My best ever system I refer to it as my "Flagship EC system" is very complex and I use it more than any other system at
the casino. You will be pleased to here that I won't burden you with the details here, but I will show you the results of a spin off version as follows : [ Now available at nolinks://nolinks.signumsystem.com (nolinks://nolinks.signumsystem.com)
[table=,]
R/B,+/-/0,Symbls,units
B,,,
B,+1,,,
R,0,M-1,
B,-1,,
R,-2,OOO,
R,-1,M-1,
B,-2,OOO,+1
B,-1,P+1,
B, 0,OOO,+2
R,-1,P+1,
B,-2,OOO,+3
0,,,
B,-1,P+1,
R,-2,P+2,+2
B,-3,P+1,+3
B,-2,OOO,+4
B,-1,M-1,
R,-2,000,+5
B,-3,M-1,
B,-2,OOO,+6
R,-3,P+1,
B,-4,OOO,+7
R,-5,P+1,
R,-4,OOO,+8
[/table]
This spin off version is half as complex as the original version and lacks it's flexibility. The symbols P and M represent Red and Black
and are constantly changing depending on how the session progresses.
I may or may not explain the details of this system or perhaps at some future time.
The point of showing the above results is that it would be good, if we could move the debate on about -2.7% and that all systems
will eventually fail and that it is not possible to win long term.
I know for certain this is a fallacy, because my Flagship system has produced such results over a number of years.
I would like all those who hold the view that every system will result in -2.7% to consider the following :
I could produce a years results using spielbank-wiesbaden spins and show that this system will make a profit every month,
roughly 300 sessions. The sceptics will say yes that's all very well, but it will most probably fail in the next 300 sessions.
OK, conservatively lets say the results produce +600 units. For those units to come down -2.7 most months would have to
show a number of losses. I should add that there is an exit strategy of -3/4 losses in a session.
The symbols in this system P and M develop in various ways, depending on various trends. The trend as you can see is that of
an indifferent trend, it doesn't develop into for example P+1,P+2,P+3,P+4 etc. It shows OOO (neither P or M) and a P or M has
to show again for the session to continue.
If we accept the sceptics view that the above system will fail, I will incur a number of -3/4 unit losses. The symbols will be in a
consistently chaotic state, they will rarely produce the above results.
It will of course dawn on my poor brain that the symbols which normally produce a positive result are now in negative mode
thanks to the sceptics lol. So why not reverse the role of the symbols and what would have been considered a positive trend
therefore do the opposite because I know by doing so I will turn a losing session into a winning one. Don't forget I now expect
most sessions to lose!
Most probably anyone reading this thus far, has take a couple of headache pills. It is I think an interesting proposition and
hopefully one or more sceptics will consider carefully, what I have proposed and give a intelligent reply and not just quote -2.7%.
Let's try and move the debate on if at all possible.
Mr Chips
Hi Mr Chips,
QuoteSo why not reverse the role of the symbols and what would have been considered a positive trend
therefore do the opposite because I know by doing so I will turn a losing session into a winning one. Don't forget I now expect
most sessions to lose!
That's an interesting way of looking at things. I've been using an EC method for some years and am still ahead in terms of profit, what puzzles me though is that it failed when I wrote a computer program to test it. I tried lots of tweaks but the result was always the same - -1.35% (notice I didn't mention -2.7% :D).
I've written a lot of computer programs over the years to test systems, all with the same result, so these days my only thought is - "I wonder what the achilles heel of
this system will be?"
Nevertheless, I continue to play but I don't have your faith that long term results as predicted by the maths (and computer simulations, which are only another way of "doing the maths") can be overcome.
The only explanation I have for still being in the black is that my play isn't completely fixed and rigid. I use a variety of bet selections and money management methods, I duck and dive with the wheel, so to speak. To include all this moment-by-moment stuff into a computer program would be a nightmare (when I first programmed my system, it was much simpler than it is now).
I've noticed that this seems to be a common theme with systems. A relatively simple system is unlikely to get past first base. In order to have a chance of winning, it must be reasonably complex. That's not to say that the complexity is the
only ingredient for success, but it is, I believe, a necessary one.
Hi Tangram.
I have come to realise that there has to be two versions of a system if someone intends to write a program for it. As you say
"my play isn't completely fixed and rigid". A program cannot completely match the human intervention program.
One of the most difficult problems is working out an exit for the program. If you take the example I gave above the target is
+5 units. However it is an excellent trend and has reached +8 units. Conversely in a very difficult session say -2,-3,-2 a
decision to exit at -2 could well be a good decision but, the program will exit at -4.
I am hoping the sceptics will make a constructive contribution to this debate and invite Herb to post here and I don't do that
too often lol.
Mr Chips
Quote from: Mr ChipsI will conservatively have accumulated approx 600 units. My minimum loss in any session will be 3/4 units. In order to lose the accumulated profit thus so far gained I will have to incur a great number of 3/4 unit losses.
It will become apparent to me that whereas the P and M trends were favourable in the direction, as dictated by the system, that will no longer be the case. I will expect a great many sessions to lose. As I will expect more losses I will decide instead that say a P trend is likely to incur a 3/4 unit loss and instead will switch to a M trend and by so doing turn a losing session into a winning one!
So a number expected losing sessions will become winning sessions simply be following your certainty that this system will fail.
The argument may be logical, but any argument is only as good as its premises. The premise that you have accumulated 600 units is not true, it's an assumption.
IF it's true that you can accumulate 600 units then it's also true that you could lose them. Your proof that you won't lose them is to say that you will reverse your betting method in expectation of losses to come. This sounds a lot like the gamblers fallacy. :-\
Tangram,
Yes I said I could produce the 600 approx units, that's no problem apart from the work involved in doing it. I provided almost a years
results for the 4Selecta test, so I am quite capable of producing such verifiable results.
You can't have it both ways either I have a long term winning system, in which case I will have more wins than losses, which I have
experienced so far or in order to satisfy the theoretical -2.7%, I will have to sustain a number of 3/4 unit losses, in which case I will
expect there to be more losing sessions than winning ones, is that not logical?
A P+1 or M-1 trend will show a consistent losing trend and therefore the following trends will be a rarity:
P+1
P+2
P+3 +1
P+4 +2
P+5 +3
M-1
M-2
M-3 +1
M-4 +2
M-5 +3
Example of a losing session:
M-1
OOO
P+1
P+2 -1
P+3 0
P+2 -1
P+3 -2
This example would have to be the norm in order to accommodate the number of -3/4 losses required to arrive at the -2.7%.
The reason P+2 -1 is a loss is because I expect the trend to continue OOO. If you look back at my first post you will see a
typical trend where this occurs.
Now as the scenario is a number of losses and the example I gave earlier will be a rarity I will assume correctly that P+2 in this
position is likely and therefore it will change to P+2 +1 :
M-1
OOO
P+1
P+2 +1
P+3 0
P+2 +1
P+3 +2
This scenario will demand that there cannot be a series of P or M or OOO trends as shown in the first post.
It has nothing to do with gamblers fallacy, it's a fact that one or other scenario has to take place, either I win, as dictated
by the system or win in the losing scenario, as dictated by the trend shown above.
Mr Chips
Tangram,
A mathematical proof as you probably know begins with a series of axioms or self evident truths, they are statements which
can be assumed to be true. There then follows a logical argument. If the axioms are correct and there are no
flaws in the logic then the conclusion will be an irrefutable proof.
If the axioms and logic were true, it would be impossible for me to consistently win with this system and make a profit in the long
term.
I could provide a years results as previously mentioned, but what would that prove. We will be in the same position as now, as you
may say it will fail in x number of years time and then we will have arrived at the paradox, that the accumulation of wins will have to be
depleted by a number of 3/4 unit losses and if that happens, I will of course turn losses into wins, as previously described. The logic is
irrefutable.
The system requires human intervention and therefore coding it is a non starter.
Mr Chips
The proof was in the very first post when I referred to producing a years results and before you type out "you haven't done so",
that is academic.Yes I can in time, then we will be in the position where certain people will say, so what!
Ok, I will conservatively lets say produce 600 units, so what!
Ok, I will be expected to lose those units over a certain period of time. I could go on year after year producing the same results,
but that would be heading into the realms of absurdity, because lets say I produced 3 years results, that would be approx 1,800 units.
In order to comply with the expected -2.7%, I would have to lose between 450 to 500 sessions.
Lets say after having produced the years results I am showing the approx 600 units. I then agree to a further test of a years results.
During this second year, I am either obviously going to carry on making a profit consistent with the previous year or the -2.7% will kick
in.
Lets assume the -2.7% produces a number of losses in the first month of the second year test, such that the month totals show a loss
for the first time. If someone other than me, examines all the results from the first year they will discover a number of trends, in particular
the one as shown in my first post. That particular trend will not appear during the losing month, because it is a winning trend.
I now know that Herb was right lol and that the system is doomed to fail. Do I carry on and accumulate more losses or accept that a
previously P trend, has now become a M trend and vice versa. Of course I may come across the odd session, as shown in my original post,
but this will be an occasional loss!
What you have to decide, is it important that I produce a years results. If yes, then you will have to accept what follows from that
acceptance as described above. If you say it will fail in x number of years time that will be absurd, as it will take x number of years
to lose the accumulated profit and no one is going to carry on doing that it's a nonsense.
If on the other hand you accept that having produced a years results, a person other than me examines the various trends that have
produced the results and that they are consistent month on month, it would be possible to show also the number of losses. It would also
be possible to show that those losses could be shown to win, should the -2.7% scenario occur.
The logical proposition is based on the fact that this system wins long term either in the accepted sense or turning losing sessions
into winning ones. I posted earlier the requirements for a mathematical proof and I consider there are sufficient self evident truths and
logical conclusions, that shows this is a winning system and that the logical proposition is true.
Mr Chips
QuoteUnfortunately once a proof exists, it cannot be reversed. Something proved a thousand years is still valid today
and will still be valid in another thousand years. There can never be a proof which proves the opposite of what has
already been proved, that would be a contradiction
Tangram,
The mathematician Kurt Godel put forward his theory of 'undecidability', which in essence stated that mathematicians
could never be certain. that their choice of axioms could not lead to a contradiction.
In my opinion, you place far too much weight on the solidity of a proof, as there is always the chance as Godel has stated
that a contradiction is just around the corner.
Mr Chips
Mr Chips,
If I really took the proof to heart I would never bother playing roulette. Losing money is not my idea of a fun night out. ;D
In any case, it wasn't my idea to prove that roulette can be beaten, but if that's what you want to do, you have to play the game by the rules!
Quoteyou place far too much weight on the solidity of a proof, as there is always the chance as Godel has stated that a contradiction is just around the corner.
If that's true then your proof is just as much suspect as the "real" proof that roulette cannot be beaten. The axioms or assumptions pertaining to the proof are that the spins are independent and random, so maybe if one or both of these can be shown to be false then there might be a way of proving that the game can be beaten, but don't hold your breath. :)
In the meantime we can all try to "prove" for ourselves that success is possible, isn't that what this forum is all about?
My own "proof" is money in the bank. Frankly all else is academic, although it can lead to interesting discussions. Put up a good fight at the table, and know your enemy (very important).
QuoteThis 600 units is not significant. This is like randomness. Since your hand testing, it probably seems like a lot of spins
to you, but statistically it's nothing relevant
You may consider 600 units as insignificant, but as I pointed out previously, if you consider that several years results are
required you will end up in an absurd situation. If you take 10 years results that's say 6000 units. At the rate of 3/4 unit
losses it would take several years sessions to lose that amount.
The significance of the 600 units may become more apparent, when losses are discussed further on in this post.
QuoteI don't understand why you use P instead of R (red) and why you use M for B (black). I think this confuses most people
The P and M are a central part of the system. They are not there for the sake of calling P red or black or M red or black.
There is a set procedure to follow and there are only three possible ways for a session to develop. P trends, M trends and an
indifferent trend OOO an example given in the first post. The purpose of P and M is to identify R and B. It is unnecessary
therefore to have to observe any LwwLLw etc or after a number of reds, bet red again or choose black. P and M will identify a
sufficient number of R and B, no matter how complex the R and B session and therefore make a profit in the long term.
QuoteRegarding your exit points: I don't see any point in quitting when you are just 3 or 4 units down or up. I believe in exit
points for various reasons (as they pertain to playing conditions), but quitting when you are just 3 or 4 units down doesn't make
sense. Why don't you play for longer periods of time? Your limiting your sample size by having such an early exit point. Now I
understand how you can play for six months and still be in profit. Your barely playing any spins at all. What you consider to be
six months of play, others would consider just a few days of play
The number of sessions I have examined in tests and played at various casino's over a number of years, has now gone into 4
figures. I have therefore accumulated an inevitable expertise, in evaluating a session in terms of when to exit a session. I would
expect a session to last between 15 and 20 entries ( whenever I note say P+1 etc I refer to that as an entry). There are of
course exceptions, both for winning and losing sessions. From the first entry to say the 15th entry, there could be an almost
uninterrupted trend, which could continue beyond entry 20. Conversely there could be a very difficult session, that has shown
by entry 10, a -3 for the third time. My evaluation of the session could well lead me to decide on an exit at the 10 entry point.
I have come across such situations of course on previous occasions and I know that the number of -3 or -4 unit losses, are
insignificant compared with the overall profit made from most sessions.
If you think of it in terms of a poker game. You could well have in Texas Holdem a pair of 7's. As the game progresses, there
are three other players in for the flop. The flop shows A,Q, 9. It is highly unlikely you would want to continue, with the expectation
that one or more players could well have 2 Kings or AK etc.
If I am faced with a difficult session showing mostly - and not + results, it makes sense to exit at -3 or -4 units.
In the poker example the pair of 7's could well become three 7's, as the flop progresses and the -3 or -4 losses in a session
could become +5 at entry 30, but why risk it and incur -8, -10 losses. I have a formula that works within certain limits, as
tried and tested over time.
QuoteYou can't step outside of probability. You also haven't limited the possibility of other outcomes occurring by simply
observing the past outcomes
It's not clear from your quote, what exactly you are referring to so I will discuss the problem of losses, which is a key component
in the logical proposition.
If after considering the above logical arguments, you are of the opinion that there is no proof or ever will be and that the system
will inevitably lose, then you must take the 'Herb route':
QuoteRoulette the game is a game of independent trials. Past results simply don't effect future results
There is also reference to 'Gamblers Fallacy' and no one can overcome the house advantage of 2.7%.
If we explore this scenario then we now know the system is going to fail and therefore there must be more losses than wins to
comply with the 2.7% house advantage. The losses as you know will be in the form of -3 and -4 units.
We have now reached a
paradox and as the name of this system is called SIGNUM, we will refer to the SIGNUM PARADOX.
The
Signum Paradox The system has now changed and the accumulation of 600 units, as mentioned at the start of this post will now decline and this
will be evident by the number of -3 and -4 losses. The system was designed to produce a number of trends, examples have been
shown previously, lets refer to these formation of trends as A, B, C, D. When the system was having more wins than losses the
occasional loss had the limited formation E.
The system now produces far fewer A, B, C, D, formations and far more E formations.
Your quote above and reference to Gamblers Fallacy has been show now to have a serious flaw!
The numbers and associated colours should not be expected to conform to a certain pattern, trend in order to satisfy the requirements
of a number of losing sessions to produce formations of P and M, in particular E formations to produce losses. There should not be an
expectation that there will be more losing sessions than winning ones and therefore more E formations than A, B, C, D. formations
I have set out below an example of a losing session and below that the same session, but the M now becomes P and so a losing session
in the original system now becomes a winning session thanks to the Herb scenario :
E formation:
M-1
M-2
M-1 -1
M-2 -2
M-3 -3
M-2 -2
M-3 -3
M-4 -2
M-3 -3
M-4 -4
P+1
P+2
P+1 -1
P+2 0
P+3 +2
P+2 0
P+3 +1
P+4 +2
P+3 +3
P+4 +4
What you have to decide now is that, if I haven't proved my system to be profitable long term by the logical proposition described
in this and previous posts, then you must take on board the 'Signum Parodox' and the implications that this will have on the -2.7%
and of course Gamblers Fallacy.
Of course the real crunch comes when if my system is proven to win long term the -2.7 is false, on the other hand if my system is
a loser in terms of a number of -3 and -4 losses, then because of the E formations it must be a winner.
Regards
Mr Chips
QuoteA well made mechanical system is equally as capable as any human experience to accurately predict outcomes above the house edge in a random environment such as roulette. In fact, I would go so far as to say it could well be superior, as human error and or excuses for sloppy play, etc, will surely be reduced.
I agree. It's silly to say that no mechanical system can work. If you use a variety of methods or bet selections, as I do, it doesn't mean that it's non-mechanical. If I took the trouble to "systematize" all my methods into one then it could be called mechanical. Mechanical doesn't necessarily mean simple.
If you are using rules then it must be a mechanical system. There's no such thing as a non-mechanical system. It's an oxymoron.
Mr Chips,
I'm still not clear exactly what it is that you are trying to prove, if anything. Are you trying to show that your system is a winner, or that the "real" proof is false, or that the gambler's fallacy is itself a fallacy? or maybe all three? :-\
Your proposition may be logically correct, but logic only shows that one thing follows from another, it doesn't tell you much about the truth. :(
Look at these two arguments about God:
Argument 1
premise 1: Everything has a cause
premise 2: If the world has a cause, then there is a god.
conclusion:- There is a god.
Proof:
assume that there is no God.
This, together with premise 2, implies that the world doesn't have a cause.
But premise 1 says everything has a cause. This is a contradiction, therefore the assumption that there is no God must be false, so there is a God.
QED.
Argument 2
premise 1: Everything has a cause.
premise 2: If there is a God, then something doesn't have a cause (namely, God).
Conclusion: There is no God.
proof:
Assume that there is a God. This, together with premise 2, implies that something doesn't have a cause. But premise 1 says everything has a cause, and this contradiction shows that the assumption that there is a God must be false. Therefore, there is no God.
QED.
Both arguments are rock solid logically speaking, but we are no closer to knowing whether God exists! >:D
Although you've offered a logical explanation of what follows, given the data, you haven't given an explanation of what explains the data in the first place. If you want to convince Herb, you need to address that issue.
nolinks://nolinks.psych.utah.edu/gordon/Classes/Psy4905Docs/PsychHistory/Cards/Logic.html (nolinks://nolinks.psych.utah.edu/gordon/Classes/Psy4905Docs/PsychHistory/Cards/Logic.html)
Hi,
I´ve been reading this and other roulette foruns for a few months but this is my first post.
I´ve tested a lot of the systems I find on the foruns and really can´t find any consistent winner.
One of the systems that has had a better performance is 4Selecta from Mr Chips, so I listen very carefull to everything he has to say. Here however I think Mr chips is doing some assertions which aren´t true. . . unfortunetly, because if they were true we would have an even change system that could bring profit over time.
The problem I see is that, using the system on the first post in this thread, as Mr Chips says there can be 3 types of sessions : A balanced session as the one in the example where M and P keep coming back to 000 ; a session with a P trend and a session with a M trend.
I first tested betting that the sessions would all be balanced and I have some wins and some losses. . . wins when 000 keeps apearing and losses on sessions where P or M start increasing and dont come back to zero. Overall its not a winner.
So I though the trick was to change my bets as the session developed, as Mr Chips hints to. So I would bet for balance at start but if P gets at lets say P+5 or M gets at M-5 I start betting that P or M will increase. When I thought of this I really thought I had some sort of Holly Grail because after all a session is either balanced or P trend or M trend. If I could follow the trend I could not lose.
But unfortunetly that is not the case. I made a lot of tests with different switching points from betting on balance to betting on a trend, and I still can´t get an overall positive balance. . . I tried switching bets when P or M get to 3, to 5, to 7. . . no way. For instance if I swithch on a trend of 5 a session like this would lose : P+1 ; P+2 ; P+3 ; P+2 ; P+3 ; P+4 ; P+5 (im at -5 and I switch betting) ; P+6 P+7 P+6 P+5 P+6 P+5. . . . and it never gets to P+10 where I would begin making profit.
So the point is you cant tell beforehand which kind os session you will have and incredibly you cant switch during the session and still have a profit overall. . .
So I really would like to hear how Mr Chips plays the system so that he can benefict from the trends, I mean when should we swithch betting from a balanced session to a P trend or a M trend session. I think this is the Key to all this debate and to this system as well.
Thanks Mr Chips for your time.
Mane
QuoteI'm still not clear exactly what it is that you are trying to prove, if anything. Are you trying to show that your system is a winner,
or that the real proof is false or that the gamblers fallacy is itself a fallacy? or maybe all three?
I have been using this type of system for sometime now and if gamblers fallacy was true, I would have known about it by now,
but not in the way you might think. I know for certain that gamblers fallacy is itself a fallacy, but proving it is something else!
As you know in maths, it's not necessary to prove a particular equation is true, for every set of numbers from 1 to infinity, because
obviously it's impossible, but by the use of axioms and logical arguments, it is possible to come up with an irrefutable proof in all
cases.
I could never absolutely prove that my system can win in the long term. Even if it could be coded and it was in profit after a
billion spins, it could in theory fail soon after that. The only way to prove that my system wins more than it loses is to find a
flaw in the gamblers fallacy and by doing so, create a paradox and prove forever that gamblers fallacy is itself a fallacy.
QuoteYour proposition may be logically correct, but logic only shows that one thing follows from another, it doesn't tell you
much about the truth
We are not dealing here with a logical problem concerning the existence of a God. There are a number of self evident truths,
they are not assumptions:
1. The Sigmum system exists ( as evidence of it's existence can be produced).
2.The system will produce certain formations in the form P+1, P+2, P+3,etc also M-1, M-2, M-3, etc, also P+1,P+2,P+1,P+2, and
M-1, M-2, M-1,M-2, also a series of OOO.
3. The formations will be referred to as A, B, C, D and they are winning formations. The +600 units referred to earlier would show
that they are winning formations.
4. The losses will be in the form as shown previously and referred to as E formations. They are restricted to a particular format, as
any other format will produce A, B, C, D formations.
In your reply 23:
QuoteIf it's true that you can accumulate 600 units then it's also true you can lose them
5. If the system does not win in the long term it must produce more losses than wins.
6. As there will be more losses than wins, there will be more E formations than A, B, C, D, formations.
In your reply 26:
QuoteThe proof of -2.7% is based on expectations and payoffs and assuming random outcomes.
7. In order for there to be more E formations than A,B,C,D formations random numbers must be expected to produce numbers and
their associated colours, so that more E formations can be produced more than A,B,C,D, formations.
8. The system was designed to produce more A,B,C,D, formations than E formations. As a result of more losses than wins the system
now produces more E formations than A,B,C,D, formations, therefore a P becomes M and a M becomes P. This arises because originally
when A,B,C,D, produced P and M, there were more wins than losses. Now when E formation produces P and M and M and P, the M
becomes P and the P become M, as the system requires a formation to produce more wins than losses.
9. As the system is producing more E formations than A,B,C,D, formations it will produce more winning sessions than losing ones. The
-3/4 losses are from formations A,B,C,D.
10. The original expected losses as a result of -2.7%, are now showing as wins and the original wins are now showing as losses.
11. Gamblers fallacy has now shown itself to be a fallacy, as it has created a paradox.
12. The random numbers should not be expected to produce a number of E formations, more than A,B,C,D formations.
13. Original losses should not be turned into wins.
14. The Signum system should not be able to win more than it loses, in any eventuality.
QuoteYou haven't given an explanation of what explains the data in the first place.
Please can you clarify this, as I am not sure what you are referring to here.
Mr Chips
Mane,
First of all welcome to the forum.
As I haven't explained the system I really don't know why you are trying to use it.
I said in the very first post that I may or may not explain the system at this time.
The example shown was to assist in this debate, that is all.
Mr Chips
Hi Mr. Chips and everyone!
I've been reading this thread for a couple of days now and I came to this series of conclusions:
1. Mr. Chips has a system.
2. This system makes a constant profit (as he claims).
3. Because of this constant profit, this system PROVES the gambler's fallacy wrong (and the 2. 7% house edge way too small).
This is a logical sequence of sentences, I think you all agree. The sentence you don't agree on, as I observed is sentence number 2. You think that Mr. Chips is either lying about his consistent results or that he is naive or that his results are extremely lucky ones.
My opinion is that Mr. Chips really has a system that is consistently winning and this system takes at some point into consideration the inverse of the gambler's fallacy.
When it comes to this post's utility, I have to admit that I think is pointless. Mr. Chips, I think you are trying to prepare everyone for your system (if you ever considered sharing it), but I think that this thread is useless, as all you do here guys is arguing and fighting in vain. This is going nowhere, and no one will benefit from it.
I think this thread either should be closed, or to be turned in a positive and constructive way so that everyone who reads it to benefit from its content!
Thank you,
sebix
sebix,
Sentence number 2 that you referred to shows the various formations, which are not into contention here, as it can be proved that they
exist in the format described.
QuoteWhen it comes to this post's utility, I have to think it is pointless.
I would like to draw your attention to paragraph 3.
QuoteI think you are trying to prepare everyone for your system
I am just amazed at some of the comments. I have shared systems on this forum previously and I didn't need to debate a logical
proposition in order to explain the system ::)
Quotebut I think that this thread is useless, as all you do here guys is arguing and fighting in vain
Have you never heard of having a debate, where does the fighting come into it?
QuoteThis is going nowhere and no one will benefit from it.
If it can be proved by using a self evident truths and arguing logically, that gamblers fallacy is itself a fallacy it will have
serious implications in areas of mathematics and gambling. Specifically here, the notion that the game of roulette cannot
be beaten in the long term will be a fallacy.
QuoteI think this thread either should be closed..
If it's ok with you I will decide what to do with this thread.
Mr Chips
Quote from: Spike on April 26, 2009, 08:03:23 PM
This is my last post to this thread. Like everything Mr Chips writes about, everything here is totally confusing. He wants a debate, yet he doesn't want certain subjects talked about, even when he himself has mentioned them. Nobody can figure out what this thread is about because Mr Chips has no idea what its about. He has yet to start a thread or exlain a system that makes any sense to anybody..
Phooey on Mr Chips..
Never mind Spike you can carry on increasing your 10000 + posts over at GG and explain in detail about 'educated guessing',
now let me see, that is about #@*&^#|><%*@ ?
QuoteThere are a number of self evident truths, they are not assumptions:
Quote2.The system will produce certain formations in the form P+1, P+2, P+3,etc also M-1, M-2, M-3, etc, also P+1,P+2,P+1,P+2, and M-1, M-2, M-1,M-2, also a series of OOO.
3. The formations will be referred to as A, B, C, D and they are winning formations. The +600 units referred to earlier would show that they are winning formations.
4. The losses will be in the form as shown previously and referred to as E formations. They are restricted to a particular format, as any other format will produce A, B, C, D formations.
Mr Chips,
These are not self-evident. You have not explained your system in detail so how are we to know what P, M etc are referring to? You have obviously coded the stream of Reds and Blacks into something meaningful, but it's only meaningful to you, and not anyone who hasn't been initiated into the mysteries of the system!
You say that certain formations are winning formations but that does not tell us that you would necessarily win with them. It's like saying that Red is a winning formation if your bet selection is betting on Red, and if a lot of Blacks appear then you will switch to Black and therefore win. QED!
Your system is obviously much more sophisticated and complex but do you see what I'm trying to say? It appears to me that this is the logic of your argument.
It doesn't really matter how complex the system is. Instead of betting Red you are betting on formations A, B etc and you have a losing formation E instead of Black.
I think I see where the problem is now Mr Chips. Your argument depends on the assumption that the gambler's fallacy is false. You have assumed that it is false in order to make your points, but you cannot then assert that you have proved it false if you have already assumed it!
Tangram,
In mathematics there are occasions when a theory is produced, but not yet proven. It is assumed that one day a proof will be
found and for that reason other mathematical proofs will refer to the theory, as part of their proof. Of course if theory turns out
to have a flaw, then all the other proofs which have included the theory collapse.
I have already stated that I can explain the Signum system. I haven't said if there was such a system. It's just a matter of showing
that the system exists and explain it in detail. If I did not explain the system and showed that A,B,C,D, were winning formations then
the logical argument would collapse.
The logical argument I have put forward in points 1 to 14 is perfectly valid. It only becomes invalid if I don't fulfil points 1 to 3.
What I need to know at this stage is once having fulfilled points 1 to 3, then will the logical conclusion be true, point 14.
I have already started working on the verifiable results re the +600 units.
Mr Chips
QuoteI think I see where the problem is now Mr Chips. Your argument depends on the assumption that the gamblers fallacy is
false. You have assumed that it is false in order to make your points, but you cannot then assert that you have proved it false,
if you have already assumed it.
I mentioned previously that I have been using this type of system for some time now in fact several years. I have not assumed
that gamblers fallacy is itself a fallacy as it has shown itself to be a fallacy in that I have made a profit in the long term.
Producing and explaining the system won't prove that it wins long term, but what follows from the explanation of the system
showing A,B,C,D and E formations is that when gamblers fallacy is followed through and more losses must be produced than wins,
it will be seen from logical reasoning that gamblers fallacy has produced a paradox and shown to be itself a fallacy.
Mr Chips
G'day,
There's a lot I don't follow & understand on forums but I'm not having a problem with this thread!
Maybe that's because it "flows" with my beliefs / system, (BTH)!
My system finds the trends on "same" & "change" and only needs a positive count of a max of 7 out ot 400 decisions to be a winner!
IMPOSSIBLE not to happen!!!
Glenn.
This thread is about the fact that Mr. Chips wants to demonstrate that the gambler's fallacy is itself a fallacy. OK, so far so good. He made a statement that goes like this (approximately): "I have a system that is constantly winning (no need to prove this, trust me), so if this is true (and it is), the gambler's fallacy is false".
Good. As I already said, I really trust Mr. Chips and his winning system, and I think we must not try to prove that his system is not winning on the long run. Due to the fact that he described a little bit his system (with the P, M, OOO, A, B, C, D and E), he put us all to question it. So, when you wish to contribute to this constructive debate, don't question his system. We should take is as granted.
Now when we look at the second part of his statement, the one with the fallacy. Here I have some problems with understanding the link between a winning system and the gambler's fallacy.
As far as I know, the gambler's fallacy is related to random events that are independent, and it has to do with the false assumption that a "run" should end now and the "anti-run" should begin (because the law of the third says that when the number of outcomes tends to infinity, the "runs" and "anti-runs" will be equal); so basically it has to do with the wrong assumption that short term results must have the characteristics of long term results. This is the gambler's fallacy.
So, if one has a winning system (as Mr. Chips does), it doesn't mean that the gambler's fallacy is wrong or false. A long term winning system just beats the house edge of 2.7% (which we all know that is due to the non-fair odds of the roulette game itself).
Mr. Chips, you are talking about patterns that your system exploits (it I understood well your system); so, you will tell me that if you see that the last spin was red, you will play the next spin on black (and this to you will mean that you commit the gambler's fallacy); or at some point, you will play red after red (and commit the inverse of gambler's fallacy); and doing this bets on red/black you think that you defy the gambler's fallacy because you win. This is the most important part. You win more than you lose on long term (yes, I think that 10 years of playing the system with hundreds of sessions per year could be considered long term). This means only one thing: when you play that black or red, you actually do have more chances to win than normal (the normal is 18/37); and this leads to the conclusion that if that happened -and you claime it did-, the game is not random anymore! So, the consequence of the game not being random anymore and the spins not being independent is very simple and immediate: you cannot apply the gambler's fallacy here , because in it's definition it is stated that it appears only at random and independent events.
So, in conclusion, if you want to prove the gambler's fallacy wrong, try to find an environment where this fallacy does apply to.
Thank you,
sebix
Quote from: MiniBaccarat on April 27, 2009, 06:16:22 PM
G'day,
There's a lot I don't follow & understand on forums but I'm not having a problem with this thread!
Maybe that's because it "flows" with my beliefs / system, (BTH)!
My system finds the trends on "same" & "change" and only needs a positive count of a max of 7 out ot 400 decisions to be a winner!
IMPOSSIBLE not to happen!!!
Glenn.
Hi Glenn,
It's good to hear that you understand it and thanks for looking in.
I know you have done some excellent work on your system.
All the Best
Mr Chips
To All Members,
This debate is not just for my benefit, it is for the benefit of the whole forum.
I have put forward a logical argument and it could well have one or more flaws in the argument. By people making a contribution to
this debate we could well improve the logical argument and if we did succeed in proving that gamblers fallacy is itself a fallacy it
would be a tremendous achievement for the whole forum.
If there is a major flaw in the logical argument, it will not be a waste of time and effort, as in X months or years time someone may
come up with a solution and seal the proof for ever.
As far as I am aware this is the first time that any attempt to prove gamblers fallacy is itself a fallacy by using a logical argument, so
I hope that all those who are interested in this debate please do post any queries, suggestions, etc.
@sebix,
I should like to thank you for making a contribution to this debate.
Quote"I have a system that is constantly winning (no need to prove this, trust me), so if this is true (and it is), the gamblers fallacy
is false".
I haven't said no need to prove this. I did say that it would be impossible to absolutely prove it wins in the long term, because someone
could say after a billion spins it could lose. In Mathematics, there could be a theorem that has shown to be true for numbers up to a
trillion, but that won't prove it's true to infinity, obviously impossible. Therefore other proofs are used and a logical reasoned argument
to prove in all cases, that the theorem is true and it will be an irrefutable proof for ever.
QuoteSo when you wish to contribute to this constructive debate, don't question his system. We should take it for granted.
No, I don't expect anyone to take it for granted. I have said that the system exists and that it makes a profit in the long term. If at
some point I don't reveal it in some way, then the logical proposition here fails, as I have to prove it exists as shown in point 1 above.
What is important is producing worksheets, which show A,B,C,D as winning formations and E as losing formations.
It will take some work and time obviously to get this all together, but that is not a problem as I have already shown from the 4Selecta
thread that I can produce a number of results and analysis when necessary.
Quotethe gamblers fallacy is related to random events that are independent.
Gamblers fallacy given a balanced wheel expects random numbers to be totally independent of each other and it is expected that in the
short term certain players will get lucky and win more than they lose. If the same player returns and plays time after time and subjects
say a system to the house edge, they will lose in the long term to the 2.7% house edge.
The Signum system doesn't rely on a series of reds or blacks or any noticeable pattern. In fact it works very well in a complex R and B mix.
The reason for this is the use of symbols P and M. The range of P and M is far greater than just R and B, which is simply that, Red and Black.
P and M will represent R and B on each entry line (each time I note P or M on a card) it will often change and P or M can represent either
colour.
As mentioned previously there are 4 winning formations A,B,C,D and I losing formation E. Every one of those formations will have a mix of
R and B, which will be identified by the use of P and M . The number and variety of the formations will confirm the greater range, as
previously mentioned over just simply R and B.
Gamblers fallacy is caught in a paradox. It states that a system, the Signum system must not make a profit in the long term, using random
numbers from a balanced wheel. If it does then the numbers and associated colours are not independent and gamblers fallacy fails.
The Signum system would therefore have to prove beyond any doubt that it can win long term. Gamblers fallacy is certain that this cannot be
achieved, because it would mean carrying on to infinity to absolutely prove it.
Therefore if we submit to the gamblers fallacy assertion, that there must be more losses than wins, the Signum system must produce more
losing E formations than winning A,B,C,D formations. The system is still subjected to the same random numbers.
The problem now for gamblers fallacy is that in order for it to make it lose, the system has to produce more of the E formations, but gamblers
fallacy demands that all numbers are independent of each other and therefore it should not produce numbers, that will produce more
E formations than A,B,C,D ones.
Worse still, is that the system is designed to produce more winning formations than losing ones and as there are now more E than A,B,C,D,
the system will require E to be a winning formation and A,B,C,D losing ones.
Gamblers fallacy has therefore shown itself to be a fallacy on a number of points.
The problem with random numbers is not under discussion here only in so far as it relates to it's use here.
Mr Chips
Mr Chips,
We need to be clear about what the gambler's fallacy actually states before trying to refute it. On reflection, I think I was incorrect to say in my previous post that you are guilty of assuming it. In fact, I don't believe it applies to your system at all.
In all the references to it I've ever read, the fallacy is stated by giving an example, usually something like: "someone sees 10 reds in a row, so they bet black on the next spin, reasoning that black is due". There then follows an explanation of why this is a fallacy:- because each spin is an independent event and therefore the probability is still 50%, and it will always be 50%, that Red will hit.
Surely no-one can seriously argue with that. if there is any self-evident "axiom" or assumption in roulette it must be this one (assuming a fair and unbiased wheel).
The gambler's fallacy seems to generate paradoxes. Isn't it a paradox that "anything" can happen at the table and yet no-one has ever seen 100 reds in a row? So it's not the case that "anything" can happen at all, is it? What we mean is "anything" can happen within the confines of the probability distribution in question, the standard deviations etc. But does this not conflict with the gamblers' fallacy? is it not a paradox that probability theory states that outcomes are at the same constrained by particular distributions and also that "nothing is due"? are these assertions not in conflict? how can they co-exist?
The gambler's fallacy seems to be invoked as a catch-all by the nay-sayers in any discussion of systems (not mentioning any names ;)), but I don't believe it's appropriate in many scenarios.
I found an article which explains quite nicely the difference between the gambler's fallacy and what seems to be the same thing, but isn't. The statement at the foot of the page is crucial, I believe:-
The gambler's fallacy is about the probability of the next **single** event.
nolinks://nolinks.financialwebring.org/gummystuff/coin-tossing.htm (nolinks://nolinks.financialwebring.org/gummystuff/coin-tossing.htm)
So really what I'm trying to say is that there's no need to try and disprove the gambler's fallacy. It's my contention that it's self-evidently true. The odds of each single event will always be absolutely fixed, so long as the wheel is fair, and nothing will ever change that. But that in itself does not preclude the possibility of a system winning long-term. There is no mysterious law in probability that needs to be discovered to show that winning is possible. If it is possible, creative use of existing laws will be enough.
Quote from: Tangram on April 28, 2009, 01:12:52 PM
Mr Chips,
We need to be clear about what the gambler's fallacy actually states before trying to refute it.
...
So really what I'm trying to say is that there's no need to try and disprove the gambler's fallacy. It's my contention that it's self-evidently true. The odds of each single event will always be absolutely fixed, so long as the wheel is fair, and nothing will ever change that. But that in itself does not preclude the possibility of a system winning long-term. There is no mysterious law in probability that needs to be discovered to show that winning is possible. If it is possible, creative use of existing laws will be enough.
Isn't it a kind of heresy to actually understand the so called "gambler's fallacy?" I mean that the assumptions about it are commonly used to refute the attempt to accurately express interest in changing direction while observing what is happening. Common sense must have a fancy expression too, don't you think? I've failed in my attempt to express any interest in any common logic from a process of reading randomness. I wish you all luck in having objective intelligence regarding the true nature and limitations of the "gambler's fallacy." It's a holy grail for many arguments regarding gambling.
Quote from: Tangram on April 28, 2009, 02:58:48 PM
Yes, the wheel cannot conclude anything. ;D
My understanding of the "Gamblers Fallacy" was the point that the errant gambler made assumptions that something was a predictor, and therefore something was due.
I've tried to argue the point that conclusions can be researched for a degree of trueness. At no time in that real time research is anything expected to be due. Is is possible to observe past spins without expecting anything specific? I don't see a problem with discovering 20 reds in a row. The last time I was in the casino the marquee board was completely red numbers. Is it possible to come to conclusions without expecting those conclusions to be predictors?
Tangram,
I agree of course about the 10 reds etc.
Yes gamblers fallacy can be a catch all, but to various aspects of gambling. There is I think particular aspects of gamblers fallacy
that relates to roulette.
Certainly there is specific maths concerning roulette and mathematicians advise casino's on the house edge and they are certain
it is impossible to win in the long term.
house edge:
nolinks://gaming.unlv.edu/subject/casinomath.html (nolinks://gaming.unlv.edu/subject/casinomath.html)
A logical proof along the lines I have proposed would certainly prove the maths was false. The maths comes under the umbrella
of gamblers fallacy.
I take your point about the paradoxes relating to gamblers falacy, but I have never been able to relate any reference to coin
tossing and roulette. I would accept 90 heads, but would say 90 reds is impossible from a balanced wheel. I am certain a casino
would rush to close the Table at the most 40 to 50 spins before they got cleaned out.
Mr Chips
Quote from: Mr Chips on April 28, 2009, 03:18:49 PM
A logical proof along the lines I have proposed would certainly prove the maths was false. The maths comes under the umbrella of gamblers fallacy.
That's a profound statement. I must agree too. The normal distribution aspects of long term Roulette have very little to do with the next combined 10 spins. I have never seen an accurate estimate for the next 10 to 20 spins based on long term odds. I've always believed that it's the "House's Edge" when it comes to playing long term only. All that is left is bet selection accuracy rates and luck. So is bet selection accuracy in the Gambler's Fallacy category too?
Quote from: simon on May 08, 2009, 10:39:55 AM
blah blah blah blah (sorry, don't mind me, I'm sure Mr. Chips is smarter than I am, but would someone just direct me to the damn holy grail already so I can stop looking for it in these endless threads....)
Mr Chips is smart enough to know that the Holy Grail does not exist. :nono:
Irony: If no one listened to Benjamin "Bugsy" Siegel there wouldn't have been a "Las Vegas".
I have been reading the threads. I think what Mr. Chips is doing is quite wonderful.
The paradox is that Mr. Chips has won 600 units in an "unbeatable" game looking at the maths.
If he succeeds in this endeavor, not only could he affect roulette, but Baccarat, Blackjack, Sports, anything where there is an even chance bet.
Moreover Mr. Chips would be in contention for the Nobel Prize in Science.
The fact you're getting all of this opposition means you're getting close. :thumbsup:
Proofreaders,
Thanks for your comments.
This is an unusual thread as I am actually looking for constructive criticism. I am not looking for comments that say this or that is impossible, as
I want specific details. Certain people have been very helpful and I am very grateful to them.
Producing verifiable results is not a problem. I know that the maths relating to roulette is incorrect and hopefully my efforts to provide a 'proof'
would make this a reality.
At the present time I am discussing the proof and the Signum system outside of this thread, so there may be few discussions here, but I will continue
to produce the results in the other thread.
Regards
Mr Chips