Can some math whiz please explain to me how it's gambler's fallacy to expect red after 20 blacks when red and black are always moving toward an even distribution?
Quote from: birdhands on January 18, 2011, 12:37:30 AM
Can some math whiz please explain to me how it's gambler's fallacy to expect red after 20 blacks when red and black are always moving toward an even distribution?
The longer the game goes on the closer red & black come to 50/50, but at the same time the gap will widen. :scratch_ones_head:
the wheel has no memory.
Quote from: pins on January 18, 2011, 02:16:06 AM
the wheel has no memory.
in a land base casino thats true
not on a online casino.
***************The longer the game goes on the closer red & black come to 50/50, but at the same time the gap will widen.**************
i cannot get my head around that. Kind of like trying to pat my head and rub my belly at the same time! Or Klingon!
p.s. I like Star Trek :)
lol
I like star track, the last movie was pretty cool.
i agree with that guy about the coulors getting wider over time, you dont have to get your head around it or even understand it, it just happens.
its the same for sections as well, it just seems to go that way thats why you will never win using progression and a table max dosnt help either.
thats why you shoulnt play long sessions and thats why people lose, well im guessing but it sounds right.
I saw a good answer to this on another forum which I have copied here. . . . . . .
hxxp: bit. ly/exMbtC
Re: What are the odds the same after 10 reds?
I think the key thing to realise here what you are betting on. If you are betting that the red comes up on the next spins after 19 blacks, then it is a mutually exclusive event. Your odds are 50/50 (less actually because of the 0 pocket).
If you bet on 20 spins, that´s different. For example, if you bet that the last colour would be black if all preceding colours were red over the course of 20 spins, then you´d be looking at a very different scenario.
But you never bet over multiple spins in roulette. Just one.
I always find a few scenarios are useful to think about.
What about if you saw 19 blacks in a row. Then the casino closed. You came back 12 hours later- same wheel, same table. And you bet red. Are your odds any better? What´s the difference between this and betting on red immediately after you saw 19 blacks? Just time right? So what if we vary the time between spins- made it faster, slower etc. Does that change our odds?
What about if you saw 2 blacks in a row. Now you switch wheels (the original wheel stays unused). Now you see 17 blacks in a row on the second wheel, and then you flip back to the first wheel. What are your odds now of seeing a red? Better than before? Worse?
You can think about a whole bunch of scenrios that demonstrate that, no, for a single spin, there are 18 reds and 18 blacks and 1green zero (in european roulette at least. So your little ball spinning around has as much chance of landing in a red pocket as a black one. And a small chance of landing in the 0 pocket.
The longer the spin sequenze, the more baffled people gets by probabilitys and gamblers fallacy.
The secret is in the spin sample lenght. You get X probability for 20 Reds but you get the same probability for 10 blacks and then 10 reds = 20 spins. The longer the spin sample the smaller is the probability that this exact constellation happens. It still does not change that next spin isolated is 50/50.
If you had just witnessed 20 reds, you wouldnt know wether red now was 20 ahead or it now broke even because it was 20 behind before thid happened.
"I could just track the last 300 spins and i would know" ...... No you wouldn`t because what is the status for the last 500 or 1000 ? Or 3000 ?
You simply wouldnt know and it wont affect your hitrate.
nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_illusion (nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_illusion)
Quote from: Kelly on February 01, 2011, 09:12:01 AM
The secret is in the spin sample lenght. You get X probability for 20 Reds but you get the same probability for 10 blacks and then 10 reds = 20 spins.
God this stuff is really breaking my brain. Are you saying that 20 reds in a row and 10 reds then 10 blacks both have the same probability of happening?
@ birdhands, yes that's right. All sequences of the same length have the same probability.
@ kelly,
QuoteYou simply wouldnt know and it wont affect your hitrate.
But even if you DID know it wouldn't affect it either. It sounds like you're saying that the only reason why you won't win is because you don't know what came before, but this sounds like the gamblers fallacy to me. ;D
Even if you knew the complete spin history of a wheel it wouldn't help in picking the next bet.
@Mike, maybe it came out wrong but i think you got my drift :-)
@Birdshands, thats right. There is nothing exceptional in 20 Reds or at least it is not more exceptional than RRRRBBBBRRRRBBBBRRRR or any other 20 spin sequenz. If you take a large number of permanencies and analyse them you will roughly find the same amount of each spin sequnz, give and take.
Quote from: birdhands on January 18, 2011, 12:37:30 AM
Can some math whiz please explain to me how it's gambler's fallacy to expect red after 20 blacks when red and black are always moving toward an even distribution?
The problem with fallacy is not understanding the math. The math proves that expectation is non existent. It can't be counted on in the short term and especially in the long run. The next spin can produce the straight up odds for one spin only and that is all. A statistical averaging can never conjure up expectations or predictions that are accurate. So that leaves you with beliefs only. The fallacies are made up from constructs cobbled together from memories of your own experiences. There are even beliefs so strong as to be identified as magical beliefs by those that study the thinking of problem gamblers. It is one thing to use those constructs as tools. I do that. But at no time do I count on expectation or prediction as a fact. Fallacy is a mistake if you count on it for a magical statistical belief. And that is where problems occur for those that first fall into its attractive deception. It's an acquired skill to ignore magical belief systems. The only way is by experience and discipline.
Quote from: Gizmotron on February 01, 2011, 03:35:21 PM
The problem with fallacy is not understanding the math. The math proves that expectation is non existent. It can't be counted on in the short term and especially in the long run.
Expectation IS the long run average value of the results, which definitely CAN be counted on. The mistake is in thinking that they apply to short term sequences. There is NO "balancing" effect you can rely on.
Quote from: Gizmotron on February 01, 2011, 03:35:21 PM
It is one thing to use those constructs as tools. I do that. But at no time do I count on expectation or prediction as a fact.
What does this mean? what use is a "tool" that can't be relied on because it's based on a fallacy? :blink:
Quote from: Mike on February 01, 2011, 04:27:16 PM
Expectation IS the long run average value of the results, which definitely CAN be counted on. The mistake is in thinking that they apply to short term sequences. There is NO "balancing" effect you can rely on.
I have no idea what you are trying to say. When was the last time you played a real session for a million spins, or a thousand for that matter? I think you are saying that fallacies don't apply to short termed sequences. On that we agree.
Quote from: Mike on February 01, 2011, 04:31:50 PM
What does this mean? what use is a "tool" that can't be relied on because it's based on a fallacy? :blink:
Because it's a construct not based on fallacy or belief or expectation. It's the use of figure formations. The formations are meaningless. I just use them for bet selections. It really doesn't matter how they perform as long as they take on the characteristics of randomness. The point is to determine the current state of the conditions. It takes tools and a capacity to comprehend what is happening in order to take advantage.
The Gamblers' Fallacy is probably the greatest thing a casino ever invented - I'm assuming they encourage folks to think this way - dealers talking about something not showing up for a long time or the marque showing a Red hasn't shown up for 20 spins.
I see folks just do stupid things like betting on something because "it should even up" - this means they believe someone keeps score somewhere. Maybe there are gambling elves who don't spend the year making toys but keeping track of all dice, cards, Roulette wheels, ping pong balls at the lotto, etc.
I see it here - 95% of the "systems" folks tout or talk about are based on the idea that "something is overdo to occur".
Doesn't matter if it's a Red or the #7 on dice or 10/high cards in Blackjack folks keep track of things that are "overdo".
There is no elf keeping track of what you do - that Roulette wheel has no idea that it has spun 100 times and the "0" hasn't shown up.
So remove the idea that elves run the gaming industry and you will realize that the only thing left is money management and there are hundreds of schemes there to learn and use.
So can twenty-two blacks in a row happen?
Can one of the columns or dozens repeat six times in a row?
Can one dozen only hit once every three spins for 30 spins in a row?
Quote from: Gizmotron on February 01, 2011, 05:35:21 PM
So can twenty-two blacks in a row happen?
Can one of the columns or dozens repeat six times in a row?
Can one dozen only hit once every three spins for 30 spins in a row?
Theoretically yes - I'm sure any mathematician will tell you the odds.
I have seen 9 blackjacks/21 in a row in Vegas - all from the house. It was at a BJ machine and I have a rule to sit out every BJ that the dealer gets or machine gets - so I watched folks just go crazy.
They betted more and more "it can't happen again" and more until all of them were wiped out - just one guy continued who betted flat and he finally saw the end.
Strings of random events happen all the time and you have to decide if you believe in the Gamblers' Fallacy. I don't but I have seen so many crazy things happen that I just sit out BJs because in an evening of playing BJ I will see the dealer easily get 3 maybe 4 in a row. 9 I've only seen once in years of playing BJ - I cashed out after 5, I didn't want any part of that machine)
I use a random event to guide me with playing Red/Black (my watch trick) and I've seen the Marque all Black or all Red many times - I see folks pulling their hair out - they believe in the Gamblers' Fallacy.
Quote from: PHASE2 on February 01, 2011, 05:46:51 PM
All of those things can happen again and again at ANYTIME. The problem with virtually EVERY method I have seen players employ to try and best the random beast. Is 1, they try to outlive a losing streak using the fatal Martingale progression. Or a similar aggressive staking plan.
And 2, they don't identify an occurance that isn't SPECIAL. Its NORMAL. Trying to outlive a losing streak has been the undoing of virtualyl every method and player to try and beat this game. I put it forward Roulette is random. But take those spins and confine them to a set number ALL THE TIME. For severe scrutiny and you will see how roulette bows to the law of averages. And from these observations you then have SERIOUS data to formulate a method to decode the game.
MATRIX 50 is such a method. No maths geek, or Even Einstein himself could ever tell me roulette is unbeatable ever again. I know its not FOR CERTAIN. And tomorrow the members of this site will start to see it too...
I love to watch folks play Roulette - it's probably the craziest table game to play. I can't understand the logic of losing and betting more to make up for that loss. When you lose you screwed up in Black Jack or luck was not with you in Roulette. To then bet more on a loss indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of random events - you can't will them to help you.
Gambling is all about the thrill of an uncontrollable outcome, and it once in a while favoring you. To then decide to take an unfavorable outcome and exploit it, by betting more, is beyond my understanding.
short term+short term+short term= long term, period!
if it dosent work long term then it wont work short term.
@Kelly and Mike,
First off, let me begin by saying that I'm pretty sure you guys are right. It's just that I can't shake this feeling that we're all missing something. Maybe my right-brain orientation is just shooting me in the foot; I don't know. But you guys are saying that, given say 1000 groups of 20 numbers each, there will be just as many instances of 20 reds as there will be instances of 10 reds and 10 blacks? And what about 10,000 groups of 100 numbers each? Who has ever seen 50 reds in a row, let alone 100? And yet I'm sure we've all seen 50 reds and 50 blacks. I think someone made a distinction between the kind of distribution we can expect to see in a group vs. a single spin; maybe that's where I'm confused. In any case, I want to thank you all for responding to this thread and helping me work through this dilemma.
Sam
Quote from: darrynf on February 01, 2011, 06:27:46 PM
short term+short term+short term= long term, period!
if it dosent work long term then it wont work short term.
Flip a coin and make Heads = +1 and Tails = -1 and plot the running total. The resulting chart will look EXACTLY like a stock chart - if you leave off the labels of the X and Y axis there is NO way to tell a stock chart from a random flip of a coin chart.
The DJIA has a "natural buoyancy" of 12% per year for 120+ years; on top of that throw in 100% random price movement and you have the DJIA on any one day. 80% of all 10,000+ stocks around the world (major markets) correlate to the DJIA - that's why I just buy one stock - the SPY, S&P 500 "Spider". I have an indicator that took me 25+ years to figure out and it gets me in and out about once every 4 years or so.
In the world of casino games there is no natural "buoyancy" to the random events. In the long long run, like 100 years or millions transactions the mathematical odds show up. In the short run of 100 or less events they are poorly represented. I'm sure a mathematician can tell us how many Roulette spins are needed to be statistically confident (95%) that the correct odds are being reflected in that set - probably close to 200+ is my guess.
So taking a set of short random events and using them with another short set is meaningless - they won't approach the true mathematical percentages.
In addition to that, throw in the house advantage and you have a mishmash of gibberish that can only get you into trouble.
Quote from: birdhands on February 01, 2011, 06:39:21 PM
@Kelly and Mike,
First off, let me begin by saying that I'm pretty sure you guys are right. It's just that I can't shake this feeling that we're all missing something. Maybe my right-brain orientation is just shooting me in the foot; I don't know. But you guys are saying that, given say 1000 groups of 20 numbers each, there will be just as many instances of 20 reds as there will be instances of 10 reds and 10 blacks? And what about 10,000 groups of 100 numbers each? Who has ever seen 50 reds in a row, let alone 100? And yet I'm sure we've all seen 50 reds and 50 blacks. I think someone made a distinction between the kind of distribution we can expect to see in a group vs. a single spin; maybe that's where I'm confused. In any case, I want to thank you all for responding to this thread and helping me work through this dilemma.
Sam
The ONLY thing statistics can tell us is that the chance of any number showing up is 1/37 for a European Roulette wheel - period.
Beyond that it's wishful thinking that makes up all the systems out there. There is no more math to help us on individual bets. Spin the wheel a million times and sure Red will show up 18/37 times or 48.64864% as will Black.
That's all math says; nothing more. All these systems out there rely on junk science to work.....
Quote from: birdhands on February 01, 2011, 06:39:21 PM
@Kelly and Mike,
First off, let me begin by saying that I'm pretty sure you guys are right. It's just that I can't shake this feeling that we're all missing something. Maybe my right-brain orientation is just shooting me in the foot; I don't know. But you guys are saying that, given say 1000 groups of 20 numbers each, there will be just as many instances of 20 reds as there will be instances of 10 reds and 10 blacks? And what about 10,000 groups of 100 numbers each? Who has ever seen 50 reds in a row, let alone 100? And yet I'm sure we've all seen 50 reds and 50 blacks. I think someone made a distinction between the kind of distribution we can expect to see in a group vs. a single spin; maybe that's where I'm confused. In any case, I want to thank you all for responding to this thread and helping me work through this dilemma.
Sam
The reason you don't believe it is that you're confusing 2 different kinds of sequence. The probability of 5 spins like BB R BB
is calculated by 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 (5 times) which gives you 1/32.
This takes the ORDER into account of the way the colours came in. But if you don't take the order into account, then the probability of getting only 1 red in 5 spins is NOT 1/32, but 5/32, because there are 5 ways that you can get only 1 red in 5 spins, ie; R BBBB, B R BBB, BB R BB, BBB R B, or BBBB R.
So although no-one is ever likely to see 50 reds in a row, it's just as likely that you will never see any other sequence of 50 spins with the colours in a particular order either. I could write a program which will let you input a sequence, say,
RRBBRRRRRBRBRRRBRBBRRRBBRRRBRRBRRBRBBRBRRBRRRBBBBB and I can guarantee that you can search over millions of spins and you won't find an exact match.
Quote from: Gizmotron on February 01, 2011, 04:40:18 PM
I have no idea what you are trying to say. When was the last time you played a real session for a million spins, or a thousand for that matter? I think you are saying that fallacies don't apply to short termed sequences. On that we agree.
It sounded like you were saying that the long-term stats aren't accurate, but I see you were saying something different. Yes, you can't "count on" the stats in the sense of making a profit from them, because we can only bet on 1 spin at a time and not 100 or a 1000. But even if we COULD do that, the casino would adjust the payouts on such bets so that it would still be a negative expectation game.
Quote from: Gizmotron on February 01, 2011, 04:46:11 PM
Because it's a construct not based on fallacy or belief or expectation. It's the use of figure formations. The formations are meaningless. I just use them for bet selections. It really doesn't matter how they perform as long as they take on the characteristics of randomness. The point is to determine the current state of the conditions. It takes tools and a capacity to comprehend what is happening in order to take advantage.
You admit that the figure formations are meaningless, so how can you use them to get a better than expected hit rate? it makes no sense. :-\
If they are meaningless and therefore subjective, according to you we could all be choosing different formations and we would all be winning, which is absurd. The current state of the conditions cannot ever tell you what is going to happen in future spins. The fact that you claim to be winning using them (if true) must mean that some states lead to other states with a higher probability, but this is contradicted by the math and every empirical study. You simply cannot side-step probability. :nono:
Quote from: PHASE2 on February 01, 2011, 05:14:13 PM
There is no such thing as GAMBLERS FALLACY. What there is indeed are weak methods applied to try and beat the game of roulette. Poor use of money management. And zero discipline as when to snipe a game or session.
Once you know what to expect the vast majority of the time and apply supreme money management to it. You will have the game beaten. Enter THE MATRIX 50. I will present it tomorrow. Once AND FOR ALL THE ARGUMENT TO WHETHER A STRATEGY/METHOD/SYSTEM can beat the random monster known as ROULETTE will be layed to rest.
100 spins, 1,000 spins, 1 trillion spins. Will make no difference. MATRIX 50 decodes roulette....
PHASE2, there are no weak methods and strong methods, there are only failing methods. ALL methods fail. The idea that you can make a profit just by manipulating stakes is common, but entirely fallacious. All professionals have to come to a more sophisticated understanding of the mechanisms involved. The key idea is that of VALUE. Value means that the probability of your bet winning is higher than that which is used to calculate the payout. It's as simple as that. Fancy staking schemes will not affect this one iota, neither will statistics, because the payouts are actually calculated from the statistics! The logic is irrefutable.
Quote from: Mike on February 02, 2011, 06:07:19 AM
PHASE2, there are no weak methods and strong methods, there are only failing methods. ALL methods fail. The idea that you can make a profit just by manipulating stakes is common, but entirely fallacious. All professionals have to come to a more sophisticated understanding of the mechanisms involved. The key idea is that of VALUE. Value means that the probability of your bet winning is higher than that which is used to calculate the payout. It's as simple as that. Fancy staking schemes will not affect this one iota, neither will statistics, because the payouts are actually calculated from the statistics! The logic is irrefutable.
I would go even further and say that the game of Roulette, especial the stupid American version, should be played for entertainment purposes only - everything is against you in this table game.
If you play the binary bets and use a European wheel you can have fun watching folks being stupid - I mean the only reason I play Roulette is to watch the folks who play - it is hilarious; a break in my night of playing Blackjack where you stand a much better chance of having a profitable night.
If you use a mild form of money management an hour playing Roulette should not cost you that much and worth the fun of watching folks looking at the Marque and trying to figure out random numbers; and then watching them bust. I can't get enough of it..........(I do have a dark side to me)
Quote from: Mike on February 02, 2011, 05:45:57 AM
You admit that the figure formations are meaningless, so how can you use them to get a better than expected hit rate? it makes no sense. :-\
It makes sense to my students and me. I've been thinking that I would enjoy one new student per month. I might even prove I can win in 100 spins. So you guys won't have that excuse and all that. As long as I don't explain my bet selections then that might work. I know it's human nature to attempt to be given years of experience for free. You know, the internet and all that. So you must also know that I have every right to charge for an education from me.
Quote from: Gizmotron on February 02, 2011, 05:05:14 PM
So you must also know that I have every right to charge for an education from me.
:D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D LMFAO..............
Sorry for the delay in replying to your v v v interesting posts Gizmo, I've been playin n winning the last few days ;) In fact i think i should be able to "shut down" roulette forever v shortly....... :rtfm:
Oh, wait where have I heard that before ??? ??? ???
I still encourage all you folks with winning systems to demonstrate your system live, right here.
So far John Gold is the only person who has taken me up on my challenge.
Use the Chat room above (Live chat room) and a live TV Roulette wheel, I like nolinks://nolinks.smartlivecasino.com/live-roulette.html# (nolinks://nolinks.smartlivecasino.com/live-roulette.html#)
It's no big deal to show us your track record in real time. Just let us know when you want to prove you have a winning system and we will be there.
Until then it's just a lot of boasting about something we can't verify - boring........
Quote from: Gizmotron on February 02, 2011, 05:05:14 PM
I know it's human nature to attempt to be given years of experience for free. You know, the internet and all that. So you must also know that I have every right to charge for an education from me.
Oh you're an education all right. :sarcastic:
Pretty funny how you take every opportunity to plug your services. The sad thing is that only the most weak-minded of dunderheads will fall for your scam, and they're the ones who can probably least afford it. :(
Quote from: MauiSunset on February 02, 2011, 05:52:23 PM
I still encourage all you folks with winning systems to demonstrate your system live, right here.
Funny isn't it, how the ones with something to sell will never give a demonstration, even though doing it would give them a lot more potential customers. :sarcastic:
I don't have anything to share with folks about Roulette - I have nothing to prove.
Quite frankly I view Roulette as just a break from my night of playing Blackjack.
I'd love to use Roulette as something but a comic relief and that's why I haunt many of these Roulette sites. I've already found a great little technique from another website that I'm experimenting with - don't know if it will lead anywhere.
I've gotten a different slant on Roulette with the help of John Gold - thanks John.
I just don't understand folks who boast about having something that works yet don't want to demonstrate it - why boast in the first place? I try to help folks, in many forums, with things that I know and have experience with, sadly Roulette isn't something I can help other folks with.
I can share my views of gambling and years of watching folks get destroyed at various tables - I don't want to see anyone go through that.
If you have a winning system/technique and want to share it with us that's something to feel proud of. If, however, you claim to have a winning system/technique and refuse to share it - why on earth brag about it? The only conclusion I can come up with is that you want money to share it; you want to sell it - that's ok with me too.
So why not just advertise, on this website - they take ads, and stop boasting and start selling........I just don't get it.....
the system i play can not be put on paper. i back single numbers. one dollar roulette. if i am backing number 4. the bet is 2.one unit.4two units. 19.20.21. one unit 15 one unit. sometimes i get a hunch for a number. so i cannot write down the system. i still think the only way to win at roulette is backing single numbers. sometimes i have 30 bets without a winner. the next spin i am in front.
************ All sequences of the same length have the same probability.*********************
Yes, but sequences of a different length have a different length probability. Think about it, get off a losing trend early and stay on a winning one.
***************The mistake is in thinking that they apply to short term sequences. There is NO "balancing" effect you can rely on*********************
You don't need a balancing effect if you get off early and accept a small loss (eg -1)
**************************So can twenty-two blacks in a row happen?***************************
Yes, 40+ can happen (and has) Theoretically an infinity of blacks in a row can happen but HUMAN BEINGS don't play for infinity! Each individual gets their own life time sequence of spins. Accept small winnings and know when to accept small losses.
************************Flip a coin and make Heads = +1 and Tails = -1 and plot the running total. The resulting chart will look EXACTLY like a stock chart - if you leave off the labels of the X and Y axis there is NO way to tell a stock chart from a random flip of a coin chart.******************************
Then important factor is not how many end up Heads and how many end up Tails. The important factor is whether you bet on Head or Tails for each of the Bets and how much you staked each time.
********************It makes sense to my students and me.*****************
It should be 'to my students and I', not 'me'
You should take MS on as a student. Only problem is he wont pay for the privilege lol I wont pay either, but I don't have to, I am already above the level of your 'phantom' students lol I bumped in to one of them at the same casino MauiSunset was at. Your student was being sick in the toilet! lol (only joking :D )
I hope you can forgive this, but I've got a hangup about this particular grammatical point:
He's right in saying "to my students and me" because me is a direct object pronoun. We would use the subject pronoun (I) when saying "My students and I think it makes sense." Whenever in doubt just remove the other person or group, so "It makes sense to me" therefore "It makes sense to my students and (to) me." We would never say "it makes sense to I."
Again, I know this is a soapbox thing for me, but hey, it's a forum.
Sam
Quote from: birdhands on February 08, 2011, 01:04:55 PM
I hope you can forgive this, but I've got a hangup about this particular grammatical point:
He's right in saying "to my students and me" because me is a direct object pronoun. We would use the subject pronoun (I) when saying "My students and I think it makes sense." Whenever in doubt just remove the other person or group, so "It makes sense to me" therefore "It makes sense to my students and (to) me." We would never say "it makes sense to I."
Again, I know this is a soapbox thing for me, but hey, it's a forum.
Sam
I was just trying to have a joke with Giz, wasn't being serious. But yes you're right, grammar is not my strong suiit. I have been exposed as an idiot lol Stay on your soap box, I like it! It helps improve my own grammar lol
Quote from: col1879 on February 08, 2011, 12:50:40 PM
********************It makes sense to my students and me.*****************
It should be 'to my students and I', not 'me'
And furthermore, that makes sense to my students and to me too. You are wrong. That makes perfect sense, since it makes sense to blab your two cents.
Please be nice. And if you can't be nice, please don't use my posts to be mean.
How can we conclusively prove/disprove patterns in random numbers?
This seems to be the solution to all this - a simple test that doesn't have to be part of a gambling system/technique.
Since I don't believe there are patterns to random numbers I can't help here - but those of you who do should be able to provide some evidence - something.
And if you can't how do we debate this topic?
Here's a test that I've thought of:
- Take 1,000 past spins of a Roulette wheel
- Take 1,000 DJIA spins that come from taking the DJIA's close * 100 and dividing by 37 with the remainder being a number between 0 and 36
Now one stream should be able to forecast the next 100 spins and one would not.
You can't take one stream of random numbers, form something totally unrelated, and use it to drive a gambling system - that would mean that any set of random numbers will correctly forecast future Roulette spins.
This of course can't be true.
Correct?
Quote from: col1879 on February 08, 2011, 12:50:40 PM
You should take MS on as a student. Only problem is he wont pay for the privilege lol I wont pay either, but I don't have to, I am already above the level of your 'phantom' students lol
So prove it. I'm going to prove it latter in March. But you can now. Just dazzle us all with your brilliance. What is the most important thing to know what to do if you use trends when playing Roulette?
Quote from: MauiSunset on February 08, 2011, 03:39:55 PM
Now one stream should be able to forecast the next 100 spins and one would not.
You can't take one stream of random numbers and use it to drive a gambling system - that would mean that any set of random numbers will correctly forecast future Roulette spins.
This of course can't be true.
Correct?
Typical assumption. You think it's all about forecasting, "forecast future Roulette spins." Wrong again. Please get this message. You're wrong again. GOT IT YET?
Quote from: Gizmotron on February 08, 2011, 03:51:26 PM
Typical assumption. You think it's all about forecasting, "forecast future Roulette spins." Wrong again. Please get this message. You're wrong again. GOT IT YET?
OK, set me straight....
Quote from: MauiSunset on February 08, 2011, 03:52:24 PM
OK, set me straight....
I charge a far too fare and reasonable price for that. I teach reading randomness. I provide practicing software that assists the learning process. And most importantly I show you how to use reading randomness in an effective way to give you an advantage you can take advantage of. I consider the $10 per hour, estimated on 30 hours of training, to be a bargain. It has proven to be a stumbling block to people that are probably cheapskates and don't have dime one to go to a casino with anyway. That's you, isn't it? You've never been to a casino. Right?
Quote from: Gizmotron on February 08, 2011, 04:00:10 PM
I charge a far too fare and reasonable price for that. I teach reading randomness. I provide practicing software that assists the learning process. And most importantly I show you how to use reading randomness in an effective way to give you an advantage you can take advantage of. I consider the $10 per hour, estimated on 30 hours of training, to be a bargain. It has proven to be a stumbling block to people that are probably cheapskates and don't have dime one to go to a casino with anyway. That's you, isn't it? You've never been to a casino. Right?
So this is all a sales pitch?
Forgive me but I would never entertain the idea of paying someone $10/hr for anything but cutting my lawn and I'd bet the kids charge more than that.
Now if you charged $500/hr with some verifiable proof then that makes some sense.
You've got to raise your rates or no one will take you seriously - just a suggestion.
This is all very sad and petty and makes me want to take my name off the thread.
Quote from: MauiSunset on February 08, 2011, 04:06:47 PM
So this is all a sales pitch?
Forgive me but I would never entertain the idea of paying someone $10/hr for anything but cutting my lawn and I'd bet the kids charge more than that.
Now if you charged $500/hr with some verifiable proof then that makes some sense.
You've got to raise your rates or no one will take you seriously - just a suggestion.
Thank you very much for illustrating what a bunch of idiots you people that have criticized me for more than four years really are. I know it's worth more than what I charged. It's worth the 35 years playing in real casinos and it's worth all the paychecks I lost during those times. It's worth all the computer based research I did on my own for decades. But you jerks got really uptight that I wouldn't share it. So I found a way to share it. So that makes you idiots for not taking me up on it. I have the right to sell my training for any price I want. I sold it for just the right price. I got serious students that really wanted to learn. But you want people to be impressed with you and your "I only do this for entertainment" crud. This is not an advertisement. I only take one student per month. It takes that long to learn this. I have my reasons for doing this. I've made them clear.
****************What is the most important thing to know what to do if you use trends when playing Roulette?**************
Not to keep betting on a long losing one
Quote from: Gizmotron on February 08, 2011, 04:19:43 PM
Thank you very much for illustrating what a bunch of idiots you people that have criticized me for more than four years really are. I know it's worth more than what I charged. It's worth the 35 years playing in real casinos and it's worth all the paychecks I lost during those times. It's worth all the computer based research I did on my own for decades. But you jerks got really uptight that I wouldn't share it. So I found a way to share it. So that makes you idiots for not taking me up on it. I have the right to sell my training for any price I want. I sold it for just the right price. I got serious students that really wanted to learn. But you want people to be impressed with you and your "I only do this for entertainment" crud. This is not an advertisement. I only take one student per month. It takes that long to learn this. I have my reasons for doing this. I've made them clear.
I use lawyers occasionally for various things - if one of them charged $10/hr there is no way I'd ever want to use them.
You pay for what you get.
However, proof of concept is required if you want some big bucks - I'd never pay a lawyer $250/hr without verifying that the guy had a JD and his track record.
If you want to teach you've got to have a track record of some kind - demonstrating your method/technique here in real time is simple and you don't have to say what you are doing. There are free programs that can record what you see on your monitor - capture your session and use it as a Webinar to help sell your services.
Really, I'd pay $500/hr for something that is profitable gambling - I could spend hours a day making a fortune on an internet casino.
Sign me up.........
Quote from: col1879 on February 08, 2011, 04:29:53 PM
****************What is the most important thing to know what to do if you use trends when playing Roulette?**************
Not to keep betting on a long losing one
Nope, but that's a good guess.
Gizmo things are not really working for you. The casinos are still there.
**************Can some math whiz please explain to me how it's gambler's fallacy to expect red after 20 blacks when red and black are always moving toward an even distribution?************************
I still haven't seen a satisfactory answer to this yet
Quote from: Kelly on February 08, 2011, 04:32:10 PM
Gizmo things are not really working for you. The casinos are still there.
Nobody has disclosed my concepts yet. Even more important is that nobody has figured it out on their own yet either. But that's OK. There's still time to do research and win a prize for advanced mathematical research. It would be a shame that you guys would miss this one to someone like me. Someone that said you were wrong all along. I can blow the whistle any time I want to. I can shake everything up whenever I want to. Just consider this. You are not worth shaking things up for. You don't amount to a hill of beans. That's the real conclusion here.
Quote from: col1879 on February 08, 2011, 04:38:19 PM
**************Can some math whiz please explain to me how it's gambler's fallacy to expect red after 20 blacks when red and black are always moving toward an even distribution?************************
I still haven't seen a satisfactory answer to this yet
I am no math wizard but:
Why stop at the past 20 blacks? Why not go back 10,000 spins of a Roulette wheel?
If you did you'd see that out of every 37 spins (European wheel):
1 Green 0
18 Reds
18 Blacks
Picking the past 20 spins is gibberish - not enough of a sample.
ALL statistics tells us is what you can figure out with a calculator:
Green 1/37 or 2.7% tax to play the game
Red 18/37 or 48.65%
Black 18/37 or 48.65%
Anything else is just voodoo math.........
*****************What is the most important thing to know what to do if you use trends when playing Roulette?*****************
To start betting when a winning one begins
***************** You don't amount to a hill of beans. That's the real conclusion here.*******************
Not bad. Personally, I would have gone with 'You are but an ant. Before me you rightly tremble' (only joking) ;D
Quote from: Gizmotron on February 08, 2011, 04:43:12 PM
Nobody has disclosed my concepts yet. Even more important is that nobody has figured it out on their own yet either. But that's OK. There's still time to do research and win a prize for advanced mathematical research. It would be a shame that you guys would miss this one to someone like me. Someone that said you were wrong all along. I can blow the whistle any time I want to. I can shake everything up whenever I want to. Just consider this. You are not worth shaking things up for. You don't amount to a hill of beans. That's the real conclusion here.
Oh come on now - someone has figured out your system and is now living on their own yacht cruising various European countries making a fortune playing Roulette and on the Internet just for kicks.
They have tough others to win a Roulette and pay him a percentage.
Then those folks have recruited folks who pay them a fee and recruit more folks. A great pyramid scheme.
Sounds like you've missed the boat...........
Quote from: col1879 on February 08, 2011, 04:50:08 PM
*****************What is the most important thing to know what to do if you use trends when playing Roulette?*****************
To start betting when a winning one begins
the problem here is you never really know when a winning trend is as this can turn into a bad trend anytime and vice vera
***************** You don't amount to a hill of beans. That's the real conclusion here.*******************
Not bad. Personally, I would have gone with 'You are but an ant. Before me you rightly tremble' (only joking) ;D
the
@gizmo.
Whatever. There will always be an excuse.
@cool
If 20 blacks has just shown, you cant really know wether black still has to hit another 30 times just to break even in the big picture. In that case you would still be expecting black instead of red, even though black has just come out 20 times. The last 20 spins on your paper is just that, just paper.
****************you never really know when a winning trend is as this can turn into a bad trend anytime and vice vera**************
If it is a winning trend then keep betting, if it's a losing one jump off
*****************If 20 blacks has just shown, you cant really know wether black still has to hit another 30 times just to break even in the big picture. In that case you would still be expecting black instead of red, even though black has just come out 20 times. The last 20 spins on your paper is just that, just paper.*****************
Yes, but there is a 25% chance it will switch to R and a much, much, much lower percentage it will repeat B
Yes, but there is a 25% chance it will switch to R and a much, much, much lower percentage it will repeat B
WHAT ? Feel free to post how you get to that conclusion.
I'm not one to care about what gizmo says as he has no evidence of anything suporting him, who ever said to get of a lossing trend when iy happens, well i dont quite agree cause that losing trend can turn into a winning trend at anytime (and vice versa).
I dont know what gizmo dose (maybe he has a good strategy and maybe not) but if you go off past spins in a short outcome then most of the times it will even it self out, meaning you never see big losses or big wins.
sometimes the pattern will be dominant and it dosnt change for at least 20 or so spins, of cause there are other factors in play (im not saying i win all the time, the last session i played with my strategy is that i lost, but it wasnt due to my strategy).
anyway im sure people play differently and have many different method, eitherway you cant predict exactly what will happen but from my testing it says that on a short game the trends dont very to often.
just my opinion, dosent mean im right, just means what i have seen with my strategy. I havent had any money to play it for awhile so its still new and i dont bother testing it out anymore as it already showed good results.
25% of all patterns are Singles. 0.00000000000000something% of all patterns are 20+ repeaters. Patterns as in the Big Picture - Not Infinity
i dont really agree with you cole (not that percentage or im reading you post wrong).
they say red and black have a 48% chance of a hit, on the first spin yes.
now say you had had 20 blacks, what i think is true is that the longer a coulor runs without changing then the percentage gets higher for the colour to change.
so it starts off 48% and say black hits again, so what dose that change the percentage to 1% or 0.1%, eitherway the percentage hasent change enough to be in your favor, so after 10 blacks, maybe the percentage is 49% (0.1%) or 58% (1%). who knows how high it is.
if it was 0.1% and 20 blacks hit then it would be 50% to red for the next colour to show(now its still pretty even but this is more of an example).
the higher the same colour hits the higher the percentage for the oppersit colour to hit, anyway thats what i believe.
Quote from: col1879 on February 08, 2011, 05:18:08 PM
25% of all patterns are Singles. 0.00000000000000something% of all patterns are 20+ repeaters. Patterns as in the Big Picture - Not Infinity
I really dont understand how you get that. in my opinion repeaters happen just as much as single numbers.
if it were balck and red then the singles would be 48%, the dozens and columns are 33% (something like that).
im only talking about singles so i dont understand what you are saying cole.
if you are saying 25% of patterns are singles then thats saying 75% of patterns are repeaters, if that was true then we would all be winning but i think its more 50% eachway.
I am saying that if you do 100 spins and study the patterns that 25% will be BRB or RBR. Over a larger sample, say 1000spins, you are much more likely to see a BRRRRRRRRRRRB or a RBBBBBBBBBBBR. More likely, not guaranteed.
Getting back to the BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB then B or R? 25% to R and smaller percentage for B although you would be -20, flat betting, before you placed the flat bet. I am not saying you will be in profit by betting for R on Bet 21, all I am saying is a switch to R is more likely based on the size of sample of spins, but not guaranteed. If that makes any sense!
Quote from: darrynf on February 08, 2011, 05:23:07 PM
I dont really agree with you cole (not that percentage or im reading you post wrong).
they say red and black have a 48% chance of a hit, on the first spin yes.
now say you had had 20 blacks, what I think is true is that the longer a coulor runs without changing then the percentage gets higher for the colour to change.
so it starts off 48% and say black hits again, so what dose that change the percentage to 1% or 0.1%, eitherway the percentage hasent change enough to be in your favor, so after 10 blacks, maybe the percentage is 49% (0.1%) or 58% (1%). who knows how high it is.
if it was 0.1% and 20 blacks hit then it would be 50% to red for the next colour to show(now its still pretty even but this is more of an example).
the higher the same colour hits the higher the percentage for the oppersit colour to hit, anyway thats what I believe.
This is not backed up by any math anywhere - it's the Gamblers' Fallacy - you want the next spin to not be 48.6% Red or 48.6% Black; you want something that doesn't exist.
Well, it exists in a lot of Roulette systems for sale, never the free ones...........
col, you mix it up. Im running out of time but read this;
nolinks://nolinks.win-maxx.com/basics/basics06.html (nolinks://nolinks.win-maxx.com/basics/basics06.html)
nolinks://nolinks.win-maxx.com/basics/basics08.html (nolinks://nolinks.win-maxx.com/basics/basics08.html)
nolinks://nolinks.win-maxx.com/basics/basics11.html (nolinks://nolinks.win-maxx.com/basics/basics11.html)
nolinks://nolinks.win-maxx.com/basics/basics13.html (nolinks://nolinks.win-maxx.com/basics/basics13.html)
Pay attention to the last link. Im pretty sure that it wouldnt matter if I gave the explanation in my own words, these things has come up for as long as I can remember.
The chances for the outcome in spin 21 is 50/50. Its the lenght of the streak that makes the probability smaller. It has nothing to do with the appearences in the streak. It could be all singles BRBRBRBR..... the probability is still the same at spin 21 as if 20 blacks came out.
The part you misunderstand is in link 1
Quote from: col1879 on February 08, 2011, 05:39:43 PM
I am saying that if you do 100 spins and study the patterns that 25% will be BRB or RBR. Over a larger sample, say 1000spins, you are much more likely to see a BRRRRRRRRRRRB or a RBBBBBBBBBBBR. More likely, not guaranteed.
Getting back to the BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB then B or R? 25% to R and smaller percentage for B although you would be -20, flat betting, before you placed the flat bet. I am not saying you will be in profit by betting for R on Bet 21, all I am saying is a switch to R is more likely based on the size of sample of spins, but not guaranteed. If that makes any sense!
The closest "system" I've found, and one I use all the time, is to bet 1 chip on Black and 1 chip on Red (alternating) and get as many free drinks as I can guzzle down in one hour.
I don't know of a more profitable Roulette system in existence....
Give twenty individual people a sample of 10 spins. I bet 10 of them (50%) don't have twenty blacks in a row in their sample (on average, not infinity)
@maui,
I know its not back up, that was just an example.
Its what i believe (more so for RNG), you could say its not true (its no different to flicking a coin).
anyway i never bet on colours, the problem is you dont know what percentage it should be, its all guess work.
its also possible for the same colour to continue for 100 or more spins (as far as i know it dosent happen but its possible).
I believe the longer one colour stays the sooner it will change due to percentages but like i said i never bet colours
I asume you mean 20 spins each.
Why is
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
less likely than
BBBBBRRRRRBBBBBRRRRR
or
BRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBR
if you test a large spin sample you will roughly find the same amount of these 3 constellations embedded. if you dont believe me, test it out. Gotta go.
***********The part you misunderstand is in link 1********************
Ok thanks for the link, I'll check it out (don't worry, I never gamble with real money lol)
That means only a third or less (less than 50%) has the BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
Quote from: Kelly on February 08, 2011, 04:55:06 PM
@gizmo.
Whatever. There will always be an excuse.
Not true. Just like when I decided to share what my method is to a few at a time I'm now going to prove what I can do in a live chat. Later, when my internet connection gets back to normal, I will do it right here on this forum.
Quote from: col1879 on February 08, 2011, 05:57:00 PM
That means only a third or less (less than 50%) has the BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
there are many theory's and math explanations in roulette, i believe what i believe.
I could be wrong and i could be right.
one thing i know repeats happen as much as singles so how is that 25% to singles ?
Quote from: Gizmotron on February 08, 2011, 06:03:53 PM
Not true. Just like when I decided to share what my method is to a few at a time I'm now going to prove what I can do in a live chat. Later, when my internet connection gets back to normal, I will do it right here on this forum.
lol yet its normal enough to post !
always something with him lol
*****************if you test a large spin sample you will roughly find the same amount of these 3 constellations embedded. if you dont believe me, test it out. Gotta go.***********************
Even if that is true (probably is, the more I think about it!), when I am sitting down with my can of coke and doing my 20 spins in play mode, I am not playing the previous players 20 spins or the next players 20 spins, I am in the middle 20, playing my own spins.
The link in the overall chain of infinity is broken.
Of course I have my own long life time chain of links eg 20 spins + 20 spins + 20 spins etc and who is to say if they are favourable links or unfavourable links that I get in my own life time chain? Lady Luck!
Quote from: darrynf on February 08, 2011, 05:48:47 PM
@maui,
I know its not back up, that was just an example.
Its what I believe (more so for RNG), you could say its not true (its no different to flicking a coin).
anyway I never bet on colours, the problem is you dont know what percentage it should be, its all guess work.
its also possible for the same colour to continue for 100 or more spins (as far as I know it dosent happen but its possible).
I believe the longer one colour stays the sooner it will change due to percentages but like I said I never bet colours
I asked these questions before but I'll ask them again - since no one answered them last time:
You watch a Roulette wheel all day long and in the last 50 spins Red has come up only 10 times, 40 Blacks showed up. You sit down and are ready to bet Red (or Black):
The pit boss replaces the wheel with another wheel and balances it - does this change anything?
The fire alarm goes off and everyone runs outside and 1 hour later everyone comes back - does this change anything?
The white ball is replaced with another one - does this change anything?
Now if you believe in past history favoring one color over the other you can't bet - and why??????
*******************I will do it right here on this forum.*********************
I think I know what your strategy is but we will wait and see :thumbsup:
Quote from: birdhands on January 18, 2011, 12:37:30 AM
Can some math whiz please explain to me how it's gambler's fallacy to expect red after 20 blacks when red and black are always moving toward an even distribution?
im not a math whiz but i think gamblers fallacy is about something changing, the higher something occures the sonner its bound to change, this way it dosent effect even distrubution.
*******************im not a math whiz but I think gamblers fallacy is about something changing, the higher something occures the sonner its bound to change, this way it dosent effect even distrubution*******************
Yes! Not over infinity, over infinity everything equals out, but depending on the size of sample then yes (percentage ratio wise, NOT GUARANTEED)
******************Now if you believe in past history favoring one color over the other you can't bet - and why???**************
Depends on the size of the history and the size of the future
You watch a Roulette wheel all day long and in the last 50 spins Red has come up only 10 times, 40 Blacks showed up. You sit down and are ready to bet Red (or Black):
The pit boss replaces the wheel with another wheel and balances it - does this change anything? MAYBE (IF IT WAS BIAS)
The fire alarm goes off and everyone runs outside and 1 hour later everyone comes back - does this change anything?NO
The white ball is replaced with another one - does this change anything?NO
Now if you believe in past history favoring one color over the other you can't bet - and why???
it also depends how it came up (the colours, how they appeared, if you got 10 black then it changes to red) well it dose matter but when to bet is the challenge and thats why colours will never win
@ cole,
Now i understand what you are saying cole, your percentages are based on short term, though i still dont think its true becuase it can be 75% singles or repeats and it can change up or down, maybe in most cases it will be one thing but in roulette its always one thing most of the time then it changes and then we lose.
A single is not just R or B, to make it a single it has to be BRB or RBR. Think about it. A two is BRRB or RBBR. A Three is BRRRB or RBBBR etc.
Now study a 100 spin sample and see how many are singles, twos, threes etc
Quote from: darrynf on February 08, 2011, 06:08:12 PM
lol yet its normal enough to post !
always something with him lol
It took 30 seconds for this answer to your post to load. There is no way that I can keep up with a live feed from an acceptable on-line live wheel and the chat window here on this forum. You must have missed my disclosure that my internet provider was purchased by a new company and they are installing four more T-1 lines to go with the 3 T-1 lines already being used in normal conditions. Right now I have intermittent access and slower than dial up speeds. I suppose you didn't actually read this far so I'll have to tell you again later when you are in your usual pissy state. You act just like a married battle axe of a mother.
Quote from: Gizmotron on February 08, 2011, 06:46:57 PM
It took 30 seconds for this answer to your post to load. There is no way that I can keep up with a live feed from an acceptable on-line live wheel and the chat window here on this forum. You must have missed my disclosure that my internet provider was purchased by a new company and they are installing four more T-1 lines to go with the 3 T-1 lines already being used in normal conditions. Right now I have intermittent access and slower than dial up speeds. I suppose you didn't actually read this far so I'll have to tell you again later when you are in your usual pissy state. You act just like a married battle axe of a mother.
Is it not possible to change you ISP?
Sounds like your current one is a pain in the arse anyway...
why dont you stop posting excuses and give everyone something they can see.
I dont really care about your isp, all you ver do is talk and try to sell something and yet you brag about what you do and your students and yet not one has vowed to be under you.
out of all yous B.S you havent even given one thing that people can see it works, you smell like a scammer.
you treat everyone on here like they are ideots, the olny ideot i see here is you gizmo!
you are no smarter then anyone here and all you do is call people names and act like you are gods give to roulette.
YOU ARE JUST A WANNABE, PRETENDER, whatever you want to call yourself.
back your words up, as far as im concern you are full of shit!
Im out of this topic, i wont be replying as i have said what i think, its what i think whether im right or wrong! period.
you win some you lose some, i just had a guy try to sell me a system, i said no. i have my own.
Quote from: bombus on February 08, 2011, 06:51:19 PM
Is it not possible to change you ISP?
Sounds like your current one is a pain in the arse anyway...
When this one is working I can download Youtube videos. My only other option is a satellite system that costs more or dial-up that is just almost worthless. This system started out on one T-1 line. It then went to three T-1 lines. Soon it will be on seven T-1 lines. Ever since it went to three T-1 line my connection has been more reliable. This is what you get when you live in the country. I'm just outside the range of all the G3 and G4 cell phone lines too. I did have a better than dial-up cell modem for my laptop for a few years. But that costs more too. And it's temperamental way out here too. So that's the facts.
Quote from: darrynf on February 08, 2011, 06:19:27 PM
You watch a Roulette wheel all day long and in the last 50 spins Red has come up only 10 times, 40 Blacks showed up. You sit down and are ready to bet Red (or Black):
The pit boss replaces the wheel with another wheel and balances it - does this change anything? MAYBE (IF IT WAS BIAS)
The fire alarm goes off and everyone runs outside and 1 hour later everyone comes back - does this change anything?NO
The white ball is replaced with another one - does this change anything?NO
Now if you believe in past history favoring one color over the other you can't bet - and why???
it also depends how it came up (the colours, how they appeared, if you got 10 black then it changes to red) well it dose matter but when to bet is the challenge and thats why colours will never win
Folks who view the marquee or keep track of past spins are keeping track of what? The equipment that generated those numbers, like the Roulette wheel, ball, dealer, or some cosmic happenstance that allows for all kinds of changes in equipment?
That's what I don't understand? On a Roulette machine or internet casino the RNG can work several ways 1) it constantly spits out numbers and stops when an event occurs, like a button pressed or a mouse click and 2) it increments ONLY with an external event like a button.
How do you know which you have?
Just seems like folks who believe in past history are tied to equipment of all kinds.....
Quote from: Gizmotron on February 08, 2011, 07:05:20 PM
When this one is working I can download Youtube videos. My only other option is a satellite system that costs more or dial-up that is just almost worthless. This system started out on one T-1 line. It then went to three T-1 lines. Soon it will be on seven T-1 lines. Ever since it went to three T-1 line my connection has been more reliable. This is what you get when you live in the country. I'm just outside the range of all the G3 and G4 cell phone lines too. I did have a better than dial-up cell modem for my laptop for a few years. But that costs more too. And it's temperamental way out here too. So that's the facts.
I just find it very hard to believe that someone who can crack Roulette is hamstrung by a simple internet setup.
Go to the nearest public library - they have PCs and high speed internet and you can be up and running in a minute.
I know they filter out porn sites but maybe they allow gambling sites - who knows?
I'm losing confidence here...........
I know they filter out porn sites but maybe they allow gambling sites - who knows?
[/quote]
Yeah, it's a shame. I like to get away from gambling sites once in a while! :sarcastic:
Quote from: MauiSunset on February 08, 2011, 06:09:09 PM
I asked these questions before but I'll ask them again - since no one answered them last time:
You watch a Roulette wheel all day long and in the last 50 spins Red has come up only 10 times, 40 Blacks showed up. You sit down and are ready to bet Red (or Black):
The pit boss replaces the wheel with another wheel and balances it - does this change anything?
The fire alarm goes off and everyone runs outside and 1 hour later everyone comes back - does this change anything?
The white ball is replaced with another one - does this change anything?
Now if you believe in past history favoring one color over the other you can't bet - and why??????
I believe, and I emphasize the word believe, that these scenarios change nothing when I'm betting in a way that does not utilize past spins as a determinant factor. However, if I am betting on what I expect to occur based on the past 20 or so spins, these scenarios would prompt me to track another 20 spins before resuming my bets.
Sam
Quote from: The Capt. on February 08, 2011, 07:42:48 PM
Mr. Gizmotron, what is your email address?
Why bother. This is your M.O. for email spamming.
Quote from: birdhands on February 08, 2011, 10:59:59 PM
I believe, and I emphasize the word believe, that these scenarios change nothing when I'm betting in a way that does not utilize past spins as a determinant factor. However, if I am betting on what I expect to occur based on the past 20 or so spins, these scenarios would prompt me to track another 20 spins before resuming my bets.
Sam
Sounds like you believe the equipment has some influence in the random numbers generated - correct?
So how does the equipment influence the number spun? What about RNGs?
*****************What is the most important thing to know what to do if you use trends when playing Roulette?*****************
Guess no2- To start betting when a winning one begins
Guess no3- Something to do with clusters
Quote from: MauiSunset on February 08, 2011, 11:35:29 PM
Sounds like you believe the equipment has some influence in the random numbers generated - correct?
So how does the equipment influence the number spun? What about RNGs?
I don't know how or even if the equipment influences the number spun. I would retrack just in case certain ball sizes or wheels are different from one another in their performance. But again, that's half caution, half paranoia, and probably half wishful thinking.
Sam
********************But again, that's half caution, half paranoia, and probably half wishful thinking.***********************
Ok, maybe you are better at English grammar but I am better at Maths!
******************************
In summary can be said that in a roulette-permanence the sum of isolated series, i.e. not connected (clustered), is equal the sum of clusters of series. There are as many clusters of 2 series as clusters of more than 2 series and so forth. This law of appearance is valid for singles and series.The law of distribution of clusters of series is equal to the law of distribution of clusters of singles!
******************************
There are as many BRB and RBR as there are BRRRRRRRRRB and RBBBBBBBBBR?
I never doubted that!
******************************
Its the lenght of the streak that makes the probability smaller. It has nothing to do with the appearences in the streak.
******************************
So it doesn't matter if it's BRB + BRRRB + BRRB + BRRRRRRRRRB + BRB + BRRB + BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRB etc
What does matter? If it's BRB + BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRB + BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRB + BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRB + BRB?
Sorry col but there are qute a few things you have mixed up.
--------------------------------------------------------
So it doesn't matter if it's BRB + BRRRB + BRRB + BRRRRRRRRRB + BRB + BRRB + BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRB etc
What does matter? If it's BRB + BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRB + BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRB + BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRB + BRB?
--------------------------------------------------------
As long as its the same total amount of spin in each sample, it doesnt matter how it looks like.
--------------------------------------------------------
There are as many BRB and RBR as there are BRRRRRRRRRB and RBBBBBBBBBR?
--------------------------------------------------------
No there is not, you compare apples and pears. BRB id a cluster/serie of 3.
BRRRRRRRRRB is a cluster/serie of 11 which has lower probability and as such is not happening so often as a cluster of 3. Read the "law of the series" in the basic links i posted,
**********As long as its the same total amount of spin in each sample, it doesn't matter how it looks like.****************
In a small sample of 64 spins are we more likely to see clusters of 1,2,3,4 rather than clusters of eg 12? In larger samples (eg 100,000) they all appear equally?
And lots of small samples all add up to one large sample?
Quote from: birdhands link=topic=17687. msg125841#msg125841 date=1295321850
Can some math whiz please explain to me how it's gambler's fallacy to expect red after 20 blacks when red and black are always moving toward an even distribution?
I didnt read the comments but I think I know the answer to this. I think its gamblers fallacy b/c even after 20 blacks, that is too small of a sample to expect even distribution to play a factor. Whos to say before the 20 blacks there weren't 25 reds? Or what about the day before you saw 20 blacks, red came out 20 more times than black did. The thing is you cannot see even distribution unless you were tracking it from the start of the very first spin. Even then, even distribution is not guaranteed. A wheel spun over a lifetime *should be near 50/50 but it doesnt have to be. It could be 60/40.