It never ceases to amaze me how often I hear the words:
"Gambler's Fallacy", thrown around on roulette forums.
Of course you will all have heard this 'fact' ad nauseam, namely that:
"No event IS ever due.."
However, What you perhaps wont be aware of is the equally important:
"Gambler's Paradox" (copyright 2010 (c) Dyksexlic Inc. All Rights Reserved. )
The gambler's paradox clearly states that -
"All events ARE always due..!"
In other words, all events are equally due to appear,
Just as all events are equally due NOT to appear.
Take your time.
;)
Actually, I agree, all events are due, what you don't know (and can't ever know) is WHEN they are due. That's the true meaning of the gambler's fallacy.
It seems to be a paradox that probability predicts that all numbers, streets, dozens, whatever will hit within certain boundaries, and yet nothing is ever due. The paradox disappears when you realise that probability works within the 'long-run' framework. It doesn't work in the time you're actually at the tables, there is no return to balance that you can take advantage of in the short term. Events have all the time in the world to 'catch up', and in the meantime the house edge is nibbling away at your profits.
You have to get an edge to win, math and statistics don't give you an edge. But they work wonders AFTER the event.
The 'due' debate. Thats why I made a list of posters in the last two weeks for a quick reference guide. Thats also why I ask SPECIFIC questions GEARED towards due or not due. It sends me off a cliff.... some examples, '2 hit numbers will turn into 3 hit numbers, its due'. A month later, same poster, different topic....'nothing is ever due in ANY MANNER, regardless of the past'. Christ almighty, pick and choose ONE please! Ken
Mr. J.
It's because you're not comprehending what people are saying.
Quote"All events ARE always due..!"
QuoteJust as all events are equally due NOT to appear.
I say that Gambler's Paradox does exist.
Here's my proof.
Looking back a few years ago we had a member called Dyksexlic who caused quite a stir.
Some loved him but most despised him cuz of his arrogance.
He was banned and told not to retrun.
Looking at the Paradox which states he could return as well as not return.
Well guess what .... he's returned.
Hence the Paradox is true.
Now if playing roulette were so easy.
TTT
"It's because you're not comprehending what people are saying" >>> Wrong answer Herb. You can not say numbers are DUE in one situation but in another sentence say....numbers are NEVER due under any circumstance. You cant have both. Ken
Every spin outcome is simply cause and effect. By understanding the relationship between cause and effect, you can predict spin outcomes, often with enough accuracy to overcome the unfair payouts (house edge).
Nothing is "due" as in there is a sequence of events to unfold, unless you look at the alignment of variables which ultimately determine where the ball lands. It's like saying you can drop a ball, and because of gravity, it is DUE to fall. Sure it will fall, and the cause is gravity. The effect is the falling of the ball.
Nothing happens without a reason, or more accurately without "cause". Nothing is ever random - there is always an element of predictability. It's more a question of whether or not you can use the available data to forecast spin results.
A number that has hit twice is due to hit a third time, but it might not hit for 100 spins or more, and another number that had not hit at all might hit three times in a row and overtake your selected number. And your number that had hit twice might have hit once just before you arrived so it had already hit 3 times when you thought it had only hit twice, so on and so on.
The only thing that is due is everything, hence the paradox holds true, and is unbettable.
If you plugged the probability of an event into an equation to forecast the frequency at which an event occurs, with any non-zero probability, an event will occur if the time is unlimited. We just dont know WHEN it will occur. I guess that's just the mathematical way of saying what you just said Bombus.
The problem is can we predict what event and when an event will occur. We can on the real wheel - there are many methods that do this.
But as for a completely different approach, I still believe information such as nolinks.genuinewinner.com/waves.pdf (nolinks://nolinks.genuinewinner.com/waves.pdf) or precognition is the best direction. Players try all kinds of things with progression when it doesnt help at all. And they try to figure out and work with patterns that dont exist. At least what I've mentioned here it nuts and bolts. But it's just not as easy to do. If people focused on trying new things rather than the same old junk, more progress would be made. But saying that over years proved to be like beating a dead horse.
Mr. J,
I can't tell if you're being mentally lazy or if you're just trying to be contrary.
:sarcastic: So after reading 2,000 of my posts, you dont know 'which side' I'm on? Now, who is the LAZY member here? :suicide: Ken
Wow the sexual tension between you two is immense.. just get it on and get it over with
(not starting crap)....He gets mad NOT because I play methods but because I talk about playing methods, big difference. When I talk, the AP word gets a little less attention and for some odd reason (which I still have not figured out) that bugs the guy. People can talk smack all day long about playing methods, I lose nothing. Ken
You guys dont need to like each other but you dont need to be in constant conflict.
Mr. J is obsessed with me. ;D
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fblogs.tampabay.com%2F.a%2F6a00d83451b05569e2012876b3e5d9970c-800wi&hash=f64ed54990d5c337ce5a5faed71eae79bf7804f9)
The feeling appears mutual.
And that's a lovely image.
Quote from: Steve link=topic=17037. msg120939#msg120939 date=1285714620
Nothing happens without a reason, or more accurately without "cause". Nothing is ever random - there is always an element of predictability.
Funny how you don't include online RNGs in your happy AP universe. .
Let me guess, the
physical world and the
digital world operate under different 'laws', right. . ?
Sure they do. .
;)
Quote from: Hugh Demann on September 30, 2010, 03:02:51 PM
Funny how you don't include online RNGs in your happy AP universe. .
Let me guess, the physical world and the digital world operate under different 'laws', right. . ?
Sure they do. .
;)
If you're being sarcastic saying I contradict myself, you are 'silly'. The laws that govern AP, RNG and the rest of the universe are the same. With AP, the ball is real and physical, and we can calculate predictions with variables. With RNG, there are no such variables. AP and RNG are both NOT random. But real roulette spins are PREDICTABLE to a degree, whereas RNG are not at least to the point where you can predict the next game outcome with enough accuracy to overcome the house edge. More specifically I do believe RNG is beatable, because anything is possible, but I dont believe anyone has figured it out, yet. For sure beating RNG or normal roulette is not possible with things like progression. If people want to beat RNG, they'll need to try different things.
Quote from: Steve link=topic=17037. msg121104#msg121104 date=1285906125
With AP, the ball is real and physical, and we can calculate predictions with variables. With RNG, there are no such variables.
Nice try Steve. . But completely
WRONG.
There are MORE digital RNG 'cheats' than physical AP 'cheats'.
There are MORE exploitable digital 'variables' than physical 'variables'.
The computer RNG may be 'programmed' to spin
AGAINST the online roulette player. . !
true. . ?The live dealer may also be 'programmed' (trained) to spin
AGAINST the B&M roulette player. . !
TRUE. . ?A 'physical' Advantage Player is therefore NO better at prediction than a 'digital' Advantage Player.
Maths Question)
How many roulette spins constitutes the 'short term' ?A) 10
B) 100
C) 1000
D) 10,000
E) I have NO idea, and neither does anyone else. . (except Dyksexlic and Spike)
Quote from: Steve link=topic=17037. msg121104#msg121104 date=1285906125
If people want to beat RNG, they'll need to try different things.
Oh, REALLY ??? Is that a 'fact'? (ok, NOW I'm being sarcastic. . !)
Correct Answer) E
QuoteHow many roulette spins constitutes the 'short term' ?
The question is meaningless. It's like asking "how long is a piece of string?"
Quoteexcept Dyksexlic, Spike and Gizmotron)
and Hugh Demann, because Hugh Demann = Dyksexlic
Quote from: Mike link=topic=17037. msg121142#msg121142 date=1285948926
The question is meaningless. It's like asking "how long is a piece of string?"
That's precisely my POINT. . !
Every roulette system on this site (except the HG) is targetting the 'short term'
But there is NO clear definition of 'short term'. . !
Duh. . !!!
Quote from: Mike link=topic=17037. msg121142#msg121142 date=1285948926
and Hugh Demann, because Hugh Demann = Dyksexlic
Sure. .
and Mike = Jack Haas
;)
Even if there was a clear definition, it wouldn't help you to win. Winning depends on whether you have an advantage or not, it doesn't depend on shuffling words around (or stakes, for that matter).
Quoteand Mike = Jack Haas
And I think you should change your surname to 'Janus'. :yes:
You two are like me and Herb. :o All I ask is no foul language. Ken
Quote from: Mike link=topic=17037. msg121152#msg121152 date=1285950553
Winning depends on whether you have an advantage or not, it doesn't depend on shuffling words around (or stakes, for that matter).
Says who. . ? Says YOU. . !
I place 1 Unit on # 33
# 33 comes up
I win. .
Where was my 'advantage' ?
I never said you can't win for a while. Anyone can get lucky. When 33 came up you were paid 35 units + your stake which isn't fair because you should be paid 36 units + stake. Therein lies the problem, simple. It works like compound interest, only for the casino, not the player. That's the reason why the more spins you play, the more you lose. If you put 10 grand in the bank at 5% interest by the end of the year you'd expect to have made 500. Similarly if you put 10 grand into the casino they expect to make their interest. No-one can escape this undeniable fact. Betting on patterns, waiting for the right 'opportunity', or shuffling stakes doesn't change any of this one iota. Sorry, but there it is. Get over it and find an opportunity where you can change the odds in your favour.
Quote from: Mike link=topic=17037. msg121159#msg121159 date=1285952269
Get over it and find an opportunity where you can change the odds in your favour.
Listening to you is like watching a one-armed man trying to climb a rope. .
Why 'should' the Casino pay you ANYTHING. . ?
They're under NO contractual obligation.
You need to get a proper job and quit being a Casino freeloader.
;)
Quote from: Hugh Demann on October 01, 2010, 02:30:10 PM
Why 'should' the Casino pay you ANYTHING. . ?
Because if they didn't they wouldn't have any customers. :thumbsup:
Short term is when you because of luck can still have a positive bankroll. So when can`t you have that anymore ?
In my opinion its when a positive 3 standard deviation swing is not enough to bring you back in the positive because of the huse edge. For the even chances that figure is 50.000 spins. If you happen to have some +670 hits above expectation (+3 SD) in 50,000 spins you will at the same time have encountered 1350 zeros which which swallows your entire profit. 3 standard deviations covers some 99,7% of all cases, 4 SD only covers a fraction more than 3 SD so in my opinion, long term is the above scenario.
Hooray, someone has a brain in this forum! :clapping:
I was going to say that the 'short term' depends on how many numbers you're playing. If covering 30 numbers the short term is less than if you were playing only 1, but putting it in terms of standard deviation is better because it takes care of the variance issues.
Quote from: Kelly on October 01, 2010, 03:04:04 PM
Short term is when you because of luck can still have a positive bankroll.
Kelly, you appear to be an man of intellect..
So, I'm going to just pretend you didn't say that, ok?
You can't talk about 'standard deviation' one second, and 'luck' the next..
That's a contradiction in terms.. surely..?
Luck is an
unknown / unpredictable phenomenon that causes an event to go one way rather than another,
Standard deviation is a
known / predictable MATHEMATICAL formula..
You can't kid a kidder, my friend..
;)
Standard deviation is just a measure tool like a measure tape or similar. You just take any amount of spins, count what came out. You then put that amount into the tool and you then get a value for those spins. Its not rocket science, it just gives you a value for the spread between 2 chances (if we talk even chances) you just witnessed.
Quote from: Hugh Demann on October 01, 2010, 04:04:35 PM
You can't talk about 'standard deviation' one second, and 'luck' the next..
That's a contradiction in terms.. surely..?
Luck is an unknown / unpredictable phenomenon that causes an event to go one way rather than another,
Standard deviation is a known / predictable MATHEMATICAL formula..
You can't kid a kidder, my friend..
{sigh}
Wrong again, Mr Janus. There is no contradiction at all. In fact, standard deviation IS luck, your 'luck' is quantified in terms of standard deviation. I suggest you try to educate yourself before digging the hole deeper.
Quote from: Mike on October 01, 2010, 04:27:10 PM
{sigh}
Wrong again, Mr Janus. There is no contradiction at all. In fact, standard deviation IS luck, your 'luck' is quantified in terms of standard deviation. I suggest you try to educate yourself before digging the hole deeper.
First you say Maths has NO merit in the 'chance / luck' game of roulette,
Now you claim to be able to quantify 'luck / chance' in terms of a MATHEMATICAL formula.. hahaha!!
Boy, you sure is crazy..!
FFS, why can't you see that you're contradicting yourself..?
Am I going too quickly for you..?
Quote from: Mike on October 01, 2010, 01:29:13 PM
And I think you should change your surname to 'Janus'. :yes:
(Mike, your last name isn't 'Hunt' by any chance, is it?)
;)
QuoteFirst you say Maths has NO merit in the 'chance / luck' game of roulette,
Correct, it doesn't. In terms of being able to predict the next number or sequence of numbers, math is useless. It's because the wheel has no memory. Statistics don't CAUSE anything, so how can you predict results from them? So far, so good.
QuoteNow you claim to be able to quantify 'luck / chance' in terms of a MATHEMATICAL formula.. hahaha!!
Again, correct. How else could you quantify luck? Like I said, you obviously don't even know what standard deviation is. Look it up and we can talk, in the meantime, stop trying to wing it. You may be a verbally clever smart-arse, but you need some education (and a little humility wouldn't go amiss either).
QuoteFFS, why can't you see that you're contradicting yourself..?
Where is the contradiction? The problem is your lack of understanding. Just because you can quantify something doesn't mean that you can control or predict it. In the case of roulette, the reason why you can't do that is because outcomes are statistically independent. Better look that up too while you're at the library.
Here you go Mr Janus, this will get you started:
nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casino_game (nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casino_game)
QuoteStandard deviation
The luck factor in a casino game is quantified using standard deviations (SD). The standard deviation of a simple game like Roulette can be calculated using the binomial distribution. In the binomial distribution, SD = sqrt (npq ), where n = number of rounds played, p = probability of winning, and q = probability of losing. The binomial distribution assumes a result of 1 unit for a win, and 0 units for a loss, rather than -1 units for a loss, which doubles the range of possible outcomes. Furthermore, if we flat bet at 10 units per round instead of 1 unit, the range of possible outcomes increases 10 fold.
SD (Roulette, even-money bet) = 2b sqrt(npq ), where b = flat bet per round, n = number of rounds, p = 18/38, and q = 20/38.
For example, after 10 rounds at $1 per round, the standard deviation will be 2 x 1 x sqrt(10 x 18/38 x 20/38) = $3.16. After 10 rounds, the expected loss will be 10 x $1 x 5.26% = $0.53. As you can see, standard deviation is many times the magnitude of the expected loss.
The range is six times the standard deviation: three above the mean, and three below. Therefore, after 10 rounds betting $1 per round, your result will be somewhere between -$0.53 - 3 x $3.16 and -$0.53 + 3 x $3.16, i.e., between -$10.01 and $8.95. (There is still a 0.1% chance that your result will exceed a $8.95 profit, and a 0.1% chance that you will lose more than $10.01.) This demonstrates how luck can be quantified; we know that if we walk into a casino and bet $5 per round for a whole night, we are not going to walk out with $500.
I said this a week ago, I'll say it again. When I got banned from RF, take a guess how many times I went back under a different user name........? Ken
QuoteFor example, after 10 rounds at $1 per round, the standard deviation will be 2 x 1 x sqrt(10 x 18/38 x 20/38) = $3.16. After 10 rounds, the expected loss will be 10 x $1 x 5.26% = $0.53. As you can see, standard deviation is many times the magnitude of the expected loss.
American = 5.26% Plain daft
Single zero = 2.7% Not bad
Single zero with la partage = 1.3% Getting better
Non zero wheel = 0% Purfect
Even with no zeros, there still is not an edge. Ken
I was thinking that if you played on a no zero wheel like at BV. It may be possible to play a positive progression and do ok a lot of the time.
It would be great if a live online casino decided to use a no zero wheel to attract business. Probably most people would still lose because of greed and bankroll issues. I don't expect to see it myself but it would be a blast. :focus:
There's still 36 numbers and the payout is 35:1. Even if there were only 35 numbers, thats evened up, still no edge. The only way there would be an edge.....36 numbers and the payout is 37:1. Ken
Some may disagree, feedback would be cool. Ken
Quote from: John Gold on October 02, 2010, 10:05:15 AM
It would be great if a live online casino decided to use a no zero wheel to attract business. Probably most people would still lose because of greed and bankroll issues. I don't expect to see it myself but it would be a blast. :focus:
As Betfair and BV offer software 'no zero' it's only a matter of time before more casinos follow and then one of them will eventually offer live no zero. I predict this to be within the next 2 years. :-X
Quote from: Mr J on October 02, 2010, 10:36:10 AM
There's still 36 numbers and the payout is 35:1. Even if there were only 35 numbers, thats evened up, still no edge. The only way there would be an edge.....36 numbers and the payout is 37:1. Ken
I see what your saying mrj but you do get your initial bet/wager returned so it does even up me thinks.
Mr J, I have sent you a PM.
So, just to recap:
1.You're a maths genius with a gambling problem
(the problem is you don't know how to win!)
2.You've been studying roulette for the past 2 weeks and got STUCK
3.You've never felt the need to venture into a REAL casino
(because there might be girls there)
4.You can't create a consistant winning bet
(because Wikipedia doesn't show you how)
5.You joined a roulette forum to see if any of the DUMB members could help you
6.You believe roulette can't be beaten by Maths
(but stick around just in case you're wrong)
7.You've dedicated your life to teach everyone YOUR complete lack of knowledge
8.You're building up the courage to ask Kelly out on a date to the Maths Dufus Convention
;)
@Hugh Demann >> Is it possible you can make your point WITHOUT calling names, using foul language and constantly stirring the pot here? Is that possible sir? I am passing this along to Steve, maybe he has a 'better idea' what to do. :nono: Ken (I deleted one post)
Certainly Ken, but I'm not quite sure what's cum over you..
The point I was trying to make is that 'someone' has NO logical reason for being here,
Except to antagonize other (MORE INTELLIGENT) members.. ( around 3000, give or take)
Might I draw the jury's attention to the following:
Quote from: Hugh Demann on October 03, 2010, 12:07:10 PM
So, just to recap:
1.You're a maths genius with a gambling problem
(the problem is you don't know how to win!)
2.You've been studying roulette for the past 2 weeks and got STUCK
3.You've never felt the need to venture into a REAL casino
(because there might be girls there)
4.You can't create a consistant winning bet
(because Wikipedia doesn't show you how)
5.You joined a roulette forum to see if any of the DUMB members could help you
6.You believe roulette can't be beaten by Maths
(but stick around just in case you're wrong)
7.You've dedicated your life to teach everyone YOUR complete lack of knowledge
8.You're building up the courage to ask Kelly out on a date to the Maths Dufus Convention
;)
Nuff said.
QuoteCertainly Ken, but I'm not quite sure what's cum over you..
I'm sure Ken hasn't missed the implied insult here.
QuoteThe point I was trying to make is that 'someone' has NO logical reason for being here,
Sorry, but my logical reason for being here is to point out that there are no logical reasons for your (and many others) claims. I think your grasp of what "logical" means is a little shaky, better add it to that list for when you go to the library.
QuoteExcept to antagonize other (MORE INTELLIGENT) members.. ( around 3000, give or take)
If by "antagonize" you mean "enlighten", then guilty as charged.
QuoteMight I draw the jury's attention to the following:
It's usual to provide some evidence when you're accusing someone, but this isn't really a "trial" is it? it's just your childish way of retaliating because I made a fool of you in public. Anyway, let's go through the points.
Quote1.You're a maths genius with a gambling problem
(the problem is you don't know how to win!)
Not a math genius, but I took the trouble to learn some statistics because I thought it might be relevant to my study of roulette. You, on the other hand, are so arrogant that it never occurred to you. Shame really, because if you had taken the trouble you wouldn't look such an idiot as you do now. Perhaps I'm doing you an injustice though, maybe you're just not bright enough to understand basic statistics.
Don't know how to win? perhaps, but neither does anyone else, they just
think they do. At least I now know how to NOT lose.
Quote2.You've been studying roulette for the past 2 weeks and got STUCK
No, 6 months actually (give or take). But I'm pretty sure I've tested many more approaches, methods and systems than others who search for years but only test manually, because I'm a good programmer (not bragging, just stating a fact).
Quote3.You've never felt the need to venture into a REAL casino
(because there might be girls there)
This is quite irrelevant to anything, and rather odd, coming from someone who claims to restrict their play to RNGs.
Quote4.You can't create a consistant winning bet
(because Wikipedia doesn't show you how)
So what's so special about me? No-one can create a consistent winning bet based on math. And did it ever occur to you that I might have written that Wiki entry? ;)
Quote5.You joined a roulette forum to see if any of the DUMB members could help you
No, I joined a roulette forum to get ideas. As it turned out, most were dumb, but I wouldn't call the members dumb. What are YOU doing here? I can't think of any LOGICAL reason, you already have the holy grail, right?
Quote6.You believe roulette can't be beaten by Maths
(but stick around just in case you're wrong)
I don't just believe it, I know it. The reason I'm sticking around it because I want to explain why I made a mistake, and maybe help others to avoid it. Like I said elsewhere, I feel I have a moral responsibility to not let people be scammed or mislead. What are YOU doing here?
Quote7.You've dedicated your life to teach everyone YOUR complete lack of knowledge
That's a bit of an exaggeration, I don't spend too much time on this forum. By the way, my "complete lack of knowledge" can be proved over and over in many different ways, whereas what you're claiming can't be, but it's up to you to show it, if you claim it. I haven't seen any evidence of that, only specious bluster.
Quote8.You're building up the courage to ask Kelly out on a date to the Maths Dufus Convention
Nice going! now you've managed to insult kelly too (and it's not true).
"I'm sure Ken hasn't missed the implied insult here" >>> I got it but dont really care. Ken
I've removed Hugh for offensive behavior. I have no doubt he's been here before more than once under different names. And Hugh, you appear to think you know what you're talking about, but really dont.
I dont see the logic coming back under a new user name? The person will post exactly the SAME. Its a matter of only a few posts, you can spot the same person. If they know this, why ATTEMPT to come back, I dont get it? :girl_wacko: Ken
Ken, the world is full of people that dont have lives.
I think the wheel knows what grows on the other side of the fence. You just have to coax it a little bit..., and after my tongue lashing on AR I was given the boot!!! God help me if that happens here. That way I wouldn't have anyone , or anywhere to go to, and vent my stress. God willing, we'll all make it through this life unscathed. If not, who will pray for you?
QuoteKen, the world is full of people that dont have lives.
I can attest to this. I think those are people that have no care for time that they have wasted. (https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinkss%3A%2F%2Fimagicon.info%2Fcat%2F10-3%2Fsmile2.png&hash=471c4bfde9a8eaaecc106f26429c893406565ad6)
Quote from: gavind on October 03, 2013, 03:53:45 PM
I can attest to this. I think those are people that have no care for time that they have wasted. (https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinkss%3A%2F%2Fimagicon.info%2Fcat%2F10-3%2Fsmile2.png&hash=471c4bfde9a8eaaecc106f26429c893406565ad6)
Hugh Demann = You the man.
gavind & archie - what's the point of posting on discussions that have been dormant for 3 years ?
Quote from: Archie on October 04, 2013, 06:43:27 AM
Hugh Demann = You the man.
3 years on and nothing's changed, just a different crop of hopeful newbies who are deluded into thinking that they can "beat" roulette with patterns and progressions. Oh well, it's a hobby I guess. :biggrin:
Quote from: ausguy on October 04, 2013, 07:53:59 AMarchie - what's the point of posting on discussions that have been dormant for 3 years ?
Slow day, couldn't resist the Simpson's joke.
Cool avatar, Mike.