About the possibility of winning (my answer to Bayes)

[kav]

Because the other thread got full of personal claims and attacks, the most relevant post got lost in the chaos.
So I repost here my answer to Bayes in hopes of  an interesting interaction.

I'd kindly ask the "usual suspects" of flamewars and big egos to kindly refrain from posting in tis single thread. Thank you


Bayes,

Kav,

It's not merely that there's a house edge which makes roulette hard to beat, it's the randomness of the game.

randomness + house edge =  one hell of a hard nut to crack!

Partly agree on that.
The main problem is not the house edge that's for sure.

Also please refer to an older post of mine where I explain that the word "randomness" causes more misunderstandings that it helps explain concepts.

The main problem in roulette is the deviation from the expectation, that is, from the theoretical normal distribution of outcomes.

You can't really compare trading with roulette, because there are elements of non-randomness in trading which enable you to get an edge. Trends in markets can actually mean something, because they're based on psychology. The game of roulette is synonymous with randomness and unpredictability, however, the wheel is not necessarily a perfect RNG 100% of the time. That's why Herb says you can beat the wheel, but not the game.

Yes I can compare trading with roulette. There are too many similarities to ignore. I don't know how familiar you are with the stock market. Three words: Efficient Market Hypothesis.

It's a well established fact that the game cannot be beaten. Not only that, but there is cast-iron proof that this is the case. If anyone claims that they can beat the game, and I keep saying this, they are the ones who need to provide some evidence.  Do you realise what an extraordinary claim it is?

Pease decide. Is there "cast iron proof" of the contrary or do the system players have to provide theirs?
No there is not ANY proof that roulette cannot provide profits to th player. This cannot be mathematically proved.

If any of the claimants could  provide even a single reason, why, in principle, the game can be beaten, I'd love to hear it. And I'm not talking about meaningless gibberish like "random can be read", I mean a real, testable principle.

The APs have Physics - the wheel is a physical device and as such is subject to wear and tear, imperfections.
Traders have psychology, as do poker players and to some extent sports bettors.

Apart from luck, what does a player of the RANDOM GAME of roulette have?

Without any disrespect, I have to tell you that you are not ready to understand the concept of "winning system" as I see it.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them alredy; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

It's funny, but just yesterday I wrote a piece in my roulette blog relating to this issue. Its title is: Is there a Winning System? (and how to win without one)(I may repost it here when I find the time)

[superman]

EVEN RANDOMNESS HAS A **PATTERN**

Multiple patterns, but duration and delivery of is still random.

[kav]

fender you are a pain in the ...
I specifically asked people like you not to post i this thread.
go create your own thread - get away and stop hijacking this thread and talking bout randomness and other nosense

[Bayes]

Pease decide. Is there "cast iron proof" of the contrary or do the system players have to provide theirs?
No there is not ANY proof that roulette cannot provide profits to th player. This cannot be mathematically proved.

Kav,

The simple mathematical proof of expectation covers all systems and methods of selecting bets. Herb has posted it many times. It basically says that any positive number multiplied by a negative number (the expectation) must result in a negative number (your return).

If there is mathematical proof that roulette can't be beaten, then is it unreasonable to require that someone claiming the contrary be asked to provide some evidence? In the same way, if someone claimed to have invented a perpetual motion machine (which would defy the laws of physics) would they not be required to demonstrate it?

It's possible to write a mathematical proof for every system you can dream up which shows that it cannot possibly win. However this would be extremely tedious and would only be understood by a few people, but as I said, the "generic" proof  is very simple and covers all cases. There are plenty of sources on the net where you can find the proof. I think there's a book online by Thorp which gives the details.  Here is a general proof that no progression can work for the even chances:
nolinks://nolinks.bjmath.com/bjmath/progress/unfair.htm

Without any disrespect, I have to tell you that you are not ready to understand the concept of "winning system" as I see it.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them alredy; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Rather patronising, if you don't mind my saying so. What's necessary is not for me (or anyone else) to understand a concept, but to see some hard evidence that there is such a thing as a "winning system", that's what I need to see "laid before me".  Does it matter if I'm not "ready to understand" anyway? what does that even mean?

There seems to be an assumption that all the so-called "math heads" and naysayers have never even tried using systems - an assumption that they need to overcome their closed-mindedness before they can enter the glittering world which lies beyond. I can assure you that this isn't the case. Members like Number Six, Noble Savage, Kelly, Laurance at GG and others have all worked on systems and various approaches, sometimes for years. They came to the conclusion they don't work (and so have I).

Feel free to share your concept anyway. I repeat what I said to gizmo - can you give me a principle by which it is, even theoretically, possible to gain an edge in the random game?

For example, gizmo mentioned clustering analysis. It's true that numbers tend to "clump" together. A number doesn't hit regularly every 37 spins. You tend to get clusters followed by long gaps. But the fact that a number has occurred a few times in short interval doesn't mean it will continue to. Cluster analysis is used for classification purposes, or to find related groups, it can't be used to predict the outcome of random events.

Incidentally, this approach is recommended by Louis G. Holloway in his book full-time gambler. I'll post some "gems" from the book later in another post - you can then draw your own conclusions as to whether they work.

The only other so called "principle" on which roulette systems are based is the gambler's fallacy, which has been proven over and over to not work, that's why it's called a fallacy.

[Bayes]

Kav,

I was going to ask you what your definition of a "winning system" is. Reading your blog, I still don't know. It's all very well to go on about how nothing is certain, but either you have a system which wins consistently or you don't. And it doesn't necessarily mean winning every possible sequence or session. Doesn't it depend on how many spins are in a sequence or session? If a sequence or session is 30 spins long, you may not be in profit at the end of the 30 spins, but if a session is 100 spins, you will be. The point is, on average, you win more than you lose. Isn't that what you mean by a winning system?

Why didn't you say so?

It sounds to me like you're being evasive. Is there such a thing as a winning system or not as per the above definition?

You live a life in which nothing - nothing - is certain.

This sounds like a cop-out. Apart from anything else, it's self-refuting; if nothing is certain then the statement "nothing is certain" is also not certain, so the assertion is meaningless.

Maybe the laws of physics are not "certain", and we will all wake up tomorrow to find that gravity has disappeared, but does that mean we should throw up our hands in despair and never get out of bed? It sounds to me as though you are hoping that there is a winning system, nothing more.

[kav]

Dear Bayes,

Thanks for your reply.

To me a "winning system" is a method that can provide the player with an advantage, based on roulette insights from experience and/or probability theory.
By advantage I don't mean a sharply defined advantage say of 5%. I mean an advantage in the way a smarter, better informed stock investor has over a less smart and informed one. If you want me to describe this advantage in numbers I cannot.
Maybe this definition seems too vague to most mathematicians (and gamblers). But imo this is the only definition worth pursuing. This is the only question worth asking.

To directly answer your question:
No. A winning system (as I define it) cannot GUARANTEE 100% profits either in the short or the long run. There can always come a sequence (long or short) that could wipe out your profits. But this doesn't mean it can't profitable for you.

I consider it totally unreasonable to ask for absolute certainty of profits in a game of chance like roulette. But this doesn't mean you can't be profitable in the long run. If you want profits without risk, you certainly shouldn't care about this game. Even treasury bonds carry a risk! Our main point of difference is that you are looking for sure profits. Profits without risk. (this doesn't exist, not in roulette, not anywhere else) While I'm looking for profits, by knowingly taking risk.

One can be consistently profitable without being able to prove or guarantee 100% his future profitability.
If you disagree with this then "winning system" means two completely different things to you and me.

[Bayes]

Our main point of difference is that you are looking for sure profits. Profits without risk. (this doesn't exist, not in roulette, not anywhere else) While I'm looking for profits, by knowingly taking risk.

kav,

I don't know where you got this idea from. I'm not an armchair gambler who never plays and only posts on internet forums. I play regularly both online and at B & M casinos for real money (although not so much at B & M because I don't have any casinos near where I live).

Of course, if you're playing roulette, there is a risk, and it can't be avoided. But in my case, it's a calculated risk; I don't rely on luck or progressions, unlike 99.9% of the systems posted here. Very few of them stand up to any kind of rigorous analysis. In most cases there isn't even any attempt to explain why a proposed method should work, there are just rules seemingly plucked out of thin air, most of which are based on the gambler's fallacy.

No. A winning system (as I define it) cannot GUARANTEE 100% profits either in the short or the long run. There can always come a sequence (long or short) that could wipe out your profits. But this doesn't mean it can't profitable for you.

It's possible of course. I agree that you can't GUARANTEE 100% profits, but why are you so hung up on guarantees? The best you can do is research methods and monitor them closely when being used at the table. If your edge is based on sound principles, then it's unlikely that a sequence will come along which wipes out all your profits. If it does, then you haven't done enough research and are relying on luck - you obviously don't have a real edge.

[kav]

"If your edge is based on sound principles, then it's unlikely that a sequence will come along which wipes out all your profits. If it does, then you haven't done enough research and are relying on luck - you obviously don't have a real edge."

That's why "I'm hung up on guaranties". Because just one failed case is enough for you to dismiss a method - though there could be many others playing the same method and winning. It is possible to have an edge and still lose (in the short and the long run). That's what I mean by "no certainty". That's what I mean by risk. Risk is not the possibility to lose the next bet, is the possibility to lose altogether.




btw, I totally agree that system creators should try to explain why a proposed method should work, totally agree on this one.
But even if they do they will be received with the "you can't beat the house egde" mantra or a 3mllion spins test that shows failure... that's not the best way to discuss the validity of a method, not at all

[Bayes]

It is possible to have an edge and still lose (in the short and the long run).

How can it be possible to lose in the long run if you have an edge? 

That's the definition of an edge - you win in the long run.

If a system can lose at any time, even in the long-run, what is the criteria by which you choose a method to play? You are just relying on luck. There has to be some principle to base your method on. It can be the wheel/dealer combination, or someone might claim that random numbers have properties which can be exploited. This is what Spike and Gizmo are claiming, but there is no evidence which backs it up. I'm talking about my own experience and that of many others, not just what the "math boys" say based purely on formulas.

That's why "I'm hung up on guaranties". Because just one failed case is enough for you to dismiss a method - though there could be many others playing the same method and winning.

What do you mean by "case"? if you test a method for a good number of spins and it doesn't show an overall profit then of course it would be dismissed - why wouldn't it?

[kav]

Now the discussion looks like a loop. We must go back to the issue of certainty.

If you are absolutely sure in the long run you'll be a winner then you play without risk.
Risk is not the possibility to lose the next bet, is the possibility to lose altogether.

Our main point of difference is that you are looking for sure profits. Profits without risk. (this doesn't exist, not in roulette, not anywhere else) While I'm looking for profits, by knowingly taking risk.

If it would help I could give you many real life examples of entities that did have an edge (in various fields, from finance to military, to sports etc. ) and finally were losers.

[Bayes]

If you are absolutely sure in the long run you'll be a winner then you play without risk.

In that case, I'm playing without risk. 

If it would help I could give you many real life examples of entities that did have an edge (in various fields, from finance to military, to sports etc. ) and finally were losers.

The reason I don't speculate in any field other than roulette (trading, sports betting, poker etc) is that there are too many unknowns. IMHO roulette is much safer than anything else - if you do your homework!

Good Luck.

[Bayes]

I flat bet between 7 - 15 numbers (sectors) but only when conditions are right.

BTW, from my post above, I'm not claiming that I have a holy grail, only that I have the attitude that I will win in the long run. Risk is subjective up to a point, but I make a big effort to minimize the risk of losing my bankroll.

[Bayes]

-