tilt
tilt
QuoteCan you imagine, that this has an influence on what we would have to bet when we find 13R after 37 spins?
Winkel,
I know your excited by what you think you have found.
However, it would have no influence whatsoever. This is straight-up "Gambler's Fallacy". Search Wikapedia for more information.
The so called, "Law of the Third" isn't going to tell you which numbers are likely to repeat any more than the law of 1 in 38 will.
to Herb
<°)))o><
or read this
nolinks://nolinks.thegamblersedge.com/propensity.htm
The author of the above article doesn't comprehend basic probability and is clearly trying to peddle his own gambling system or books.
Compitent experts on gaming probability are: Dr. Edward Thorp, and The Wizard of Odds.
Make no mistake, roulette is indeed a game of independent trials. This is not even debatable. It's an absolute fact. (Real mathematicians also don't debate whether or not it is as the author states. [smiley=grin.gif] LOL!! )
For roulette to not be a game of independent trials, the dealer would have to block each number after it had hit. Unfortunately that doesn't happen.
Now I have an idea how you live and what you wear:
You live in a cage and wear furs.
despite of that i will go on.
and to Herb: Don't destroy my circles if you´re not willing to think new ideas or to change your point of view.
If it was worth to read and to think about we will state at the end.
tilt
Those charts won't help you either.
Regarding remaining open to views. Actually I do keep an open mind to methods that are rooted in the real world.
Regarding your methods: I'm not going to try and prove you wrong at every turn, or point out the flaws of every system posted. It's rare that I even read someones system. In your case I just thought I would point out the big flaw, so that I could perhaps save you years of frustration and maybe some money. That's all. :)
Sometimes just stating some probability basics can save people some money.
If you chose to believe otherwise, well, that's ok too. If your having fun with the system then, by all means, keep having fun with it.
You are thick as a brick.
did I ever tell something about a system I wanna demonstrate?
I just wanna show some statistical views.
But as I learned now, my statistical views are not wanted.
so bye to all.
at VLS please delete this whole thing.
br
winkel
edit: @ herb: now you can go to a chursche and the people there, that there is no God.
Grow up Winkel.
Well, what the devil??
I log on and the first post is "tilt".
winkel, what did you post? I missed it. I want to read it. Put it back up. I don't care what "everybody" or "anybody" knows, I like to read other people's opinions.
Sam
Edit: Were you talking of Ellison?
Could we debate this for the sake of learning?
winkel
I am a moderator with the "delete" key and I can wipe screen clean if that's what you want.
Sam
We were discussing whether or not roulette was a game of independent trials and the law of the third.
Unfortunately Winkel didn't like the answers.
To censor the forum in the light of a totally valid dialogue is wrong in my opinion.
When there is verbal abuse then edit/delete should be customary, but Herb has not been hitting anything other than winkel's views with appropriate arguments. In my judgment that is not a valid enough reason to remove a post.
Winkel, please repost. You wrote: "my statistical views are not wanted." But that is not the case as every input has a place to enrich our understanding of the game, yours included. Do not merely use one person not fond of what you expose (Herb) for extrapolating his opinion to the whole forum population.
Like TwoCatSam said: "Could we debate this for the sake of learning?". Such is the appropriate way to go. There are also non-participating readers which can benefit from this pondering of arguments too.
By the way, one thing is to go to anyone else's church and say loud "there is no god" just for the sake of reactions and an entirely different thing is to say "after considering your reasons I believe X or Y argument is not accurate because of... (Insert proper valid point here)". The latter can spark a very interesting discussion and that is the whole point of debating, especially when using an open website like this.
Yours truly
RGF
Gents,
I would never delete the post unless he asked me to. I didn't not get to read the post before "tilt" became the word of the day. I have read Ellison's book a few times and have modified his 3QA system to suit myself.
Sam
Hi TCS,
A thread thats called view to statistics has no right to exist, when there is no statistic.
I didn´t wwant you to "censor" any other oppinion. (If there had been one, telling my statistical view is wrong, or the math is wrong, or any conclusions are wrong. I didn´t even arrive at that state.)
I offered some statistics which of course have to refer to the known rules of statistics. (e.g. law of Third, Binomial, Gauss etc.)
When now someone starts to say I´m desribing a system, and statistics even with a new view wouldn´t help at all to argue a system (which was never my intent) than i have to see, that someone is not hunting an idea but a person.
I don´t need this, I don´t like it, where such happens is a place I don´t wanna be.
If Ellison is wrong or right doesn´t matter at all. I gave the link because it´s a new idea to think about "gamblers' fallacy". My statistics could have been helping to proof the one or the other side.
But if there is starting a personal hunt, I quit.
thats it.
br
winkel
Hello winkel, I can setup you own section with limited replies right, this way you can easily make a repository of any of your statistics and gambling theories you may want to expose at the forum, and anybody who wants to reply and have a discussion with you regarding them, will need your approval / invite to have reply rights enabled at your own space.
It can be your little cozy place to expose without any interruptions. Would you like such a section?
I have no problem in setting it up. Forum will benefit by the ability to read the stats/gambling theories you expose and you will be able to discuss with whom you want enabled only.
Best regards.
Victor
winkel
I'm not sure where you are coming from on this. Friend, I wanted to read your post, but I missed it. All I see is the word "tilt" on my screen.
I have no desire to censor you. I never even used the word. I think RichardGraceFan did. I did say that, if you asked me to, I would wipe the slate clean. You asked that of Victor, did you not?
I read and wrote about Ellison quite some time ago. I think he has valid points; always have. I have memorized his 3QA system and have talked about it before.
Are you sure the former post wasn't directed to Herb? He's the one who said "grow up winkel" after you told him he was "thick as a brick".
Sam
EDIT: I have made a couple of mistakes by not reading carefully what someone has posted. Perhaps we all should read more carefully before we type.
QuoteYou are thick as a brick. <--written to Herb
did I ever tell something about a system I wanna demonstrate?
I just wanna show some statistical views.
But as I learned now, my statistical views are not wanted.
so bye to all.
at VLS please delete this whole thing.
br
winkel
edit: @ herb: now you can go to a chursche and the people there, that there is no God.
"at VLS please delete this whole thing."
winkel, did you write this or not?
Sam
Sam,
You say you have modified the 3qa system to suit yourself.
Are you able to give an overview of the ideas on this. Is this as system as powerful as the claims?
tuckster
Ellison says to find a majority of Q or A numbers in the last five.
I look for three A's or three Q's in the first five, with the target group (A or Q) not having a back-to-back win. Example any A any A A. I now have three As out of the last five.
In spite of what he says, I use it on the single 0 wheel. I have had limited success. I do not subscribe to his "sit-down-and-win; get-up-and-run" theory. Never have--probably never will.
I may try it soon at an Indian casino here in Oklahoma.
Sam
QuoteQuoteYou are thick as a brick. <--written to Herb
did I ever tell something about a system I wanna demonstrate?
I just wanna show some statistical views.
But as I learned now, my statistical views are not wanted.
so bye to all.
at VLS please delete this whole thing.
br
winkel
edit: @ herb: now you can go to a chursche and the people there, that there is no God.
"at VLS please delete this whole thing."
winkel, did you write this or not?
Sam
Hi Sam,
it is as you quote.
And if I did overact i apologize to everyone.
br
winkel
Hey, winkel......I've done it; we've all done it. Furgetaboutit!!
Post.........we'll talk!
Samster
Hi TCS
actually I'm translating articles of Ellison for a german forum.
The link I found directing to 3qa is invalid.
could you send me any details about it, that I can translate it for the Germans?
Thanks for your help
br
winkel
to all who sent Pm
questions which have public interest I will only answer when asked in the public.
br
winkel
winkel,
i for one have enjoyed your statistics and was looking forward to the point where you shared how you play with us all.
the way to beat roulette is through statistics and maths in my opinion.
someone with a sound understanding of the statistics that a RNG will generate (rouletted wheel is a random number generater - and in long term i doubt the stats are any ifferent to online) is a good person to learn things from.
i hope you continue to post data on your stats
There is something we have to face, making statistic and reading them:
As we understand until today there is an absolutely random when some rules (I don´t like "law") conform after a so called "tested sektion big enough" (sorry I dont´t know the the english name for it).
The other thing is: The way to test like Gauss did it:
If we have 6 possible results we have to make 6 tries. for Roulette that means 37 tries.
Most of these tries come with different but mostly near results. Some results are far away.
When we count all the found results, we will find a special distribution. This distribution is possible to be repeated.
one way for roulette is we count how many different numbers appear in 37 spins.
or expressed the other way: how many numbers didn´t appear.
for my statistics I use these abbreviations:
R = Restant = sleeper
F = Favorite = numbers appeard more than once
N = Normalos = numbers that appeared at the normal that means once in 37 spins.
Another thing is the so called Binomial Distribution.
This chart shows
- how many numbers did not appear "R"
- how many numbers did appear once "N"
- how many numbers did appear ">1" "F (alle)"
- how many numbers did appear twice "F2"
- how many numbers did appear 3times and more "F3+"
- after how many spins "coup"
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fnolinks.zufallsforschung.de%2FBilder%2FVerteilung-RNF_Tabelle.gif&hash=63408dc039e154336af36dbebc339029ecaabeaa)
put into a diagramm
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fnolinks.zufallsforschung.de%2FBilder%2FVerteilung-RNF_Grafik1.gif&hash=076dd64de8be120ceaa15bdbf27934c67fc76743)
Winkel,
I see the chart, I see the graph, but perhaps you could explain why it's useful?
How are you using the charts to win?
Regards,
Herb.
the sort of thing that i am thinking is that after say 24 spins, you get an average of 1 number that has hat 2 or more times and an average of around 4 or 5 that has hit 2 times.
so with 13 spins left in the cycle, and an average of 3 that hit more than 2 times, then logic says that playing when 0 or 1 number in last 24 has hit more than 2 times would be favourable if only numbers with 2 hits or more are played.
assuming you start with around 4 or 5 numbers - then the chances are that you will have 6 spins where there is an average of 6 numbers to bet and then 7 with maybe an average of 8.
where there are 0 or 1 numbers with more than 2 hits, then there are likely to be 2 more appear with more than 2 hits in this time. Where there are 0 numbers with 2 or more, then 3 numbers are more likely to happen than 1.
quite how this is turned into a system, i am not 100% sure.
Also - there seems to be the average number of numbers appear after 24/25 spins. that is numbers with 1 instance. therefore for every repeater thereafter there seems to be a new number hit that will hit just once. so it seems that if you have say 14 numbers with 1 hit and you get a couple more, then repeaters due. likewise if you have just 10 or 11 and a repeater or two hit, then maybe time to bet on unhit numbers.
pinning this into a system is the interesting bit.
winkel would appear to already have this. The question is whether he is going to share or encourage us to find it.
Hi tucktuckster,
interesting thoughts you have. But it´s much to early for that.
What you see is the theoretical average.
To build a system on it would fail, because this average appears only at about 20 percent of all games!
If you add "Sigma" to it it´s only about 40-41%.
look at this:
the normal way to count numbers which appeard/not appeared and theirs percentage:
app not % count
37 0
36 1
35 2
34 3
33 4 0,00 2
32 5 0,00 55
31 6 0,01 642
30 7 0,06 5242
29 8 0,33 29123
28 9 1,37 120524
27 10 4,14 363630
26 11 9,34 819843
25 12 15,82 1388424
24 13 20,32 1782993
23 14 19,88 1744741
22 15 14,83 1301553
21 16 8,47 743249
20 17 3,70 324510
19 18 1,23 108113
18 19 0,34 29475
17 20 0,09 7947
16 21 0,04 3501
15 22 0,02 1658
14 23 0,01 633
13 24 0,00 204
12 25 0,00 16
11 26
10 27
or as a diagram
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fnolinks.roulette-board.de%2Fuploads%2Fpost-89-1212958574.gif&hash=6a08156165fcb00dca5717df4904b644aa39cead)
Again, what is it that you think you can do with this information?
QuoteAgain, what is it that you think you can do with this information?
If you are not able to follow a line of arguments to it's end, then stop reading.
If you can't get any information out of this, then stop reading.
You mustn't read this at all.
It is only what we call basics.
I didn't never ever talk about a system nor using it to win.
The above listed statistic origins of 8776078 full rotations of 37 spins.
That means 324 714 886 consecutive single spins.
I don't know any other statistic made from such an amount of spins.
The so called Law of third is describing:
After 37 spins there are
24 numbers appeared
12 of them repeated
that misleads all who believe this and try make a system out of it.
The truth is:
after 37 spins there are
24 numbers appeared
10 of them repeated (F)
14 number appeard once (N)
13 numbers didn´t appear (R)
so let´s have a closer look to the point where there are 13 R (24 appeared)
Do we have always 10F and 14N at this point? NO!
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fnolinks.roulette-board.de%2Fuploads%2Fpost-89-1213035984.gif&hash=93268884a17969b66d314951e38f1c559908d51c)
As we can see also this distribution is following the rules of statics. The so calle bell of Gauss is conformed.
When we play one number we have a 1/37 possibility to win.
Would we rely on the law of third and try to play 13 Number we have a chance of 13/37 against 24/37
Referring to the above list we have now a new view:
Our Chance is still 13/37 if we play R
But we have a new description of our Odds:
e.g. there could be: 13 16 08
if we bet on R 13/37
if we bet on N 16/37
if we bet on F 8/37
But how can we decide which is to play?
We will have to have a closer look.
BR
winkel
well here is an interesting one.
step 1 - track 37 spins. record all sleepers, ie no hits.
step 2 - track next 37 spins. record all of the above sleepers that hit just once in the 37 spins.
step 3 - play the numbers that were recorded in step 2. average around 5 or 6.
based on my testing - the end result is that the negative expectancy is reversed. it doesnt always win. sometimes can be not great, but in long run it seems to work. i ran it through over 7000 possible sequences. but my testing could be wrong.
a possible option would be to play to first winner with a mild progression. or play to first profit with a mild progression.
Hi tuck,
one question that will answer your idea:
if we have 74 spins, how many rotations with 37 spins do we have then?
br
winkel
now that depends on your view on a 37 spin cycle.
in theory you could have 2 - namely spins 1-37 & 38-74.
alternatively you could have 38, being spins 1-37, 2-38, 3-39 and so on.
depends on definitions.
i actually revisited my testing and there was an error on the code. i am starting to run into dead ends with some of my testing here. i am 99% sure that there is a system waiting to be used, but basically playing on spreadsheets isnt really any fun and im not getting anywhere on this,
Hi Tuck
my English seems to be so bad, that nobody understands, that I'm talking about basics. I'm not talking about the way to use these statistics for a bet-selection.
br
winkel
.
ernesto
Ernesto
Brother, I can't answer your question; not sure I even saw it, but I have one of my own.
You start with 37 unhit numbers and move toward 37 hit numbers, is that correct? What is the large bulge at spin 23 or so? I have seen this graph many times over the years and no one has ever explained it on my level.
Any help from anyone would be nice.
Sam
Sam.
I'm not sure if this is correct as I haven't seen it before, but my guess is this:
23 means that 23 numbers have hit and 14 have remained unhit, in the 37 spin cycle.
So therefore 19.88% of the time there will be 14 unhit numbers after 37 spins.
It peaks at 24 which is 13 unhit numbers. So 24 numbers in 37 spins - law of thirds.
33 4 0,00 2
32 5 0,00 55
31 6 0,01 642
30 7 0,06 5242
29 8 0,33 29123
28 9 1,37 120524
27 10 4,14 363630
26 11 9,34 819843
25 12 15,82 1388424
24 13 20,32 1782993.......Shorty, I'm talking about the 1782993. What is that?
23 14 19,88 1744741
22 15 14,83 1301553
21 16 8,47 743249
20 17 3,70 324510
19 18 1,23 108113
18 19 0,34 29475
17 20 0,09 7947
16 21 0,04 3501
15 22 0,02 1658
14 23 0,01 633
13 24 0,00 204
12 25 0,00 16
11 26
Sam
If we add all in the last column we get ~ 8.776.078. We have more than 8 million 37 spin cycle.
From this 8 million, we have 1.782.993 cycle where we can found exactly 24 number different number from the 37 spins.
This is the most frequent.
ernesto
^^ Yup, that's what I assumed.
Gentlemen...
Thanks! I thought it was one cycle of 37 spins.
Sam
QuoteAnd I have only 20 different number. I bet on the 17 remain number, because 324510 times the 20 stay 20, but 743249 times the 20 turn 21 after 37 spin.
sorry Ernesto this conclusion is wrong!
This is correct:
to get this result after 37 spins [highlight]20 17 3,70 324510[/highlight] that has happened between spin 36 and 37:
20 is a result of 21 in the spin before for 21/37 or 56,76% (a "0" has hit)
20 is a result of 20 in the spin before for 16/37 or 43,24% (a ">0" has hit)
[highlight]21 16 8,47 743249[/highlight]
21 is a result of 22 in the spin before for 22/37 or 59,46% (a "0" has hit)
21 is a result of 21 in the spin before for 15/37 or 40,54% (a ">0" has hit)
br
winkel
Thanks Winkel!
This statistics for the 0x crossing.
ernesto
Some more basics playing G.U.T
For making it simple I just refer to one spin-situation of a trot. It is spin 37.
We can make such diagram for every situation in a trot: spin 30 or spin 45 or any other.
What we know from the 100million-spin-test made by Kon-Fu-Sed is that every betselection will end at -2,7% in the long run.
But it is not going straight to -2,7 it is waving down, so we can make our wins when our bet-selection is waving upwards.
look at this chart:
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fnolinks.roulette-board.de%2Fuploads%2Fpost-89-1224073862.png&hash=577ad71803aa72f30caada7d17406cd2adfe42ab)
If we bet 12("0") 13("1") 12(">1") at spin 37 we ill get the above results (in units)
As you see if we had bet only 0vs>1 in this recorded 199 appearences of 12 13 12 we would have won about 350 units.(blue line)
Had we bet on 1vs>1 we would be down 250 units, but we had a +150 in between.
This means: We note our results at spin x and we don´t bet this situation, when we are losing, but start betting it, when it is changing to winning-streak.
These streaks are always long enough to be recognized and followed.
See this chart for 13 12 12 also at spin 37
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fnolinks.roulette-board.de%2Fuploads%2Fpost-89-1224074179.png&hash=c65f821c7f7bc2d1cae185c95cf5d09464a2b8d3)
Remember what Kon-Fu-Sed said: The sum of a lot of minus(es) can´t be positive
But the sum of winning-streaks will be positive.
I think you will have some questions.
br
winkel