hi folks,
is roulette truly random or not? this guy says "no".
sorry that there are so many attachments. I had to spöit the file to meet the size for uploading.
cheers
hans :)
geeez ... even one attachment per post is too large. I just nees some time to prepare the files later today.
next try which works.
:)
Thanks for posting an interesting paper :smile:
There's a typo halfway down 2nd column on page 32. 11/37 =0.2972 not 0.5135 as stated. Nevertheless, he draws the correct conclusion that difference between winning and losing is 0.027.
Other than that he offers nothing that is exploitable. He talks of a less aggressive staking system, but it's irrelevant. One could bet on red and black together. That's the least agressive system of all, but the loss rate is still 2.7% (or 1.4% if en prison or partage is offered).
The difference between red odd and red even is apparent, but not exploitable as he shows. So he spends 2 pages telling us how the numbers are arranged, that there is an imbalance, but it's not exploitable, and then a little bit more about gamblers ruin models all of which is standard theory.
Then remarkably in the conclusion he makes a paradigm shift that he believes further research can offer a winning program based on classical or Bayesian analysis. Where on earth did he come up with that? It's not at all related to anything which went before.
Maybe in the case of Bayesian analysis there are cases where the wheel can be beaten, but it's not related to anything he's discussed previously about imbalance of red even/odd numbers or layout on the wheel. It's related to wheel imperfections, either temporary or permanent favouring certain areas. Not at all related to his discussion of even chance positions which are distributed continually, and not concentrated in any sector.
I don't think this paper offers anything useful. He stated some facts for two pages, noted some imbalances in layout which he showed to be irrelevant in terms of exploitation and then made an extraordinary leap of faith unrelated to his previous discussion.