Riding The Waves of Fluctuation

[Spike!]

I'm convinced that fluctuation is what we play against, not the house edge. Master recognizing when the variance changes and you'll master the game. You can't change it, but you can learn to steer your way thru it like a ship with radar. Variance can be our friend or our enemy. Isn't that what a progression really does, it rides the negative variance until it ends. The problem is, we never know how long it will last and a progression often hurts more than helps. Most players can't recognize negative variance until its too late. Most players just plug right along, no matter what the variance is doing and hope for the best.

Players use mechanical systems and have no idea what the variance is doing. The system just bulls its way forward and if its a good day, you win. Mostly you lose. Paying attention to the variance is too much work, when people gamble they want to have fun, not work. Adapting your bets spin to spin to match current conditions, is the way to beat roulette. The idea is not to go with a stiff betting plan and die with it, but adapt and evaluate the situation as the session develops.

[Steve]

Everything, including so-called "random" roulette spins is ultimately a wave within a wave within a wave within a wave etc. I do believe it can be predicted. But actually achieving it is a different story. I personally plan to focus more attention on these possibilities around the start of next year.

[Spike!]

"random" roulette spins is ultimately a wave within a wave>>>

I've heard of this but don't understand how it works.

[Jean-Claud]

nice post spike

[mistarlupo]

I'm convinced that fluctuation is what we play against, not the house edge.

Absolutely. I've said that before -- even with a small edge, most of those we see in the casino will still lose.

[Noble Savage]

True. Even with a huge edge you can still lose without proper money management.

I think Kelly once mentioned a VB player who had a huge edge but went bankrupt because he didn't use proper money management.

If you have 20% edge on the even chances and bet over 20% of your capital with each bet, there is a chance you will go bankrupt.

The KC is the most optimal bet you can ever place. Betting over it creates a Risk of Ruin, betting below it grows your capital slower than it could.

Flat betting is ok if you have an edge but it's not the best (contrary to what Spike says) since it grows your capital MUCH slower than % betting.

If you want to see this for yourself, I highly recommend writing spreadsheets/simulations to test different performances of different betting plans on different edges.

[Noble Savage]

Everything, including so-called "random" roulette spins is ultimately a wave within a wave within a wave within a wave etc.

Yes, that is because random walks are fractal / self-similar in nature.

I do believe it can be predicted.

I used to believe that too not too long ago. Further investigation proved otherwise.

The answer is: not really. By definition it is unpredictable. If it were predictable it is no longer what it is: random. Its suddenly becoming predictable in nature would turn a lot of things upside down. True randomness is real and necessary in the universe.

[gizmotron]

The KC is the most optimal bet you can ever place. Betting over it creates a Risk of Ruin, betting below it grows your capital slower than it could.

So I must have missed something somewhere. What's "KC?"

[Noble Savage]

The famous Kelly Criterion.

Grab a copy of W. Poundstone's Fortune's Formula for a fun informative read on KC and money management.

[gizmotron]

What a cool thing to know. I've always wondered what percentage of bankroll was most advantageous.

"If the edge is negative (b < q/p) the formula gives a negative result, indicating that the gambler should take the other side of the bet. For example, in standard American roulette, the bettor is offered an even money payoff (b = 1) on red, when there are 18 red numbers and 20 non-red numbers on the wheel (p = 18/38). The Kelly bet is -1/19, meaning the gambler should bet one-nineteenth of the bankroll that red will not come up. Unfortunately, the casino doesn't allow betting against red, so a Kelly gambler could not bet."

The odds mean nothing to the person that times their strategy to parallel what is currently happening. It's possible to ride the global effect of the current state. If that person is willing to change as the current state changes that is. But then, that brings the Kelly criterion back into the positive condition. This opens an entire field for me. I need to create a valuation for the current state advantage statistic for determining the current state's percentage of advantage. I know the current states and the global effect when it occurs. Now there is a need to apply numbers to that so that I can use this Kelly criterion formula on it. I might as well give it a name. It's a concept for each spin's current advantage state. So each spin has it's own individual  Kelly criterion type percentage of bankroll ratio. So it's a kind of current state KC ratio In the end it would be wise to have a few different ratios pre-decided. Like 20% of your bankroll for high advantage states and minimum or nothing for low advantage states.

I need to study this idea of using so much of your bankroll.

[Steve]

A good start to understanding the "wave within a wave" principles: nolinks.genuinewinner.com/waves.pdf

Also "Living Energies" by Callum Coats. I dont have all the answers and cant accurately predict ECs, but have succeeded in applying part of the principles to real spins with sector predictions.

[Spike!]

If it were predictable it is no longer what it is: random.>>>

Thats just not correct. Truly TRUE random, like that from decaying radioactive material, has no definable or repeating patterns. The random from a roulette wheel obviously does, even a newbie can see them. So there must stages of true random, from crude to advanced. I've seen the radioactive advanced random, expressed in 1's and 2's. Its jibberish.

[Spike!]

The famous Kelly Criterion.>>>

If you have a very small edge, the KC is OK. If you have a larger edge, the same thing can be accomplished by raising your bet appropriately on a session to session basis.

>>Grab a copy of W. Poundstone's Fortune's Formula>>

You can learn more on Wikipedia about the KC than from this book. Poundstone has no idea how to write a book thats not a slapped together mess.

[gizmotron]

A good start to understanding the "wave within a wave" principles: nolinks.genuinewinner.com/waves.pdf

Also "Living Energies" by Callum Coats. I dont have all the answers and cant accurately predict ECs, but have succeeded in applying part of the principles to real spins with sector predictions.

I'm sorry Steve but that waves.pdf is not a good start. It's political, it's a broad brush job of it applying to everything in the spectrum. It's vague as it applies to Roulette. I would suggest reading the entire library at Alexandria and then digesting that for visiting Martians. After that come up with a solution for stopping the progressives from starting the next civil war. And last but not least redefine the meaning of life. Then you will be ready to talk about waves and Roulette.


How about a well written description of what that waves.pdf means to you and how that applies to Roulette?

[Noble Savage]

I second what Gizmo just said.

If you have a very small edge, the KC is OK. If you have a larger edge, the same thing can be accomplished by raising your bet appropriately on a session to session basis.

That's wrong. I can show proof.

You can learn more on Wikipedia about the KC than from this book. Poundstone has no idea how to write a book thats not a slapped together mess.

Well sure, if all you want is the formula and the math behind it.

As many others agree, the book contains entertaining and informative stories around the KC and its use in the real world by real people who made real money.

If it were predictable it is no longer what it is: random.>>>

Thats just not correct.

Yes it is and you can't prove otherwise (which makes it pointless).

Randomness is unpredictable, if it were even slightly predictable we wouldn't call it "randomness".

Truly TRUE random, like that from decaying radioactive material, has no definable or repeating patterns. The random from a roulette wheel obviously does, even a newbie can see them. So there must stages of true random, from crude to advanced. I've seen the radioactive advanced random, expressed in 1's and 2's. Its jibberish.

Nonsense.

Coin flips, Red/Black roulette outcomes, atmospheric noise (Random.org), or radioactive decay. These are all random processes where "the occurrence of one event makes it neither more nor less probable that the other occurs". No one is more"jibberish" than the other.

[Noble Savage]

-