I've written a little program which some might find useful for testing systems, or just as a spin generator. You can download it for free here :
link:://:.roulettecoder.com/utilities.html
Feedback welcome. :)
Some great resources, well done!
Thanks Firefox. I'm an admirer of your common sense posts, and it's nice to see someone here who actually understands the relevant maths. :D
Good stuff joe. The problem though is some people still think 10 spins is significant. Their logic is "a win is a win".
Awesome stuff on your site! Thanks man :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Quote from: Steve on Apr 03, 06:19 AM 2019
Good stuff joe. The problem though is some people still think 10 spins is significant. Their logic is "a win is a win".
Thanks Steve. The program doesn't directly address the issue of sample size, but I'll make a note of it in the accompanying blurb, and maybe I should write a blog post about it.
BTW, I've temporarily removed the program because I found a minor bug, and also I'm adding code which will let the user save a file of results and load it again when restarting the program. This means that you can test systems over a longer period.
I'll post here again when I've done it. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Maui13 on Apr 03, 08:54 AM 2019
Awesome stuff on your site! Thanks man :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Thanks! Not ALL the software will be free, but most will be. :)
I've neglected the site for a while but have more free time now and will get cracking on it.
If stuff works, I'll pay for it - simple
Keep the faith and thanks for your free stuff!
I've now finished the mods to the software which now lets you save the results and load previously saved files so you can continue testing particular systems from one session to another.
link:://:.roulettecoder.com/utilities.html (you might have to refresh your browser to see the changes).
If you want to know a bit more about the test which I've used then see here :
link:s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_test
There's a calculator for it here :
link:s://:.socscistatistics.com/tests/binomial/default2.aspx
QuoteImagine you want to find out whether you are psychic, so you toss a coin 1000 times, and each time predict whether it will come up heads or tails. You get it right 733 times, which is a lot higher than the 500 times you'd expect by chance. The question is - what's the probability that you'd get a result as extreme as 733 purely by chance?
So you could use my program to develop and test your precognitive abilities, assuming you believe that there are such things. I know there are several threads here which discuss it. ;)
Anyway have fun and please let me know if you find any bugs, as I haven't done a huge amount of testing.
QuoteImagine you want to find out whether you are psychic, so you toss a coin 1000 times, and each time predict whether it will come up heads or tails. You get it right 733 times, which is a lot higher than the 500 times you'd expect by chance. The question is - what's the probability that you'd get a result as extreme as 733 purely by chance?
That's quite easy to calculate without software.
Standard deviation = SQRT (npq)=
SQRT (1000x0.5x0.5) = SQRT (250) =15.8
Binomial approximates well to normal distribution over 1000 trials, so 733 is massive.
233/15.8 = 14.74 standard deviations positive.
That's 100% . Just 3 SD is 99%.
14.74 SD is off the scale of tabulation of the normal distribution.
Quote from: Firefox on Apr 04, 11:43 AM 2019That's quite easy to calculate without software.
Ya, but since this is a roulette systems forum I wanted to keep it more intuitive, and I would guess not that many members are conversant with standard deviations and other stats terminology. The significance expressed as a probability is easier to understand IMO. The logic is quite simple and is common to all classical tests.
If
H is the hypothesis (in this case, that the system doesn't work) and
D is the data (the number of wins relative to losses), then the logic is :
If
H is true, then it is unlikely that
D or more extreme data would be observed.
D was observed.
Therefore it is unlikely that
H is true.
BTW, the program doesn't need fixed probabilities because it calculates the average probability every spin and uses this in the cumulative distribution function (binomial distribution, I'm not using the Normal approximation). So you could be betting on different amounts of numbers each spin.
That's good if you use the binomial as the normal distribution only fits well over a larger number of trials.
Still, I'd hope even a statistically challenged psychic with 733 right would realise they were onto something! Will have to ask Miles what he'd get :question:
Quote from: Firefox on Apr 04, 12:52 PM 2019
That's good if you use the binomial as the normal distribution only fits well over a larger number of trials.
Still, I'd hope even a statistically challenged psychic with 733 right would realise they were onto something! Will have to ask Miles what he'd get :question:
I would get around 800 and above. :twisted:
QuoteI would get around 800 and above.
Any proof of that? :yawn:
Love the calculator joe great job
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2019/04/04/source.jpg) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/Uk4nl)
Quote from: Joe on Apr 04, 03:35 PM 2019
Any proof of that? :yawn:
You need to believe in precognition first then you'll be ready to see the proof. Until then you will forever have your skeptic tinted glasses on and wont be able to see the reality even if it was staring you right in the face.
Quote from: precogmiles on Apr 04, 04:44 PM 2019You need to believe in precognition first then you'll be ready to see the proof.
That really doesn't make any sense. A proof doesn't depend on prior belief, that's the point.
Quote from: Joe on Apr 05, 04:23 AM 2019
That really doesn't make any sense. A proof doesn't depend on prior belief, that's the point.
What would constitute as proof for someone who denies the possibility of its existence?
Hitchens's razor....
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim, and if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.
Quote from: Let Me Win on Apr 05, 06:34 PM 2019
Hitchens's razor....
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim, and if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.
How can anyone ask me for proof? Are you blind? Can you not see my signature?
The question is not about proof. It is to do with a type of blind and irrational skepticism which claims that from the get go certain things are impossible i.e precognition, telekinesis etc..
So the question still stands. What proof would be required to make someone change their mind?
It seems whatever evidence is brought in front of the skeptic, it is never good enough. They are awaiting the high priests of the cult of materialist science to approve the belief of precognition. Once it has the blessing of the irrational scientific community then you will see these same skeptics blindly believe it is now a real phenomena.
These types of questions have been thrown at parapsychology for a long time. The problem is that since science has no theoretical model to explain precognition without breaking other rules they claim it impossible. They believe in theory over reality.
They played the same game with cold fusion. Now cold fusion is an accepted fact. The phenomena of CF is real.
I am not interested in sheep skeptics who are like parrots and repeat the same questions and quote wiki like they are geniuses.
Quote from: precogmiles on Apr 06, 01:48 AM 2019I am not interested
Why you don't stay in your own thread, why that arrogant style if you just try to help us to a higher level ?
Quote from: precogmiles on Apr 06, 01:48 AM 2019cold fusion is an accepted fact
You believe everything what you are told ???
Quote from: Herby on Apr 06, 02:17 AM 2019
You believe everything what you are told ???
Like gravity?
Mr. PRECOX, this is a ROULETTE forum.
Please try to understand this.
To be fair Herby, you've invested enough time in non-random which is a total fallacy method but dressed up in an elaborate way. I don't think that has much to do with roulette, but people still spend years debating it!
Hi firefox,
at least you have some understanding of mathematics >:D.
But:
You know somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody …........
who knows a library with the book written: it’s all fallacy.
Find the guys, find the library, find the proof and show us the proof: all non physics approaches are total fallacy.
The borders of your language are the borders of your world.
I don't know anyone. I draw my own conclusions.
Reliance on immediately previous spin results to point to bet selection, without reference to what is happening on the wheel, is fallacy territory. No matter what you call the method.
You also clearly have a good mathematical understanding so I'm surprised you got so involved.
The proof is that wheel has no memory, other than defects within, which may render the assumption that all outcomes are equally likely, invalid.
Non of the mathematics of non-random ideas offer any constraints to the outcome of the next spin. Therefore you will never have an advantage.
Quote from: precogmiles on Apr 05, 10:24 AM 2019What would constitute as proof for someone who denies the possibility of its existence?
I'm not denying the possibility of precognition, but I'm skeptical. You say look at your results on MPR, and sure, you're at the top, but I don't even know how the score works; what is it measuring? And there are others who also have positive scores who presumably are NOT using precognition. For a start, I need to know exactly how the scores are calculated.
There is no evidence that precognition works. The infamous study by Daryl Bem, which is what everyone cites when trying to show that precog has merit, was shown to be flawed. It doesn't matter so much that there is no theoretical model, there is no satisfactory model for quantum mechanics either, just a lot of speculation and multiple interpretations. But the difference is that QM WORKS. Even if ONE person could be proved to have precognitive abilities it would be enough, but it hasn't happened.
Quote from: Joe on Apr 06, 06:33 AM 2019no satisfactory model for quantum mechanics
Try it with Schrödinger's differential equation.
Maths ist the
exactest language.
Herby, a mathematical formulation isn't an explanation. There is no agreed explanation of why QM works or what it "means".
Quote from: Joe on Apr 06, 06:33 AM 2019
I'm not denying the possibility of precognition, but I'm skeptical. You say look at your results on MPR, and sure, you're at the top, but I don't even know how the score works; what is it measuring? And there are others who also have positive scores who presumably are NOT using precognition. For a start, I need to know exactly how the scores are calculated.
There is no evidence that precognition works. The infamous study by Daryl Bem, which is what everyone cites when trying to show that precog has merit, was shown to be flawed. It doesn't matter so much that there is no theoretical model, there is no satisfactory model for quantum mechanics either, just a lot of speculation and multiple interpretations. But the difference is that QM WORKS. Even if ONE person could be proved to have precognitive abilities it would be enough, but it hasn't happened.
This is exactly what I mean. You will never accept it. You hold the belief that it is not possible and just give lip service to its possibility. This is because your high priests have yet to give you their approval that it is ok to believe in precognition.
You are seriously behind in the research if you think dr Bems results have been found to be flawed. Not only were they shown to be accurate but what ensued was exactly my original point. Since it is scientific heresy to believe in anything remotely ‘magical’ or what appears ‘supernatural’ or what does not fit well into their materialist paradigm the psychology community have found themselves in a embarrassing light. Rather than accept what is actually real, and accept the facts as they are, they instead use irrational arguments against the study.
The problem is data similar to Dr Bem findings have been reproduced time and again.
If one looks at string theory, parallel universes in 10 or 11 dimensions according to M theory or super string theory, then a lot of it has to do with our timeline and alternate time lines.
It's a very new branch of theoretical physics only extant since the 1960s and really developed in the 1990s. We only need to be able to understand how to shift, to tap into another dimension or time line for a split second. This may be done in the future by means of headsets or other devices or just the raw development of the human brain over many thousands of years.
Or we could be seeing the first beginnings now. Very difficult to say, but it's a new aspect of physics relatively unexplored.
Quote from: precogmiles on Apr 06, 12:20 PM 2019This is exactly what I mean. You will never accept it. You hold the belief that it is not possible and just give lip service to its possibility. This is because your high priests have yet to give you their approval that it is ok to believe in precognition.
The truth is that it doesn't interest me so I'm not motivated to try to find out for myself whether it's true or not. None of us have unlimited time and resources so we have to make choices and prioritize. I'm more interested in the possibility of finding a winning system because I like statistics and programming, but this possibility is also dismissed as nonsense by the "high priests" you refer to, so it's not that I'm letting them determine my choices.
It's so easy to accuse people of not having an open mind, but do you know what having an open mind means? it means being able to change your mind when the evidence shows you are wrong, and that's very hard to do especially when you've invested a lot of time and effort into your favourite theory. And when people try hard to convince you that their pet theory is the truth it just makes me think that they really doubt it and are looking for validation.
I was very skeptic about anything psychic, then I did a lot of research, I started meditating and it completely changed my opinion. I felt for myself how the magnetic energy of my body raised, I felt the invisible energy points (chakras) in my body during meditations. And I was also able to see numbers appearing on plain white surfaces when my focus was good. Sadly after many months of practice I did not have any consistency, and I could not improve my accuracy at all.
I know in this day and age videos don't prove anything. But you can check out this channel if you want link:s://:.youtube.com/user/TheRouletteWarrior/videos
They are real pros and easily live off of roulette or any casino games. They never tell you what's the best and most efficient ways to practice, because Ramtha school students have to sign a non-disclosure agreement.
Quote from: Joe on Apr 07, 05:30 AM 2019
The truth is that it doesn't interest me so I'm not motivated to try to find out for myself whether it's true or not. None of us have unlimited time and resources so we have to make choices and prioritize. I'm more interested in the possibility of finding a winning system because I like statistics and programming, but this possibility is also dismissed as nonsense by the "high priests" you refer to, so it's not that I'm letting them determine my choices.
It's so easy to accuse people of not having an open mind, but do you know what having an open mind means? it means being able to change your mind when the evidence shows you are wrong, and that's very hard to do especially when you've invested a lot of time and effort into your favourite theory. And when people try hard to convince you that their pet theory is the truth it just makes me think that they really doubt it and are looking for validation.
Do what you want. I don't care.