I post this as I know there is nothing that beats this random walk.
It is as close you can get towards educated guessing.
Pick any outcome or previos three to illustrate this.
There is 8 combinations.
If you play same as the previos three you have 1/8 to lose.
If you play oppisite as the previos three you have 1/8 to lose.
So no matter what your first bet is oppisite or same - so if you first bet lose you should allways aim for the oppisite to what your first be was or we could put it like this - getting a secound chance having the odds of 1/8 - twice.
Cheers
Yes you are right Ego.
It is the shortest answer to finish an argument. At least between Ego and me.
I've lived this argument experience many times over the recent years in different languages and forums.
Endless and recurrent discussion for no purpose.
At the end, after a topic of one hundred pages it finish with two bands each defending same position as in page 1.
Futile, time wasting and nothing to gain out of it.
Let people think whatever they want. This happiness is for free.
Cheers,
Carlos.
Quote from: carpanta on Jun 18, 08:24 AM 2011
Yes you are right Ego.
It is the shortest answer to finish an argument. At least between Ego and me.
I've lived this argument experience many times over the recent years in different languages and forums.
Endless and recurrent discussion for no purpose.
At the end, after a topic of one hundred pages it finish with two bands each defending same position as in page 1.
Futile, time wasting and nothing to gain out of it.
Let people think whatever they want. This happiness is for free.
Cheers,
Carlos.
it does not mean you cant win a little money.
Do i deny that, worrior? You are right too. Money comes out of it.
Cheers,
Carlos.
Quote from: ego on Jun 18, 07:09 AM 2011
I post this as I know there is nothing that beats this random walk.
Very true, but don't read more into it than that. :-X
I am discovering that the most important thing, other than a decent system and there are plenty of them on this forum, is to "know when to hold 'em and know when to fold them". If you know what I mean.
GLC
Quote from: ego on Jun 18, 07:09 AM 2011
I post this as I know there is nothing that beats this random walk.
It is as close you can get towards educated guessing.
If you can't identify favorable conditions then that's completely understandable. I guess I was able to figure it out because there was nobody saying that it couldn't be figured out. I noticed trends on my own. I researched them on my own. I came to understand them with my own original syntax. I'm relieved actually. I'm glad that most people can't relate to them. I would expect some people to be unable to identify favorable conditions.
Now consider this. Card counters raise their bets when they discover favorable conditions. Yes, I already know there is an acceptable mathematical reason for that advantage condition. Who's to say there isn't a mathematical reason for an advantage condition based on randomness? Just because a mathematician has not come forward yet does not mean it does not exist. There almost is a mathematical science in pattern recognition and clustering analysis. It's not that far a leap to apply it to Roulette. One huge missing link though. There probably aren't any mathematicians that can beat randomness in a casino game. They can't imagine it.
I feel that is true. at least that has been my "game" after all this years.
just watch the Loss Win registry and gamble.
This is also the closest one can get to a decent holy grail!
Quote from: Gizmotron on Jun 18, 01:16 PM 2011
If you can't identify favorable conditions then that's completely understandable. I guess I was able to figure it out because there was nobody saying that it couldn't be figured out. I noticed trends on my own. I researched them on my own. I came to understand them with my own original syntax. I'm relieved actually. I'm glad that most people can't relate to them. I would expect some people to be unable to identify favorable conditions.
Now consider this. Card counters raise their bets when they discover favorable conditions. Yes, I already know there is an acceptable mathematical reason for that advantage condition. Who's to say there isn't a mathematical reason for an advantage condition based on randomness? Just because a mathematician has not come forward yet does not mean it does not exist. There almost is a mathematical science in pattern recognition and clustering analysis. It's not that far a leap to apply it to Roulette. One huge missing link though. There probably aren't any mathematicians that can beat randomness in a casino game. They can't imagine it.
How you identify what you call favorable conditions?
what identifies those? The game is constantly beating the odds...
Also there are many branches of maths.
What you mean about there almost is a mathematical science on pattern recognition...?
almost? Even a new photo digital machine you can buy at supermarket for $50 can recognize smiles or red eyes...
"Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor)[1] often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae, translating to law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness, is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects;[2] for instance, if all the hypotheses can sufficiently explain the observed data."
link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor (link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor)
So what about Markov and Bayes (XVIII century) works on this?
i would like to point out the distinction between causal and evidential modes of reasoning while observing a phenomena.
so what is the probability of decision error???
this is a nice discussion here...
I think "this" random walk can be beaten.... (this meaning Roulette)
Here is why I say so...
Roulette is man made, with people spinning balls, and people spinning the wheel. (not so random)
RNG - is man made, with software doing calculations of outcomes - (not so random)
People are not random!!!
True random is at atmospheric level (as many know and have read up on)
That's why a clever man also said - "God does not play dice with the universe" :wink:
at that level, where we cannot win.
But nothing about Roulette - is as that level...
I just think, that in time to come, someone will crack the code, because that's all it is.
We might not think so now, nor do be believe it to be possible.
500 Years ago if you said that we would be able to sit in a plane 40 000 feet cruising at the speed of sound...people would think that you are the village i d i o t.
NASA's supercomputer predicted a cyclone 5 days in advance....
Food for thought...
There's been a lot of interest lately in 'random vs random' type systems, the premise being that if you bet some kind of 'artificial' random sequence, or bet against the previous spins repeating exactly, etc etc, then you will get some kind of advantage.
It isn't hard to see the flaw in this logic, and it's the same fallacy that many lottery players commit; choosing a combination of numbers which when arranged in numerically increasing order seem somehow 'more random' than other sequences. Thus, it seems more random (and thus more advantageous, because lottery outcomes are random) to pick a sequence like 7,13,24,29,31,44 rather than 1,2,3,4,5,6, even though the odds of the outcome being the latter are exactly the same as the former.
Actually there are good reasons for picking certain combinations in the lottery which don't apply to roulette, but in terms of the probability of a win, the maths is the same.
There seems to be some assumption that outcomes have degrees of randomness, and that 'more' randomness is better. But this is absurd, if you think about it. For one thing, randomness isn't a property or attribute inherent in the ball and wheel, it's rather a function of your own knowledge regarding how the outcomes are generated, and the factors which affect them. For example, if you are an advantage player you will be looking at just these factors to determine which are the best wheels to play and which conditions are favourable; the average guy who is there for a night's entertainment has no clue about any of this, so to him, every wheel is equally 'random'.
Randomness is not 'out there' in the world, it isn't objective, but subjective and varies according to your knowledge.
So, assuming that no system players are interested in the physics of the game, but regard all wheels as uniformly random, in other words, each outcome is equally likely, then how can it make sense to assign some outcomes and sequences as more 'random' than others?
The only advantage I see in using the 'random vs random' approach is a psychological one. That is, if you're the type of player who believes that some event must happen, and stubbornly chases it until your bankroll has gone, then you might benefit from the 'random' method. At least then, if you lose heavily, you can't blame yourself for sticking to a plan beyond the point at which it seemed to be working. Just remember that there is no actual advantage, in terms of winning and losing.
Quote from: ego on Jun 18, 07:09 AM 2011
I post this as I know there is nothing that beats this random walk.
It is as close you can get towards educated guessing.
Pick any outcome or previos three to illustrate this.
There is 8 combinations.
If you play same as the previos three you have 1/8 to lose.
If you play oppisite as the previos three you have 1/8 to lose.
So no matter what your first bet is oppisite or same - so if you first bet lose you should allways aim for the oppisite to what your first be was or we could put it like this - getting a secound chance having the odds of 1/8 - twice.
Cheers
i am sorry things went slightly off-topic on my last post. this is indeed a subject that lurks my attention.
@ Ego,
For having the odds of 1/8
one must make 3 consecutive bets
2X2X2
It wasn't clear what you suggested.
THIS
(odd/even)
[reveal]
36
36
28
6
17
33
13
24
25
6
8
23
17 | 27
36
23
36
32
34
29
23
33
7
30
10
34
| 29
5
20
20
17
23
8
12
10
33
11
23
7
|
S O S
S O O -->Bet against above (O) and lose Then Bet Same as above (O) and Win (stop)
S O S -->Bet against above (O) and lose Then Bet Same as above (O) and Win (stop)
O S O -->Bet against above (O) and Win (stop)
S S S -->Bet against above (S) and Win (stop)
S O O -->Bet against above (O) and lose Then Bet Same as above (S) and lose,bet (O).LLW
O S S -->Bet against above (O) and Win (stop)
O S S -->Bet against above (S) and lose Then Bet Same as above (S) and Win (stop)
O S O -->Bet against above (S) and lose Then Bet Same as above (S) and Win (stop)
S O S -->Bet against above (S) and Win (stop)
O S S -->Bet against above (O) and Win (stop)
S S S -->Bet against above (S) and Win (stop)
|
[/reveal]
OR THIS #2
(odd/even)
[reveal]
36
36
28
6
17
33
13
24
25
6
8
23
17 | 27
36
23
36
32
34
29
23
33
7
30
10
34
| 29
5
20
20
17
23
8
12
10
33
11
23
7
|
S O S
S O O -->Bet same as above (S) and Win (stop)
S O S -->Bet same as above (S) and Win (stop)
O S O -->Bet same as above (S) and lose, then bet against above (S) and Win (stop)
S S S -->Bet same as above (O) and lose, then bet against above (O) and lose, Bet (O).LLL
S O O
O S S
O S S
O S O
S O S
O S S
S S S
|
[/reveal]
OR THIS #3:
[reveal]
36
36
28
6
17
33
13
24
25
6
8
23
17 | 27
36
23
36
32
34
29
23
33
7
30
10
34
| 29
5
20
20
17
23
8
12
10
33
11
23
7
|
S O S
S O O -->it is Same as above so bet Against and lose, bet Against again and Win
S O S -->it is Same as above so bet Against and lose, bet Against again and Win
O S O -->it is Opposite as above so bet Same as above and lose, bet Same again and lose
S S S -->it is Opposite as above so bet Same and Win
S O O -->it is same as above so bet Against and Win
O S S -->it is Opposite as above so bet Same as above and lose, bet Same again and lose
O S S -->it is Same as above so bet Against and lose, bet Against and lose
O S O
S O S
O S S
S S S |
[/reveal]
We all look at our records aiming to identify some trend according to which we make our next bets, but this all is nonsense as randomness has no trend! I completely agree with ego!
Quote from: Playborne on Jun 22, 06:15 AM 2011
We all look at our records aiming to identify some trend according to which we make our next bets, but this all is nonsense as randomness has no trend! I completely agree with ego!
trend? Ego is observing that you have 1/8 chances of loosing if you follow that random walk...
This is the fixed probability 1:8, so we can not change it!
as for the trend, I mean any trend of numbers coming out - unless the wheel is biased, we can not identify any.
Quote from: Playborne on Jun 22, 06:25 AM 2011
This is the fixed probability 1:8, so we can not change it!
as for the trend, I mean any trend of numbers coming out - unless the wheel is biased, we can not identify any.
no you can not. you are wright. i will stay away from the discussion on bias.
The point here being made is how to achieve 1/8 odds of loosing instead of 1/2.
Can you add to that?
If I knew that I'd have nothing to do here LOL :D
If I had to make a choice, I would go with Gizmo rather than ego.
Trends do occur, regardless of the cause. This has to happen (and can be proved mathematically), the only issue is knowing when they will begin and end. ;D
On the other hand, how can a 'random walk' give an advantage when played against another random walk? I just don't see the connection.
Quote from: Playborne on Jun 22, 06:32 AM 2011
If I knew that I'd have nothing to do here LoL :D
C'mon man!!!
it is not a fight it is an healthy exchange of ideas. do not fall back as "everyone is invited".
please...
;)
Quote from: Bayes on Jun 22, 06:37 AM 2011
If I had to make a choice, I would go with Gizmo rather than ego.
Trends do occur, regardless of the cause. This has to happen (and can be proved mathematically), the only issue is knowing when they will begin and end. ;D
On the other hand, how can a 'random walk' give an advantage when played against another random walk? I just don't see the connection.
Good point Bayes.
two things:
1st: May you explain how to achieve 1/8 odds?
2nd: Assuming trends occur, how to denny
that a random pattern given by the comparison against its previous outcomes (in the example 3)
is hard to repeat exactly in the next 3 spins?
we never know when they will occur, so it doesn't change anything .. We can never beat roulette in the long run, so why not just get used to it ?
As for the fight :D I just joked , it'd be better if you called for some humor mate :)
Quote from: ZeroBlue on Jun 22, 06:43 AM 2011
Good point Bayes.
two things:
1st: May you explain how to achieve 1/8 odds?
2nd: Assuming trends occur, how to denny
that a random pattern given by the comparison against its previous outcomes (in the example 3)
is hard to repeat exactly in the next 3 spins?
1st: I don't understand the question, ego has already shown how to do it: bet against the last 3 outcomes.
2nd: It may be hard to repeat, but it's no harder than any other pattern of 3.
Quote from: Playborne on Jun 22, 06:45 AM 2011
We never know when they will occur, so it doesn't change anything
Not quite. You can tip the odds slightly in your favour and take advantage of the clumping effect. I don't like having to admit this, but it's not what you'd call a 'mechanical' method, although in principle it could be.
Quote from: Bayes on Jun 22, 07:21 AM 2011
2nd: It may be hard to repeat, but it's no harder than any other pattern of 3.
OK
the matter is whether it will repeat itself inside a window or not.
how can one perform an analyses in that conditions?
Quote from: Bayes on Jun 22, 07:27 AM 2011
You can tip the odds slightly in your favour and take advantage of the clumping effect.
I agree 100% with this.
Quote from: Bayes on Jun 22, 06:37 AM 2011
Trends do occur, regardless of the cause. This has to happen (and can be proved mathematically), the only issue is knowing when they will begin and end. ;D
That will always be the $64 dollar question! Gizmotron talks about the three states.
1) Something is working well.
2) It is treading water.
3) It is not working.
I find this to be a good way of looking at things. It just means sitting out spins when it is obvious to me that something is not firing on all cylinders.
Quote from: ego on Jun 18, 07:09 AM 2011
I post this as I know there is nothing that beats this random walk.
It is as close you can get towards educated guessing.
Pick any outcome or previos three to illustrate this.
There is 8 combinations.
If you play same as the previos three you have 1/8 to lose.
If you play oppisite as the previos three you have 1/8 to lose.
So no matter what your first bet is oppisite or same - so if you first bet lose you should allways aim for the oppisite to what your first be was or we could put it like this - getting a secound chance having the odds of 1/8 - twice.
Cheers
i am sorry things went slightly off-topic on my last post. this is indeed a subject that lurks my attention.
@ Ego,
For having the odds of 1/8
one must make 3 consecutive bets
2X2X2
It wasn't clear what you suggested.
THIS
(odd/even)
[reveal]
36
36
28
6
17
33
13
24
25
6
8
23
17 | 27
36
23
36
32
34
29
23
33
7
30
10
34
| 29
5
20
20
17
23
8
12
10
33
11
23
7
|
S O S
S O O -->Bet Other (O) and Loose Then Bet Same (S) and Win (stop)
S O S -->Bet Other (O) and Loose Then Bet Same (S) and Win (stop)
O S O -->Bet Other (O) and Win (stop)
S S S -->Bet Other and Win (stop)
S O O -->Bet Other and Loose, then bet Same and Loose, then bet Other and Win
O S S -->Bet Other and Win (stop)
O S S -->Bet Other (O) and Loose Then Bet Same (S) and Win (stop)
O S O -->Bet Other (O) and Loose Then Bet Same (S) and Win (stop)
S O S -->Bet Other and Win (stop)
O S S -->Bet Other and Win (stop)
S S S -->Bet Other and Win (stop)
|
[/reveal]
OR THIS:
[reveal]
36
36
28
6
17
33
13
24
25
6
8
23
17 | 27
36
23
36
32
34
29
23
33
7
30
10
34
| 29
5
20
20
17
23
8
12
10
33
11
23
7
|
S O S
S O O -->it is Same as above so bet Against and Loose, bet Against again and Win
S O S -->it is Same as above so bet Against and Loose, bet Against again and Win
O S O -->it is Opposite as above so bet Same as above and Loose, bet Same again and Loose
S S S
S O O
O S S
O S S
O S O
S O S
O S S
S S S |
[/reveal]
When we wait for the first spin to show us either same or opposite of the past 3 spins, our first result is cast in stone. We now only have 1/4 chance of losing (1/2)^2, or 1/8th twice like you said. The odds have not changed in our favor, we are just betting for or against a shorter pattern. This doesn't stop me from enjoying playing like this sometimes, but it doesn't have a mathmatical edge.
Quote from: Colbster on Jul 14, 11:44 AM 2011
When we wait for the first spin to show us either same or opposite of the past 3 spins, our first result is cast in stone. We now only have 1/4 chance of losing (1/2)^2, or 1/8th twice like you said. The odds have not changed in our favor, we are just betting for or against a shorter pattern. This doesn't stop me from enjoying playing like this sometimes, but it doesn't have a mathmatical edge.
dear Colbster,
There is a nice discussion on this mathematical edge running on this thread:
link:://rouletteforum.cc/general-discussion/probability-question/msg62309/#msg62309 (link:://rouletteforum.cc/general-discussion/probability-question/msg62309/#msg62309)
it would be nice to have your contribution.
;)