Probability Question

[Nickmsi]

 
I would appreciate some insight into the laws of probabilities.  Bayes, GLC, ZeroBlue, Albert, Warrior and many more have raised more questions than I have answers for.  I thank them all and many others in this forum for assisting us in bettering our game.

I am trying to determine if the following two events gives us an advantage or not.

Event #1.
The system is repeating Dozens (or Columns).  We wait for 3 consecutive numbers in the same dozen to appear.  We bet that the next spin will not be in that dozen or looking at it another way, we are betting that the dozen won’t become 4 consecutive. If we lose we continue betting consecutively that it won’t repeat 5 times, 6 times etc.

I understand that each spin is independent of each other and the odds are the same with each new spin, ie. 1 in 3 (discounting the zeros) that the dozen will repeat.

Event #2
The system is the same repeating Dozens waiting for 3 consecutive numbers in the same dozen to appear.  We then bet that the next spin will not be in that same dozen and if we lose we stop betting.  We then start retracking another 3 consecutive spins in the same dozen.  When we have another trigger of 3 consecutive numbers in same dozen we again just bet one time and if we lose we stop betting and start retracking again. 

Again, I realize that the odds are the same as Event #1, ie. 1 in 3 as each spin independent.

Event #2 is the method John Legend uses in Matrix 5 and GLC and ZeroBlue suggests in their LW registry systems.

My questions has to do more with probabilities. 

In Event #1, what are the probabilities that the 3 repeats do not consecutively become 4, that 4 do not become 5 and that 5 do not become 6 repeats.

In Event #2, what are the probabilities that a single 3 repeat do not become 4. You are always betting that 3 does not become 4.  Nothing else.

Does Event #2 have any statistical advantage over Event #1? Or are they the same?

I have a suspicion that both are the same and that Event #2 just allows you to lose over a longer period of time but would like some confirmation.  Thanks for all your help.

Nick

[ZeroBlue]

nice post nickmsi.


the odds of three dozens/columns
you will find this the same odds of a straight forward 2 dozen bet.


figure:
S=same
O=other


111 SSS - 3/27
121 SOS - 12/27
123 SOO - 6/27
112 SSO - 6/27


As you can see you can play look alike groups against other (or in favor for a one dozen bet)


SSS Vs SSO
or
SOO Vs SOS


in both cases is clear that you have always the same odds.


Same applies to play straight forward against or in favor of one group.




2nd part of the question


Isn't that a gamblers fallacy to wait for a loss as a trigger to bet?


YES it is. but it is a good one. What we should try to find is statistical anomalies to exploit and try to exit winners.
The ways I posted about filtering the lw registry and all those systems that bet on patterns work under this "faith" on lady luck of the odds.
It takes us to the so discussed hit & run strategy. It delays the inevitable. none of this will work ad eternum but it may work over a long period.


in this sense this is way so many people use a progression. is to inflate the odds.


I repeat. the cool thing on all this is to have a good knowledge of the odds and analyze the stats for it.
Then play in a window of attack. and hope the distribution is inside the most common pattern or the statistical propensity.


Zer0Blue

[ZeroBlue]

Some more insights on this...


we wait for 123
then we see 21 and we bet 1 unit in each 2 and 1 for a repeater on this dozens. We hope to win 1 unit. if we lose we lose 2 units...


if we run a simulation:

   
• how long will it take to find a formation of 123? we should get by the fixed odds 6 times in 27
• how long will take to find a formation of 123 followed by another one of the same kind 123? The answer would be 36 times in 729 or 1 in 20

So if we loose a one time for each 19 wins is not bad is it? yes it is.
we would spend in a progression 1-1 3-3 9-9 26 units
and we would achieve only theoretically 19


108 times out of 162 we would win (probably) if we bet one time 1-1 after 123 12 -->here we bet against 3 dozen to come.
see that it remains always a 1:2 bet because the wheal has no memory.


however it opens our psychological mind to face the game with a more positive energy.
and that is not all.


The more important in my opinion is that in this way you may find the distribution of the events with many more exit in profit points as you would other way if you flat bet it.


Good Luck


Zer0blue

[Colbster]

Any dozen to repeat for X number of spins have the odds of (1/3)^X.  It becomes 1/27 for 3 straight, 1/81 for 4, 1/243 for 5, and 1/729 for 6.  Since you are betting the opposite to occur, your odds will be 1 minus the odds of the repeat happening.  As an aside, if you were betting that dozen Y was not going to repeat for X spins, you would have (2/3)^X as your odds of winning consecutive bets.

With your question about waiting for the 3 repeats, you don't improve your overall odds because the spins are already etched in history.  Each next spin will have 1/3 odds, regardless of any previous results.  Your question about stopping after a loss raises an interesting aspect that is frequently ignored by the "you will lose 2.7% of everything" crowd.  A static bet (such as putting 1 unit on 3rd dozen and hitting auto-spin for 1000 spins) will lose in the long term to the house advantage.  However, when you limit your losses but allow your wins to continue, you can end up with a net mathematical advantage.

I strongly encourage you to read the introduction of my own system, The Eggleston Betting Method, at link:://rouletteforum.cc/roulette-and-gambling-framework/the-eggleston-betting-system/.  I have detailed a method of bet staking that limits losses but allows unlimited winning, ending with a solid mathematical advantage over even the American 0/00 tables.  I would welcome any ideas you might have of how to apply the staking plan, as applying it to real play systems remains a challenge, although I have had some remarkable results with even my flawed bet selection method.

[Nickmsi]

 Thanks Colbster, that is the confirmation that I was looking for.  I will now continue testing knowing that I am on the right track. 

I am currently testing out the “loss” side of the Wins & Losses and so far it is proving positive using a hit and run style.  I just play one session at a time until I hit my trigger and have won 19 consecutive games so far.

I think it makes much more sense to stop betting on a loss rather than chasing the loss with a negative progression, that is the fastest way to lose your bankroll and interest in the game. 

I have much more testing to go on the “losses” before I tackle the winning streaks side of the equation.

Thanks for the link to the Eggleston Betting Method.  I look forward to digesting the material and seeing how to apply it.


Nick

[ZeroBlue]

thanks colbster? what about me? LOL

[Colbster]

Thanks ZB! 

[Nickmsi]

Thanks ZB.  You can never say thanks enough, especially for  your thoughts on the LW Register which got me thinking in a new direction with more avenues to explore.  Nick

[ZeroBlue]

Thanks ZB.  You can never say thanks enough, especially for  your thoughts on the LW Register which got me thinking in a new direction with more avenues to explore.  Nick

i was just joking man.


plz feel free to improve it. we can share the thread. ;-)