Yeah I know it's been done to death, but it's kind of obligatory for any site on gambling/maths. Here's my effort:
link:://:.roulettician.com/articles/article3.html
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Bayes on May 15, 06:18 AM 2016
Yeah I know it's been done to death, but it's kind of obligatory for any site on gambling/maths. Here's my effort:
link:://:.roulettician.com/articles/article3.html
Loved the "The Reverse Fallacy" section.
I could argue all day on that one lol (that it's no fallacy at all).
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 15, 09:15 AM 2016
Loved the "The Reverse Fallacy" section.
By that I assume you
didn't love it. ;D
I welcome all comments and feedback. If you think I'm wrong please say so, and more to the point - why. I respect your opinion.
Quote from: Bayes on May 15, 10:25 AM 2016
By that I assume you didn't love it. ;D
I welcome all comments and feedback. If you think I'm wrong please say so, and more to the point - why. I respect your opinion.
No, it's the best section I think - but it's one of those things where the math says one thing is 'possible' but the gambler will never see it in their lifetime. Hard to explain.
I would argue - can 1 number repeat 38 times (American 00 wheel) or can 38 numbers appear in 38 spins individually ? (again, American 00 wheel).
The math says yes - so anything based on repeaters can then be called a "fallacy" - however.
We all know that these two events will never happen - they "could" happen, but if I can bet that they won't - trust me, I'll win every time lol.
Then there's the issues with individual spins vs a collection of spins/session played.
Also - "Hot numbers stay hot and cold numbers stay cold" (I've said this in the online game window a few times lol)
This is true, even though it is a fallacy by strict definition.
I tested and showed on the other forum (38 people go into a casino) that 13 players playing their own individual number can all profit flat betting only over 1,000 spins betting 100.00 per spin on their number.
(I jokingly call it Turbo Newton's First Law of Random)
But..... this is verified because of the above (a number won't repeat 38 times, and all numbers won't show in 38 spins)
and the 'hot' numbers tend to stay (in motion) hot - not all of them, no. I only need 1 number to :)
What separates the 13 people who ended the 1000 spins in profit vs the other 25 players who didn't ?
The 13 winners were all playing the numbers that were either hot the entire time, or became hot numbers.
(by hot I mean that they showed above expected)... combined - all 38 players together gave the house it's math edge of course.
So while the math (which I stand by) says that it's a fallacy approach - from a system/method point of view - it's a gold mine.
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 15, 11:15 AM 2016
So while the math (which I stand by) says that it's a fallacy approach - from a system/method point of view - it's a gold mine
I liked that line particularly given a lot of conversations we had recently
A bit a of a dance.
General I would say Let`s stuff it and keep the party going. Nothing like a status quo.
Nathan Detroit
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 15, 11:15 AM 2016
What separates the 13 people who ended the 1000 spins in profit vs the other 25 players who didn't ?
The 13 winners were all playing the numbers that were either hot the entire time, or became hot numbers.
(by hot I mean that they showed above expected)... combined - all 38 players together gave the house it's math edge of course.
So while the math (which I stand by) says that it's a fallacy approach - from a system/method point of view - it's a gold mine.
Ok, but you haven't give a reason why hot numbers stay hot and cold numbers stay cold. Some "law of attraction" perhaps? That sounds suspiciously like the General's "magical ether".
And it seems to me that you're denying that the wheel is fair (in the sense of outcomes being independent), because you say the players who made a profit were the ones who bet on the numbers which hit above expectation. In that case there's a selection process - bet on those numbers which are hitting above expectation because they will stay 'hot'. So outcomes cannot be independent after all. Not saying you're wrong, and if you
are denying that the wheel is fair you have at least avoided contradiction, even if you haven't proved your thesis.
But that's quite different from what the General would say (and I made that point in the article) - that it's reasonable to bet on the hot numbers because IF the wheel happens to biased, you will be betting on the biased numbers. I'm pretty sure the general would disagree that that strategy is a "system" - a process of selection which will more likely than not, lead to profits.
He's saying the selection of hot numbers
may lead to reduction in the house edge
on condition that the wheel is biased. That's much weaker than your system which says even if the wheel is completely unbiased you'll still win betting on the hot numbers.
Quote from: The General on May 15, 11:39 AM 2016
A bit a of a dance.
Were you referring to Turbo's reply or my article?
Tamino,
You are wise. :)
Quote from: Bayes on May 15, 03:16 PM 2016In that case there's a selection process - bet on those numbers which are hitting above expectation because they will stay 'hot'. So outcomes cannot be independent after all.
I see what you´re saying, and the following must have been brought out already, but if we picked 37 numbers from 37 fair wheels, from 37 casinos from 37 points in time wouldn´t there be the usual "hits" above expectation?
Hi psimoes,
Yes, there would. But Turbo is saying more than just some (unidentified) numbers will hit above expectation. Although true, it would be no good for anyone who isn't "lucky". He's saying that if you deliberately choose the numbers which are hitting above expectation then you'll do better than those who bet randomly or on the cold numbers.
Quote from: Bayes on May 16, 09:38 AM 2016e's saying that if you deliberately choose the numbers which are hitting above expectation then you'll do better than those who bet randomly or on the cold numbers.
Yep
I typed up a long PM to you but then didn't send it lol (I do that often)
Let's just say - I think some aspects of the fallacy can easily be proven as factual and not fallacy.
QuoteI typed up a long PM to you but then didn't send it lol (I do that often)
Let's just say - I think some aspects of the fallacy can easily be proven as factual and not fallacy.
(link:://i966.photobucket.com/albums/ae147/Flashpenny/breaking-bad-cousins_article_story_main_zps819476ab.jpg)
A la cuenta de tres, vamos a enjambre, y atacarlo ( Turbo ). >:D
Quote from: The General on May 16, 09:05 PM 2016A la cuenta de tres, vamos a enjambre, y atacarlo
Ha !
Nah, I know enough when to keep my mouth shut and when to open it :)
.
What you seek is seeking you.
Quote from: Narich on May 17, 01:13 AM 2016
What you seek is seeking you.
Well....the mods will be seeking you it you post with 2 names...Donnik777
In the same day too
Just post with Donnik please.
¡uno ... dos .... tres!
Voy a estar listo y en espera. :thumbsup:
esperando a qué
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 16, 07:56 PM 2016
I typed up a long PM to you but then didn't send it lol (I do that often)
Let's just say - I think some aspects of the fallacy can easily be proven as factual and not fallacy.
Pity, I would have liked to read it.
The point I was trying to make in my article (which most articles on the GF don't emphasize), is that the fallacy isn't really a matter of whether outcomes really are or are not random, but about consistency. If you challenge the premise that outcomes are random (fair) then you're not being inconsistent, which is something the General forgets (or doesn't realize). That's why, again and again, he accuses forum members of being "trapped in the box that is the gambler's fallacy".
But only in very few cases do people seem to be committing GF. What they're doing is challenging the premise of "random". Isn't that what Priyanka is trying to show in her thread - that there may be ways of looking at outcomes which may reveal that they are not quite so random as we think?
To then come along and say something along the lines of 1 + 1 = 2 is condescending. More to the point, it begs the question (assumes that the thing under investigation just cannot be even worth investigating). And therefore anyone pursuing it must be "illogical".
El arroz es moho y rancio . Muchos platos de duchas nos saludo a todos
Here's one rare honest account of the GF (you can't rely on a mathematician >:D ).
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=wgwfoQwq5P0
Steve....can I request a button that generates a response that says " great post Bayes"
Saves me keep typing it
By saying 1+1=2 it means if you don't change either odds or payout, you'll eventually lose money. Many people don't even understand the math
Quote from: Steve on May 17, 03:32 AM 2016
By saying 1+1=2 it means if you don't change either odds or payout, you'll eventually lose money. Many people don't even understand the math
Steve, that's not the point. The AP player challenges the assumption of randomness. Why can't this be done in ways other than just focussing on the physics?
The General will repeat his mantras which amount to saying "it just can't".
Bayes i don't at all think it needs to be traditional physics. I'm sure there are undiscovered ways to change the odds.
TG, so you wait for the numbers that hit three times (threepeaters :P ) in 37 spins and bet for them to hit a fourth time?
Quote from: Steve on May 17, 03:23 AM 2016El arroz es moho y rancio . Muchos platos de duchas nos saludo a todos
That translated to "Rice is moldy and stale. Many dishes showers greeting us all". I am sure thats not what you meant :)
Actually Priyanka, its almost exactly what I said.
I was just messing with peoples confidence with Google translate.
Quote from: Bayes on May 17, 03:21 AM 2016
which is something the General forgets (or doesn't realize). That's why, again and again, he accuses forum members of being "trapped in the box that is the gambler's fallacy".
But only in very few cases do people seem to be committing GF. What they're doing is challenging the premise of "random". Isn't that what Priyanka is trying to show in her thread - that there may be ways of looking at outcomes which may reveal that they are not quite so random as we think?
To then come along and say something along the lines of 1 + 1 = 2 is just obnoxious. More to the point, it begs the question (assumes that the thing under investigation just cannot be even worth investigating). And therefore anyone pursuing it must be "illogical".
THANK YOU
Also i think the general just gets the jollies by not reading a thread and just interjecting the same cookie cutter BS he usually does
Good post.
No matter WHAT the purpose is it moet likely is not read. And all we get is this:
(link:://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRZ3BK_tn6l6hjr5D3M9do61wpbHqU0HWpqly7EVFme-79MQThm)
Quote from: Bayes on May 17, 03:38 AM 2016
Steve, that's not the point. The AP player challenges the assumption of randomness. Why can't this be done in ways other than just focussing on the physics?
The General will repeat his mantras which amount to saying "it just can't".
Exploiting rare patterns by creating a particular bet selection
I think it can be done
Yes but you are forgetting to properly test to see if your theories actually work. Proper testing involves a lot of spins and realistically you need automated software.
Also many of caleb's comments come from the knowledge of what has already been tested. He can be a prick, but he is not the troll you think he is. Any serious player should investigate what he says.
Quote from: Steve on May 17, 07:14 AM 2016
Yes but you are forgetting to properly test to see if your theories actually work. Proper testing involves a lot of spins and realistically you need automated software.
Also many of caleb's comments come from the knowledge of what has already been tested. He can be a prick, but he is not the troll you think he is. Any serious player should investigate what he says.
Never said he was wrong
Just most people dont have time to monitor 10 thousand spins on a wheel
Noone wants something shoved down their throat either
He has explained to me via PM how to VB and its time consuming. I have a life to live.....
I believe that there is a way to create a bet selection where betting against a pattern can win more then lose. That is something i believe can be uncovered
Could be 3 groups of 12 Random numbers betting against something that hapens less frequently.
When a thread has zero to do with fallacy and he comes in with the same cookie cutter stuff he becomes delegitamized and hated
Your a little guilty to steve. You assumed pri thread was along the lines of rbbr
Vb isn't time consuming. Actually what's time consuming is a 9-5 job for 50 years.
Again if you play for fun, anything goes. But anything serious need proper testing.
Quote from: psimoes on May 17, 05:04 AM 2016TG, so you wait for the numbers that hit three times (threepeaters ) in 37 spins and bet for them to hit a fourth time?
The hot number approach was always interested. Why do you say that there should be threepeater(3 times+ same in 37 spins) in 37 cycle? Is thereany statistics/mathematics backing it up that i miss?
If we jsut wait for any number to be ABOVE expected (once every 37 spins) then you can bet any number that has been shown 2 times within 37 spins, any number that is shown 3 times within 74 spins (2*37 spin cycle), any number that is shown 4 times withinh 111 (37*3)etc.
Testing out of curiosity this type of counting i have ended so far after 185 spins to be +255 Units. Not that much testing considering long runs but still interesting
Bellagio
How have you been playing it exactly? Bet all numbers that show twice in 37 spins? How long do you bet them for?
Thanks
i start betting and stop betting the numbers whether they are hot or cold. once they are hit more than expected i bet them, once they are hit less than exepected i stop betting them.
so yes. starting in the first 37 spins i will bet the numbers that has shown 2 or more times so far. If i pass 37 (i'm at 259 spins now) i calculate to see how many spins it needs to be shown to be considered a hot number. for example in 260 spins now it needs a number to be hit 9 times or more to be counted above expected. so every number that has shown so far 9+ times i bet it.
now i'm at 259 spins and +334 units. to be fair though in the beginning it went down to -150 -190 units as well...
+152 Units in 333 spins. It stopped being so profitable. It was logical but still in front. I will stop it for now since i don't know how to program it in Java or Roulette Xtreme bots etc forlong run and many more spins. If anyone is intrested or knows how to do it feel free to reply :)
I was going to post this in the other thread (randomer thoughts) but it's more appropriate for this one, and I didn't want to disrupt the thread (again).
Priyanka said in that thread:
Quote from: Priyanka on May 17, 07:52 AM 2016
My sincere advice is come to reality where the fact is spins are independent and outcomes are equally likely.
To which my reply would be: If you take these as "givens" then any "exploration" of the concepts which you've introduced will be tantamount to committing the gambler's fallacy - "outcomes
are random, now let's explore the possibility that they're not". You'd be falling straight into the general's hands. >:D
The only way to avoid inconsistency is to challenge the assumption of randomness. I don't know why people are so squeamish about questioning independence. Maybe it's because they assume the only way outcomes can be independent is by a "with replacement" setup - which is a fact about roulette. Therefore it seems obvious that outcomes really are independent in every possible way - which isn't a fact about roulette as actually encountered.
It's a fact about "the random game", sure. If "random" means outcomes are unbiased and independent, and therefore unpredictable, then it's a simple oxymoron to say "let's explore the possibility that unpredictable outcomes are predictable!".
Wouldn't it be better to say "roulette seems to be unpredictable, but let's explore the possibility that it's not".
There is no "generic" random game that anyone ever actually plays, there's always a
particular wheel (or RNG). The general says that every wheel has some degree of bias. So what are we to make of his oft-repeated "random game"? It seems more like a stick to beat system players over the head with!
In reply he might say "That's Correct. In reality there's no actual random game which anyone plays, but forum members assume that there is a
generic non-random game, because they're not looking at individual wheels like the AP does, but looking for ways to beat all wheels, which assumes that the non-randomness is built-in to the game, not just specific wheels".
That would be a good point, and if I'm honest, one for which I don't have a glib answer. It may indeed be a foolish enterprise to try to find some generic non-randomness in the "game", at least of a kind that can be proven mathematically.
However, there's another alternative, and I suspect that it might be the way Turbo plays, or Gizmo.
Quote from: Bayes on May 17, 11:15 AM 2016
However, there's another alternative, and I suspect that it might be the way Turbo plays, or Gizmo.
And if that doesn´t work it´s got to be G.U.T. Seriously! I´ll explain later. BTW Bayes, excellent post. Thumbs up.
Quote from: BellagioOwner on May 17, 09:49 AM 2016Why do you say that there should be threepeater(3 times+ same in 37 spins) in 37 cycle?
Thought the General hinted at that (at the count of three, attack).
QuoteA la cuenta de tres, vamos a enjambre, y atacarlo ( Turbo ). >:D
Quote from: The General on May 16, 09:05 PM 2016
(link:://i966.photobucket.com/albums/ae147/Flashpenny/breaking-bad-cousins_article_story_main_zps819476ab.jpg)
Numbers that "will" hit three times have to hit two times first. Numbers that hit four times have to hit three times. Some methods are based on this. It all depends on how the trot seems to go, however. There are times when the stream of uniques never seems to end, with the lone repeater finally hitting after say 14 spins. Another twelve uniques come along and you´re there betting for that number to hit a third time and losing money. There are times when six, seven, eight repeaters hit in a few spins and then nada, no third hit. These are some rather extreme situations that I have encountered.
My "serious" method goes like this: start by betting all the numbers that just hit in the last 9 spins. 1u per unique, 2u per repeater. If in the last 9 spins a number hit three times, bet 3u on that number. Every new number that hits gets 1u bet. So on the 10th spin you bet 10 numbers, on the 11th spins you bet 11 numbers and so on. Everytime one of your numbers wins you add 1u to it. Reward the winners. Sometimes there´ll be like 4 units on a number and if that number wins it will either make a generous amount of money or it will save the session when it´s going bad.
Playing like this, one notices some behaviour in the stream and by the 18th spin you´ll find numbers that hit only once are just sucking up your bankroll; even when they finally hit a second time the payout isn´t making a profit, so you´d better give up on them, leaving just the numbers with more than 1u bets on carpet. Hot numbers won´t stay hot forever, though and around the 24th spin the cold numbers start to wake up, and irritatingly so. So much that you´d rather now bet on all the unhit numbers. From what I think I know about G.U.T. , it must be really helpful as a tool to determine when to keep betting on repeaters or unhitters.
I'm glad that a few people have been paying attention and listening
Quote from: psimoes on May 17, 11:49 AM 20161u per unique, 2u per repeater. If in the last 9 spins a number hit three times, bet 3u on that number. Every new number that hits gets 1u bet. So on the 10th spin you bet 10 numbers, on the 11th spins you bet 11 numbers and so on
Did you mean on the 10th spin you bet 10 units instead of 10 numbers? on the 11th spins you bet 11 units etc. Because there will not be always 10 numbers to bet after 10 spins. For example: after watching hte first 9 spins we have:
25
4
10
34
24
27
33
16
27
so after 9 spins we bet 8 numbers on the next spin( 1u on 25,4,10,34,24,33,16 and 2u on 27). I got it right? Total 9 units bet (and not 9 numbers bet)
Quote from: psimoes on May 17, 11:49 AM 2016around the 24th spin the cold numbers start to wake up, and irritatingly so. So much that you´d rather now bet on all the unhit numbers.
If you start betting all unhit after 24th spin, what you do when you get a success? Do you take the bet off of that number since it is not anymore an unhit number so it does not comply to the rule or you add +1u -reward it like in the beginning with the repeaters and keep betting it?
Thanks for replying. I'll give it a go. it looks intresting and fun based on the numbers :)
Hi there. Replies in blue.
Quote from: BellagioOwner on May 29, 04:06 PM 2016
Did you mean on the 10th spin you bet 10 units instead of 10 numbers? on the 11th spins you bet 11 units etc. Because there will not be always 10 numbers to bet after 10 spins. For example: after watching hte first 9 spins we have:
25
4
10
34
24
27
33
16
27
so after 9 spins we bet 8 numbers on the next spin( 1u on 25,4,10,34,24,33,16 and 2u on 27). I got it right? Total 9 units bet (and not 9 numbers bet)
My fault. You´re correct, it´s nine units bet after nine spins.
If you start betting all unhit after 24th spin, what you do when you get a success? Do you take the bet off of that number since it is not anymore an unhit number so it does not comply to the rule or you add +1u -reward it like in the beginning with the repeaters and keep betting it?
These are mere observations. I usually go after a profit and stop.
Thanks for replying. I'll give it a go. it looks intresting and fun based on the numbers :)
Quote from: BellagioOwner on May 29, 04:06 PM 2016Thanks for replying. I'll give it a go. it looks intresting and fun based on the numbers
It doesn´t last forever. Greed kills it. When you get a decent profit stop betting. Start a new session. Even if there are three or four units on a number, don´t wait for the hit, let it go.