In 1,000,000 spins, on a single zero wheel we expect to get 27,027 zeros; 486,486 Reds and 486,486 Blacks. And there will be very little variance from that.
In 500,000 spins we expect to get 13,514 zeros, 243,243 Reds and 486,486 Blacks. And there will be very little variance from that.
etc...
In 100 spins we expect to get 2 or 3 zeros, 48 or 49 Reds and 48 or 49 Blacks. There can be quite a bit of variance from that.
In 50 spins we expect to get 1 or 2 zeros, 24 Reds and 24 Blacks. There can be a heck of a lot of variance from that.
In 20 spins we expect to get 0 or 1 zero, 9 or 10 Reds and 9 or 10 Blacks. There can be so much variance that we can actually get 20 Reds or 20 Blacks or as many as 5 or 6 zeros.
All our progressions are dependent on minimal variance in the short term for us to win.
But, it's also possible to have a very unfavorable variance. So unfavorable that no progression can prevail.
I'm thinking that testing systems is a waste of time!
I'm thinking that posting graphs can be misleading unless we post good graphs and bad graphs.
I understand the logic for why "hit and run" is a gambler's fallacy concept, but as I see it, it's the only hope we have.
Find a system you like to play, play it with money you can afford to lose and hope for luck.
GLC
There's no perfect system. But a waste of time? I agree to disagree. There are many system that win 5-6 out of 7 sessions. So that means you have profit at the end (only if u use a good money management ) . 8)
George.
what you said has been with me for a while now.
You have so much knowledge that it helps you realise that statement of yours.
People with less knowledge are motivated by what they dont know.
Reminds me of my 10 years studying Zen Buddhism
Endless books and internet reading...practice...learning and struggle to ultimatly find and understand "nothing"
So when does the possibility for variance begin to sharply decline?
200 spins?
500 spins?
1000 spins?
Attrition is an aspect of this game rarely discussed in most systems, so perhaps this is an element that can be integrated into a viable system :)
Hi Turner
are you studing your roulette,like your study of Zen Buddhism, studying should show the plus and minus of a method and whether to persist or not, or how to handle the short term
Quote from: nottophammer on Feb 02, 11:55 AM 2015
Hi Turner
are you studing your roulette,like your study of Zen Buddhism, studying should show the plus and minus of a method and whether to persist or not, or how to handle the short term
thats fairly accurate. living in the moment...playing in the moment.
Thats why I think George is a cool dude. He says it right
Most players develop systems from principles that dont really exist. Then they use trial and error. Without understanding why their approach would either work or fail, they test away. Some of these players win and think they conquered roulette, but later they test more and find the wins were just luck. Some players lose at the start, then try another system.
Very few players will look at the CAUSE AND EFFECT of where the ball will land. These players are at least on the right track.
You'd think it would be obvious to consider why the ball lands where it does.
Totally agree, then they after a few Lucky wins, they start to bet big
thinking they have found the new hg....
In the short term anything can happen
that includes winning :D
While random is random therein lies the challenge
of whether our ideology has merit in a system.
(even if it is gambler's fallacy)
But there is no such thing as random. There is only "predictable" and "unpredictable". And if you think its "unpredictable", it's actually more likely you just dont know how yet.
Keep in mind the house edge is a small -2.7%. So you need only slight accuracy to overcome it. Blackjack players get excited about 1-2% edge. Far better is possible with roulette. In fact there are many ways to even just slightly increase accuracy if predictions. But the real trick is adjusting your predictions with the changing conditions like ball deceleration rate changes. It's actually very easy to beat an average wheel when conditions arent changing. But reality is they are changing all the time.
If your model is reasonable, you can expect to just lose some of your accuracy. Because you will be one step behind. But on some wheels, that's too much of an accuracy decrease.
Anyway, everyone needs to start thinking in terms of reality. What they can see and observe as real. Not voodoo patterns.
I had a friend who is a PHD in math and told him about the six zeros they had in a row at some casino in Vegas on the roulette table,,,,,I said is that possible,,,,,,,,,,,he said sure but not very likely,,,,,,,,,,,,I said what are the odds of that happening,,,,he whipped out his trusty scientific calculator and gave me the odds of how often that could happen,,,,,,,then told me anything can happen but seldom does,,,,I told him with all your education you should play roulette and maybe make some money,,,,,,,,,,,,,he said no too much stress in Vegas LOL.
Stuart
You cant beat roulette with math because it doesnt tell you where the ball will land. It only provides a statistical analysis, like telling you the average chance that a particular number will spin if the outcomes are "random". In advantage play, math is used for statistical analysis, but without the application of physics, it is useless.
Sure professional play can be stressful, but not so much if you take the attitude that if everything is done correctly, you will have a long term advantage. Think in terms of weeks and months, not sessions or days.
I agree Steve good point.
Stuart