Sequential Roulette

[gizmotron]

For me it sound like you try to compare hot and could numbers with cause and effect - is not the same thing.
Is a difference to know where the high probability area is and are not the same as guess where it is using 37 degree of freedom.

No, I disagree. I'm not comparing them with cause and effect. I'm intentionally saying that they occur naturally outside any perceived cause and effect. I'm also saying that they represent a blind spot to most if not all wheel trackers. You all here are clearly stating the unimportance of them. If there are six sectors on the wheel, then it's only the randomness of six. If eight sectors on the wheel then only the randomness of eight. It's not about guessing at 37. But then again, randomness is a blind spot for you.

[I have cookies]

randomness is a blind spot for you.

No that is not true - as I can show Mike, Snowman or Kelly that I know what I speak of regarding bias - we can not say the same about you as they would laugh if they compare what you show them towards what I show them - easy to see what is what and valid.
You just let me know if you dear to compete regarding knowledge regarding bias - it is obvious that you have no clue what you are talking about.

You do best to stick to your poor roulette systems that has no edge what so ever.

[Mike]

No, I disagree. I'm not comparing them with cause and effect. I'm intentionally saying that they occur naturally outside any perceived cause and effect. I'm also saying that they represent a blind spot to most if not all wheel trackers. You all here are clearly stating the unimportance of them.

The bizarre thing is that you and cheese accuse the AP guys of being somehow blinkered and closed-minded when it's the APs who actually take into account ALL of the available data, not just the string of numbers and stats. If anyone is closed-minded, it's you and all others who play non-physics based methods. You intentionally exclude all relevant data which actually contributes to where the ball lands, instead preferring to assume randomness (ie; that each outcome is equally likely), then on that basis, you choose your bets!  

If you actually thought about what you were doing, you would realise how silly this is and how you never use this logic in other situations.

Yes, the problem with detecting bias by merely collecting spins and doing an analysis on them is that you don't know whether the bias is real or whether it's just randomness mimicking bias, that's why (as kelly pointed out) it's an unreliable method and one that no serious bias player would ever use, even though it's touted as the "standard" way of determining bias. Not only is this method unreliable, it's massively inefficient and time-consuming.  Snowman gives a nice analogy in his book:

"Traveling from casino wheel to casino wheel, recording thousands of spins to find wheel bias is like recording the gas mileage on your car for thousands of miles to determine if your tires are worn out. Doesn't it make more sense just to look at the tires directly to see if they are defective, worn out and in need replacing?"

You need to make OTHER observations and only then check spins to see whether there is any correlation. The purpose of collecting spins should be to confirm bias, not discover it in the first place. If bias is confirmed, probability tells you that it's unlikely that the spin data is merely mimicking bias, so you are justified in making predictions -  you are not being tricked by coincidence.

[gizmotron]

No that is not true - as I can show Mike, Snowman or Kelly that I know what I speak of regarding bias - we can not say the same about you as they would laugh if they compare what you show them toward what I show them - easy to see what is what and valid.
You just let me know if you dear to compete regarding knowledge regarding bias - it is obvious that you have no clue what you are talking about.

You do best to stick to your poor roulette systems that has no edge what so ever.

I know that randomness is a blind spot for you. Your data has no consideration for it. All you have is this pathetic defense mechanism as a reaction. The topic of the moment is temporary bias. I just wanted to see any of you differentiate between the evidence that temporary bias exists or not and ruling out common randomness. But you didn't do that.  You can tell yourself that you are superior all you want. I think you are curve fitting your data because you don't consider randomness. What's more, you dismiss it. Yeah, you are really cool.

Show me the thread where you guys discussed ruling out randomness from your data gathering data. I would bet that you used any previous discussion on this as a way to dismiss randomness then too. I've waited all these years until I heard that new one, temporary bias. So far you guys have been safe in your ignorance. Bias wheels, what a joke.

[gizmotron]

That's very interesting Mike. How do you check the tires for temporary bias?

[Mike]

I know that randomness is a blind spot for you. Your data has no consideration for it.

And to you it's everything. That's a bigger blind spot.

[Mike]

Gizmo, by ignoring all other data and observations, and looking exclusively at past spins, you are making yourself impotent for no reason at all. Is it because you're afraid of physics or what? is it just too messy and complicated for you?

[VKM]

If randomness is mimicking bias, is it possible to win that roulette session by basing your bets on that information?



VKM

[gizmotron]

Gizmo, by ignoring all other data and observations, and looking exclusively at past spins, you are making yourself impotent for no reason at all. Is it because you're afraid of physics or what? is it just too messy and complicated for you?

So it is true after all. You guys don't consider randomness. Great. There's never ever been anything to it. Yes, go ahead and forget about it. You are right.

[Mike]

If randomness is mimicking bias, is it possible to win that roulette session by basing your bets on that information?
VKM

Of course, but session after session consistently - no.

Actually, the question is meaningless. You keep thinking that randomness is "something". But actually it's a LACK of information, or rather, it's the information that no outcome is more likely than any other outcome. By sheer coincidence (luck), you will win occasionally using that "method".

[gizmotron]

If randomness is mimicking bias, is it possible to win that roulette session by basing your bets on that information?
VKM

Yes, the original plan used 6 extra hits per 100 spins to win 1.5 million dollars. That's using some six numbers and having them hit one more time each than they should have. Now they should hit three times for each one of the six in 100 spins. So six more hits means four times each in a hundred.

Let's do this the money way. If you bet on six numbers that need to hit three times each then you get 18 wins. 18 wins = 630. Six times 100 spins = 600. But if you have a working bias then four hits each = 840. It costs you 600 to win 840. That's just a rough example. It's not accurate. But it was all they needed to win 1.5 million dollars.

Does that help? So you flat bet the six hottest numbers in a 100 spin cycle. You will lose one third of them in that 100 spins so you need to find their replacements if you can find them. Randomness simulated bias is a moving target.

[gizmotron]

Of course, but session after session consistently - no.

Actually, the question is meaningless. You keep thinking that randomness is "something". But actually it's a LACK of information, or rather, it's the information that no outcome is more likely than any other outcome. By sheer coincidence (luck), you will win occasionally using that "method".

Here is some meaningless randomness. 100 spins to be exact. You can track this on a single 5X7 index card.


1  XXX
2  X
3  XXX
4  X
5  XX
6  XX
7  XXXXX
8  XXXXXX
9  XXXX
10  X
11  X
12  X
13  XXX
14  XX
15  XXX
16  XXXX
17  XXX
18  XX
19  X
20  XXX
21  X
22  XXXXX
23  XXX
24  X
25  XXXXX
26  X
27  XXXX
28  XXXX
29  X
30  XXX
31  XXX
32  XXXXXX
33  XX
34  XX
35  XXXXXXX
36 
0  X
00  

Here is the same sequence in wheel order for the American Wheel.


00 
27  XXXX
10  X
25  XXXXX
29  X
12  X
8  XXXXXX
19  X
31  XXX
18  XX
6  XX
21  X
33  XX
16  XXXX
4  X
23  XXX
35  XXXXXXX
14  XX
2  X
0  X
28  XXXX
9  XXXX
26  X
30  XXX
11  X
7  XXXXX
20  XXX
32  XXXXXX
17  XXX
5  XX
22  XXXXX
34  XX
15  XXX
3  XXX
24  X
36 
13  XXX
1  XXX

[VKM]

If there is a bias, is it possible to lose that session by basing your bets on that information?



VKM

[gizmotron]

If there is a bias, is it possible to lose that session by basing your bets on that information?

Yes. The thing about randomness and hot numbers is that like all randomness things can change rapidly. It's very seldom that all your hottest numbers all shift to cold but it does happen on rare occasions. But if half of them shift you might not break even at best. You need consistency. That's the common state for hot number tracking too. You will find that three hot numbers will hit from 14 to +20 times in 300 spins. That's enough to win well. Six numbers opens the door to at least two of them cooling off. However if you only bet on three hot numbers you only lose one on average. A hot number will hit every 12 to 20 spins on average. But that same number might get a 40 or 50 spin gap while still remaining the hottest number. So it takes guts to stay with a hot number when it does that.

[Mike]

@ VKM,

I assume you're betting with the bias and not against it! In which case, I suppose it's possible, although it hasn't happened to me yet.

What's important is long term results, and obviously, if you're betting on the right side of the bias you won't lose long term.

[Mike]

-