results. At a casino it also produces sequences over time.
If you deploy the same bet selection proceess against a sequence of spins you will get a stream or flow of typical results that have only a few characteristics that are in common. These are chaotic, win streak, and losing streak.
Hit and run has little effect with these types of characteristics. Bet high or bet low is the more effective method.
Quote from: GARNabby on Feb 03, 08:58 AM 2012
Randomness isn't quite the same as indeterminism. Roughly, the latter is the state of several, or infinite, as-possible recourses; and the former as the sequential decimals of an irrational number, e.g., however deterministic such a number may be in concept.
Asfaras even the absolute being "an expression of our ignorance", blah, blah, i think we really ought to wait a bit more on that before arguing upon which of the others is more-actually deterministic.
It's going off-topic, and this is a philosophical can of worms, but what is 'random' to one person may not be to another - randomness is a matter of information (link:://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2227).
If something is 'random' to everyone, which is ONE interpretation of Quantum theory, does that mean that it's indeterminate (in the sense of not CAPABLE of being determined)? Isn't it more sensible to admit that no-one knows (yet) what the causes are?
You'd think so, but according to the Copenhagen interpretation, randomness is an inherent property of particles - so it's a waste of time looking for 'causes'. That's a poor way of doing science and has more to do with the politics and philosophy of 1920s Germany.
if random is different to different people and we call roulette random and since every one loses on roulette so i guess either roulette is not random or random acts the same for everyone... :question: :question: :question:
Hi maestro,
Well, I suppose if we all really believed that random acts the same for everyone then no-one would be here. ;D
Theoretically, if you were able to accurately measure all the variables in roulette, then you would be able to predict the next spin because the movement of the ball follows Newton's laws, which are deterministic. The problem is the sensitivity to initial conditions (chaos).
My point was that if you have the knowledge, then roulette is no longer random, so "random" can't be a property of the game itself. Random begs the question - to whom is it random? It really makes no sense to talk about "reading randomness", because if randomness is read, then random no longer exists, it's been replaced by knowledge.
When it comes to reading random im setting up the scam stove, I realized that the volume dial had wrenched its colors off of the bloom- thereby flanking the impending bell, and setting the whole engine into fits of spurious contention. This coming after words and bleepings heard in the surrounding shops had already set sail!
Got it ?
Right, go read some real random in the casino and make some money.
Quote from: kelly on Feb 04, 09:24 AM 2012
When it comes to reading random I'm setting up the scam stove, I realized that the volume dial had wrenched its colors off of the bloom- thereby flanking the impending bell, and setting the whole engine into fits of spurious contention. This coming after words and bleepings heard in the surrounding shops had already set sail!
Got it ?
Right, go read some real random in the casino and make some money.
Said as real professional.Me, reading it every night on several tables for years now.
Bayes - " It really makes no sense to talk about "reading randomness"
"Reading Randomness" is a simple phrase created by me to express to people with little interest that there is information there that can be exploited for the purpose of taking advantage. It was created at a time of forum discussion where participant members dismissed the existence of characteristics that make the concept of seeing information possible. Reading Spin Sequences might have been a better coining of a phrase.
Reading randomness
"Probabilistic reasoning and ways that we can estimate probabilities of combinations of events from limited data about the probabilities and conditional probabilities of events.... "
Regards
Max
My contribution from last year:
" Reading Randomness - The ability to assign observations of characteristics into subsets of past outcomes in casino games, like recent past spins in Roulette."
Amazing descriptions.........
I wonder, in 37 spin cycles of 37 spins each, how often will the law of the third not be observed?.........
Does the law of the third appear X%? of the time?
Quote from: kelly on Feb 04, 09:24 AM 2012
When it comes to reading random I'm setting up the scam stove, I realized that the volume dial had wrenched its colors off of the bloom- thereby flanking the impending bell, and setting the whole engine into fits of spurious contention. This coming after words and bleepings heard in the surrounding shops had already set sail!
An Advantage-play is only a glorified guesser, and hence loser. You won't find any reputable brokers, physicists, et al, seriously "playing the ponies"; and you won't even have to look for the millions of essentially-addicted gamblers who claim to have worked those professions from the other way around, and while paying the casinos the commissions. Nonetheless, all of them stand at-the-ready to voice their deep-seated contempt of they who might practice any of those here.
Quote from: Bayes on Feb 04, 06:22 AM 2012If something is 'random' to everyone, which is ONE interpretation of Quantum theory, does that mean that it's indeterminate (in the sense of not CAPABLE of being determined)?
Which dictionary/thesaurus (directly) links the word random with indeterminant? What we know is as determinant as what we don't know whether we truly know either, so indeterminacy has to be about neither... what we know but don't know, things like 0/0, e.g.. In general, don't be overly-concerned with the bits which seem to overlap. Separate out the basic meaning of one word from another, to begin to move beyonds the words. Look to the academic meanings and usages first, then to the popular ones. Finally, play with those definitions until the words fit together into something greater than the parts.
Quote from: Bayes on Feb 04, 06:22 AM 2012
It's going off-topic, and this is a philosophical can of worms, but what is 'random' to one person may not be to another - randomness is a matter of information (link:://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2227).
Who says randomness, like everything else in general, can't be also mental in nature, as well as physical? Or, that neither word's subject/object exist all together? Though strictly speaking, that's certainly not a factor in roulette, even were there no "zeroes". And were a random outcome to be strictly "unknown", then also nothing would be known about the system of its regulation, or in this case, the game, itself. Sounds like the "game of life"?
Quote from: Bayes on Feb 04, 06:22 AM 2012"You'd think so, but according to the Copenhagen interpretation, randomness is an inherent property of particles - so it's a waste of time looking for 'causes'."
Einstein had an abundance of good working years to try to do away with the new science which he, himself, indirectly brought about by trying to push Relativity to become its own underlaying absolute. (So much so, that he hesitated to categorize it as relativity.) In fact, it was his own reluctant, almost-manic determination to "exterminate" it which lead to much of its "shoring up" by his peers, and later on.
Now, if you want to "defeat randomness", you first have to accept it for what it has been overwhelmingly demonstrated to be. To "resolve" (but not) the quantum-relativity dilemma, you have to figure yourself into the equation, brain and body, where it already resides. A universe which isn't [together by being apart] can't sustain itself. (If it's completely together, then like one diamond cutting another, it could break down. The "by being apart" part guards against this sofaras you can't take something apart which is already apart.) You have to work out what the operations are, what are the dimensions, etc; but not focus on which equations, etc.
　
Quote from: Bayes on Feb 04, 06:22 AM 2012"That's a poor way of doing science and has more to do with the politics and philosophy of 1920s Germany."
Okay, everything still seems to mean everything else to you. Unless of course, it's you, yourself, who makes the point-of-distinction. But we're a long way from anywhere in the 1920's. No one's stopping you from saying what you think here. Others may delete it, but so what. After all, the most-illogical sciences revolve around "sitting on the fence", an even-worse approach than keeping "all your eggs in one basket" or a defence only. Nothing's easier than throwing out yet another make-believe "spin" on something which you have no stake in, or which remains unknown. I mean, put your "shovel into the dirt", take a clear-and-decisive position on something. Lose lots of sleep over it, let your ideas take a hold of, and carry, you through to something of genuine value. Something so powerful that it becomes ever-stronger the more denied. (e.g., you can fight city hall, but you can't fight gravity.)
Quote from: GARNabby on Feb 04, 09:28 PM 2012
Okay, everything still seems to mean everything else to you. Unless of course, it's you, yourself, who makes the point-of-distinction. But we're a long way from anywhere in the 1920's. No one's stopping you from saying what you think here. Others may delete it, but so what. After all, the most-illogical sciences revolve around "sitting on the fence", an even-worse approach than keeping "all your eggs in one basket" or a defence only. Nothing's easier than throwing out yet another make-believe "spin" on something which you have no stake in, or which remains unknown. I mean, put your "shovel into the dirt", take a clear-and-decisive position on something. Lose lots of sleep over it, let your ideas take a hold of, and carry, you through to something of genuine value. Something so powerful that it becomes ever-stronger the more denied. (e.g., you can fight city hall, but you can't fight gravity.)
I don't think there's any such thing as an 'illogical science' (it's an oxymoron), and so what if we're a long way from the 1920's?, the Copenhagen interpretation is still a popular viewpoint - but that's all it is - there are other interpretations which don't throw out causality. If you throw that out then you're into pure mathematical abstractions which often can't even be tested. Einstein was right to believe 'God does not throw dice' - that's my opinion and I believe he'll be vindicated in time. But nothing in science is ever 'proved', that only applies to mathematics.
Quote from: kelly on Feb 04, 09:24 AM 2012
When it comes to reading random I'm setting up the scam stove, I realized that the volume dial had wrenched its colors off of the bloom- thereby flanking the impending bell, and setting the whole engine into fits of spurious contention. This coming after words and bleepings heard in the surrounding shops had already set sail!
Got it ?
Right, go read some real random in the casino and make some money.
Kelly,
You play the markets, I believe. You do realize that none of the tools or techniques of technical analysis have any credibility from a scientific point of view? there have been studies on TA and none of the indicators have been found to give any advantage, and yet you and others still use them. Who are you trying to scam? ;)
Playing the markets is 'respectable' but roulette isn't - everyone 'knows' that roulette is unbeatable, and yet the distributions are in some sense more predictable. Go figure.
Quote from: Bayes on Feb 06, 02:23 AM 2012
I don't think there's any such thing as an 'illogical science' (it's an oxymoron).
I had written "a*b*s*u*r*d", but the strange politically-correct automatic editor on this board stepped in. In the sense that "it just is", without explanation.
Quote from: Bayes on Feb 06, 02:23 AM 2012
I believe he'll be vindicated in time.
Okay, now we're getting somewhere.
Quote from: Bayes on Feb 06, 02:23 AM 2012
But nothing in science is ever 'proved', that only applies to mathematics.
Okay, so apply that concept to science as well, see where that gets you. Einstein was all for the idea that physics follows math. He, himself, strictly speaking not a mathematician, went to great lengths to seek out the best math help. (None(?) of the tensor-analysis used in his General Relativity was his own math.)
Bayes, im aware that applying indicators without any "real life" input is just the same as testing roulette systems. Nevertheless i have back testet a strategy over 3 years which went heavyly in profit in that particular stock + one more. Applyed to the EUR/USD it was still in profit but smaller.
The backtest took all signals, which i don`t, even though i ought to. Part of the strategy which runs in the 4 hour timeframe using the parabolich sar, is to go to the 15 min timeframe when the Sar on the 4 hour frame flips over. And then trade the 15 min, still using sar but only taking the signals in the direction you have on the 4 hour, until you have a healthy sar line on the 4 hour and then skip the 15 min. That way you don`t get that many expensive whip saws.
But like i said, some types of stocks simply don`t work with the strategy. Bank stocks for example. It must be stocks with a high beta value.
Yes you are correct. But always buying stocks with high beta value is not worthy.Istead once it comes down and if bought at less price will give more return back
Quote from: GARNabby on Feb 06, 09:39 AM 2012
Okay, so apply that concept to science as well, see where that gets you. Einstein was all for the idea that physics follows math. He, himself, strictly speaking not a mathematician, went to great lengths to seek out the best math help. (None(?) of the tensor-analysis used in his General Relativity was his own math.)
Scientific theories are subject to revision in the light of new discovery, a classic case being Newton's laws only being valid at speeds well below the speed of light. But a mathematical theorem, once proved, is true forever and 'in all possible worlds', as they say. Einstein said - "
as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
@ Kelly,
So you're doing ok with the trading? making money?
Yeah the strategy is a calm steady earner on the Danish stocks. Its not like its making money on a daily basis, neither is every trade a winning trade but its only roughly every 4th trade which is a loser. But thanks to the Sar, the risk is known up front. Its not like I'm a stock expert, for example I'm also trading Apple which is mostly in one direction; Upwards. Last night i shorted it on the 30 min time frame. 463,45 because i was pretty sure the market would drop today because of Greece. Only to get stopped out today in 465 and go into a long position. Currently trading at 469,35 with a stop-loss at 465,20 trailing upwards with 0.45 each 30 minutes.
Its not as funny as standing next to a Roulette wheel staring at the ball and rotor taking 1.2 sec timings for 4 hours straight............cough............ but it has its moments.
Quote from: Bayes on Feb 07, 12:42 PM 2012
Scientific theories are subject to revision in the light of new discovery, a classic case being Newton's laws only being valid at speeds well below the speed of light. But a mathematical theorem, once proved, is true forever and 'in all possible worlds', as they say.
Newtonian physics is what is, aside from the effects of Relativity/Q. Mechanics, etc: Physical matter's expression of the mind.
Quote from: Bayes on Feb 07, 12:42 PM 2012
Einstein said - "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
Okay, that certainly LOOKS like more contemporary "fudging" on his part after the so-called, established facts.
Old, discarded arguments/theories which come back into fashion (, or which were merely revised,) isn't what surprises me. So why not make a new "one" from the iterated expectation of that practice (to continue)?
I wouldn't worry about running into some absolutes along the way, LoL. Wasn't it Hawking who wrote that the person who shall "end physics", aside from there always be some left-over calculations and applications, has probably already been born?
Had Einstein, and the Relativity-based predecessors of 2000 years, further worked the concrete, conceptual aspects of relativity before attempting to directly apply some of that to the then similarly-premature perceptions of space, and time. You know, 4-dimensional Space-Time is NOT the spot to run with Relativity. But once you properly deduce what a point has to be, those sorts of things become much more black-and-white.
Everyone (i know of) gets hung up on things like, "Infinite mass at a singularity, how to make those infinities cancel themselves. By the way, what the h*ll is infinity?" What if a physical point is plain-old matter, to be divvied up as go? (And it's we who aren't so-real. As Hawking clumsily put it, "Living in imaginary time." Or, if you want to extend that sort of thinking to the causality of one temporal dimension, and three spatial ones, then you'll realize that nor are such forces so-real. I mean, you can't really push something unless you're pushing at right-angles on it, head-on; and you can't really not push on it unless the thing is "skating" along parallel to you, you're pushing off along its side. But those sorts of critical angles aren't available to the its inhabitants.)
Having tested several Methods of this forum now with my 150.000 real wheel spins I have to post a disappointing result.
Pattern Breaker, Code 4 DC, and some other Matrix based methods:
There is no significant difference between Hit and Run and continuous play. Meaning there is no way of play or method that gives a permanent profit.
As I tested over and over again, using different random entry points into the stream of spin results I have to mention that still it is possible to be "lucky" over a period of 1 years full day real casino play and gain some profits.
But on average the games will lose money. Even when using different staking levels or progressions.
The only method that showed more win years then losing years was the "Law of 1/3 or 111" of I think Ironsteel if I remember the name right. When bet after 74 spins on the 3 streets that did not come more then 12 times (all 9 Nos together). But within 1900 observed games you will get around 60 bet signals only.
cheers
Rolletti,
Thanks for the testing. I'm not at all surprised at your results.