This question was not originally mine. Another poster brought it up and I was thinking about this all day.
If your method is somehow based on probability (back to definitions again), would that be the same as gamblers fallacy/due?
Ken
A problem with probability is it leads to the House's edge.
Ron.
Offcourse Ken,
Probability says that a single number should appear once in 37 spins in roulette but it doesn't happen practically. What is right by probability is wrong by randomness. Roulette is more about randomness than probabilities. Playing roulette with probability is gambler's fallacy.
I think if your look at probability in short and long term gives you the chance to make an educated guess, your bet will have a better chance than watching 5 red and betting black because it has to appear now.
br
winkel
A big question is, what is a method based on probability?
Let's have two methods to win one unit with five units bankroll, both are based on probability:
method 1: bet 1 unit on five lines, we cover 5*6 numbers.
Probability to win is p(method 1 wins) = 5*6/37=0.810810.
method 2: bet 1 unit on even chance, if it loses bet 1 unit on dozen, if that also loses bet last 3 units on even chance. Anytime it wins, profit will be 1 unit, while still risking 5 units bankroll like with method 1. Probability is different:
p(method 2 wins) = 18/37+19/37*12/37+19/37*25/37*18/37 = 0.821826
method 2 is better than method 1
Both methods are based on probability, but one of them has higher chance of winning. Conclusion - method based on probability is not always gamblers fallacy.
Nice explanations. Waiting for Bayes to comment too.
Quote from: mr. ore link=topic=4528. msg43933#msg43933 date=1301077800
Both methods are based on probability, but one of them has higher chance of winning. Conclusion - method based on probability is not always gamblers fallacy.
True, but they both fail under house edge in the end. So second method will only lose less in the long run, but it will still lose.
I think, a better question is: "Can mathematical knowlege and understanding of probability really help to make a winning method?" I think not.
Regards
What method do you use RBR7?
Ken
Quote from: MrJ link=topic=4528. msg43977#msg43977 date=1301097639
What method do you use RBR7?
Ken
I don't use any method, since I stop playing for real. You see I don't belive that it is worth playing, if you don't have a method that it is confirmed by simulation on different permenences (I prefer at least several 100 thousand placed bets simulation on real numbers). Every method did fail simulations in the past.
People get excited to quickly and when simulation show the reality they just don't want to except it.
Anyway, I prefer the most logical and flat betting method on single numbers in intervals of 4-6 spins with step up progression when 2 hits in a row doesn't alow breaking even anymore.
Regards
There can be only one method which can get edge over this game. Shuffling numbers and a very mild and sensible progression wherever required.
Quote from: albalaha link=topic=4528. msg43985#msg43985 date=1301106362
There can be only one method which can get edge over this game. Shuffling numbers and a very mild and sensible progression wherever required.
That is not true. Progression will not give you and edge in a long run (it will just change the ration of w/l) and you will only losing lesser times, but when you will you will lose more and in the end it will balanced. Result will be exactly the same as flat betting all the way.
Shuffling will also not change the game, because that is just random against random in it is proven not to work. Getting and edge is not easy and without computer simulation is not very belivable either. There is not been any scientific proof in any forum by now. . . . . . it is ussualy lack of testing that mislead people when they make claims like that.
Regards
Dear RBR7,
If you think that neither any progression, nor flat betting can get any edge in this game, leave gambling forever. Computer simulations does not guarantee anything and in no way it helps in winning or predicting future outcomes.
There are two popular adages about statistics:
1. Statistics can prove anything;
2. Statistics proves nothing.
"Progression will not give you an edge" >>> An 'edge'......Hmmm
Ken
Quote from: albalaha link=topic=4528. msg43991#msg43991 date=1301107861
Dear RBR7,
If you think that neither any progression, nor flat betting can get any edge in this game, leave gambling forever. Computer simulations does not guarantee anything and in no way it helps in winning or predicting future outcomes.
There are two popular adages about statistics:
1. Statistics can prove anything;
2. Statistics proves nothing.
I just expresed my opinion to which im entilted too and I did leave gambling as said already in previous posts. Statistic do prove everything and computer simulations (on real spins) do tell how good is your system. The only thing that can (if) give you the edge is bet selection. And only bet selection is IMO worth exploring.
Im sorry this is just my view of reality (it wasnt always like that) about roulette systems and just because some ppl think that have and edge (because they get it back what the lost in the beginning) and claim that system is done that, I just cant agree. The only real proof is enough placed flat bets and that cant be done by hand testing.
Regards
Dear RBR7,
I am not questioning your knowledge or intelligence about the game called roulette but so far in all my researches I have found that no flat betting method can sustain for long. Sensible progression coupled with a stop loss point had worked best for me. I am having a constant watch over Don Colonne's flat betting method which seems to be very logical. Roulette is a form of gambling and speculation. You can just play it intelligently but can't ensure anything. No risk, no gain.
No system can win forever, that is proved. But we still can play for a long time, having fun. So far best seems progression in risk only, flat betting one unit. It has same expectation as flat betting even chance, but we need some progression to have a chance of winning mid-term. Progression in risk is a good compromise if we want to play, but not to lose so fast.
Both positive and negative progression can be done this way. After winning on line, try some corners and streets, and if they wins more than expected, try splits or even a number for few spins, if it repeats, it is a nice positive progression win, and nobody says it can't go for a long time.
Negative progression can also be done, after losing on dozen, play sixlines, then corners, and so on, and if something hits, go back, continue this style until recoup.
If it is not hitting, then as a defense mechanism, play even chance for a few spins. I usually track a dozen and if it is not hitting, I play low/high shared with that dozen, and when it hits, I try to play repeating lines, corners or streets, if it does not work, back to even chance.
It might get to struggle, and losing slowly without any happy hits, then I usually stop, there is no point going against wheel. It might theoretically happen everytime I play, but so far it usually works for some time.
So I think that some progression is necessary, and it is good to have one.
My Friends the real question is not Re: probability v radomness but the extent to which either the sofware used by the gambling site or computerised land based wheel is rigged....is there any non-computer based brick/mortar casino out there?
Quote from: RantRF on Dec 10, 10:28 PM 2011
is there any non-computer based brick/mortar casino out there?
:.dublinbet.com (link:://:.dublinbet.com)
Bonafide results from an actual land-based casino table with actual patrons :)
Where is your head....my evidence tells me they are rigged...Have you ever visited them in ireland and observe how they are altering the computer linked controls based on the bets?
I say you're dead wrong. Do you mean cheating the bettors that are actually THERE playing or the on-line players? Can you be more specific.
Ken
"Probability says that a single number should appear once in 37 spins in roulette but it doesn't happen practically."
I noticed the same, it might sleep longer, but chosing this as a key component for your system is gambler's fallacy, because the number might as well repeat or appear quicker.
I estimate "gambler's fallacy" being a false impression on the game odds, and trust me, there's a TONS of things to take into account to get precise probabilities.
I have no issue with this as long as the SAME definition is for all. Meaning, even the AP crew say they need to look at a couple spins (numbers) to possibly spot a bias/tilt (cough). These are the SAME people that say, even if you observe *ONE* past number (and base that on FUTURE bets), its called 'gamblers fallacy'.
Ken
Just for the record, no AP players would start betting on something after 2 spins. 2 spins could indicate where an analysis could begin but even that, is not likely. If the "zero" pocket was twice the size as the rest of the pockets, it would indicate that zero might kick out in appearances but only a proper analysis would confirm that.
If zero was estimated to be biased and it also kicked out with 3 - 4 SD, the "True" probability for a real bias would be extremely high. Compared to just watching numbers looking for a random 3 SD kick out.
The real reason for betting zero would be:
1. The visual look.
2. The analysis that confirms the look.
Not because it appears hot (watching for a random +3 SD) or a sleeper (watching for a random -3 SD).
It all can be transferred to VB where the issue might be that the ball keeps hitting 2 specific diamonds when it drops. Which means that you have the rotor position "locked" when you place your bets.
J, i don`t expect you to be willing to understand it since its what you have been fighting against the last 4 years on the boards. Even if you deep down understood the argumentation you would never admit it.