random beats random?

[Rewster88]

Hello guys,

There was a guy on some other forum claiming that he beats rondom ec with random bets , and plays every spin, and wins every time again!? Any idea what this could be?

Grtz R

[iggiv]

with random bets on a long run you will break even minus house edge

[Chris555p]

Anyone can claims anything concerning roulette.....; Therefore I only believe what I see with my own eyes
as far as roulette is concerned......

[ego]

You can test that if you want.
Just enter 1 and 2 and get your random file from random org.

You shorter sequense you use with oppisite and same - more varaince.
If you pick and compare 6,7 or 10 trails you might get a working method.

What is true and what is false.
The outcome is a 50/50 situation no matter what combination you use, but there is a conflict towards this.

For example for discussion:

"Regression toward the mean simply says that, following an extreme random event, the next random event is likely to be less extreme. In no sense does the future event "compensate for" or "even out" the previous event, though this is assumed in the gambler's fallacy (and variant law of averages). Similarly, the law of large numbers states that in the long term, the average will tend towards the expected value, but makes no statement about individual trials. For example, following a run of 10 heads on a flip of a fair coin (a rare, extreme event), regression to the mean states that the next run of heads will likely be less than 10, while the law of large numbers states that in the long term, this event will likely average out, and the average fraction of heads will tend to 1/2. By contrast, the gambler's fallacy incorrectly assumes that the coin is now "due" for a run of tails, to balance out."

This mean i can pick any 10 random events as they have the same probability as 10 straight events or 10 red or 10 black in a row.
So i can pick any 10 random events and compare them with 10 future events and my expectation should be there will be change present, same probability.
This means that i would not get 10 same or 10 oppisite.

I test this and got pretty good LW-Registry using random against random.
LWLWWLWWWW LLL WWWLWWLLWWLWWLWLWWWWLLWWWWWWLWLWWLWW LLL LWWLW

cheers

[ddarko]

@ ego

why do you get random.org numbers to test, when you won't be playing against them at the casino ?

[ego]

@ ego

why do you get random.org numbers to test, when you won't be playing against them at the casino ?

Because when i walk into a casino i want to know what my expectation are - after testing a specific method - using random org.
Random org is pure random numbers, not RNG or pesudo random numbers using algorithm.
Random org is based upon noise and are True Random Number Generated = TRNG and are the same thing as my roulette wheel at home playing red and black.
The spins of my roulette wheel or in the casino are slow and don't allow numbers for testing as it would take weeks.
With random org i can get 100.000 trails each day.

[ddarko]

Random org is based upon noise and are True Random Number Generated = TRNG and are the same thing as my roulette wheel at home playing red and black.

I guess this is were we disagree, if your testing a car for diesel emissions why test a petrol car ?

Although it would take longer why not download RX spins from a German casino & test that way ?

Either way, thanks for the reply.

[Turner]

I would agree with ddarko 30 years ago when wheels could be biased but today...wheel balance and testing of wheel output creats random and I agree with ego.
Having said that...if I test a million spins from casino and a million from rand.org....the extremes are higher on rand.org. like 19 reds in a row vs 24....4 of same number vs 5 or 6.

[RouletteGhost]

I like the random bets concept for double dozens

[iggiv]

by the way it is very possible what you think is random bet will be bet with certain pattern. It is very natural for human to fall into patterns even though he may think his choice is random. That's human nature to go by patterns. And roulette kills any pattern of that kind.

[ddarko]

Having said that...if I test a million spins from casino and a million from rand.org....the extremes are higher on rand.org. like 19 reds in a row vs 24....4 of same number vs 5 or 6.

So, erm.... they are not the same then ?

[ego]

 A roulette wheel is a random machine and red and black is 50/50 and random org is the same, when testing even money bets.
The only reason i can think of, that some one would say that random org is more extreme, is the following:

When you test you test large amounts of trails and when you play you only see a small sample of trails.
This means that you will notice extreme events more common when testing as you use larger samples of trails.

My opinion.

[ego]

by the way it is very possible what you think is random bet will be bet with certain pattern. It is very natural for human to fall into patterns even though he may think his choice is random. That's human nature to go by patterns. And roulette kills any pattern of that kind.

What does random against random mean?

I get RBBRBRBBRR

Then i have to compare that random sequense with the future!

I get RRBBRBBBBR

Then if i am goint to compare two random sequenses, then i have to use "oppisite" and "same".

RBBRBRBBRR
RRBBRBBBBR
SOSOOOSSOS

What happns now?

One thing that has been mention is that we use patterns, then there is no point playing random aginst random?
The only thing happen is that you get more action more bets.

So what does it mean to play random against random?

If i see oppisite and play same, then it is random.
As the past sequense is random and the future sequense is random.

Is there any probability into this?
Yes if i use the three last random results and play against them or with them.
Then i have 7 against 1 for each attack.

But with does odds, then is no better then any other method that is not random against random.
Like pattern breaker.
Same odds and same probability.

This is the solution if you are going to play random against random:


"Regression toward the mean simply says that, following an extreme random event, the next random event is likely to be less extreme. In no sense does the future event "compensate for" or "even out" the previous event, though this is assumed in the gambler's fallacy (and variant law of averages). Similarly, the law of large numbers states that in the long term, the average will tend towards the expected value, but makes no statement about individual trials. For example, following a run of 10 heads on a flip of a fair coin (a rare, extreme event), regression to the mean states that the next run of heads will likely be less than 10, while the law of large numbers states that in the long term, this event will likely average out, and the average fraction of heads will tend to 1/2. By contrast, the gambler's fallacy incorrectly assumes that the coin is now "due" for a run of tails, to balance out."

[Turner]

@ Ddarko. I trust rand.org to test....thats what I meant. The tests I did were far from conclusive.

@ Ego. The problem is though.....do you play for RTM and look for the under-represented event or play for trend and look for the over- represented event.
Its 50:50 based on your belief.

[ego]

 Good question Turner.
I not sure - that is my answer and i have been testing many hundred tousen trails using simulation software for RTM.
But the feeling that you have math and probaility on your side using RTM - makes you feel better ....