What Rare Events (If Any) Actually Matter When it Comes to System Designing

[rjeaton1]

I'll explain what I mean by that in case anybody doesn't already understand.

A lot of systems are designed around "rare events" such as a number not appearing for 100 spins then betting that number, or a street repeating 10 times so we bet all of the other streets, etc, etc.

But, I got to thinking, how many of these "rare events" actually matter.  I mean, in Poits 12 million RNG test, every number over the course of those 12 million spins slept at one point for over 400 spins.

The only "rare event" that I can think of that is worth designing a system around is a lot of numbers coming out in a set of 37 spins without a repeat, because the one rule that we all know a roulette wheel will always obey is in 37 spins you won't ever see 37 different numbers come out.  So, like a system I recently posted, you wait until in 16 spins only 16 numbers come out (no repeats) and then start betting on those 16 numbers until a repeat appears.  Obviously a repeat may not appear until spin 30 or spin 33 but one will come out eventually.

So, what are everybodys thoughts on what other "rare events" if any (and discounting the one I already mentioned is also up for discussion) are worth designing a system around?

[Herb]

So, like a system I recently posted, you wait until in 16 spins only 16 numbers come out (no repeats) and then start betting on those 16 numbers until a repeat appears.  Obviously a repeat may not appear until spin 30 or spin 33 but one will come out eventually.

So, what are everybodys thoughts on what other "rare events" if any (and discounting the one I already mentioned is also up for discussion) are worth designing a system around?

There aren't any rare events that you can exploit.  This is called "gambler's fallacy".

[rjeaton1]

There aren't any rare events that you can exploit.  This is called "gambler's fallacy".

So you're of the opinion that it is totally possible (and just as likely) for 37 different numbers to come out in 37 spins as, say, 2/3rds of them?

Just to make it clear Herb, I value your opinion and I am in no way starting an argument.  I am absolutely open to being corrected.  I've read a lot of the threads you've started and threads you have put in your two cents on.  So please, do not take what I just said as a defensive comment.  It is merely a question.

[Mr J]

@rjeaton >>> Not a bad concept but of course the specifics of it are a bit more of a challenge. "Gamblers fallacy" is over rated, pay no attention. People love hiding behind that catch phrase, it makes them FEEL the power between their toes. Its a PHRASE, nothing more, it caught on decades ago in the gambling world and is still hip. Its NO different than if someone sneezes.....what do you say to that person? Its a phrase bro, nothing more.  Ken

[VLSroulette]

So you're of the opinion that it is totally possible (and just as likely) for 37 different numbers to come out in 37 spins as, say, 2/3rds of them?

Rj, my friend, math-wise, the sequence 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 is as likely.

"Gambler's fallacy" players work in the assumption they won't see some sequences over others while they are alive. They aren't immortals, hence they discard some sequences to be seen in their lifetime (fallaciously, agreed). For instance, 50 reds in a row, or -yes- 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1

If you device a method for which the above sequence make it lose, then as a "gambler's fallacy" player you can bet fairly confident you may not lose in a lifetime.

A math guru will be just as wary as with any other method as he will constantly fear after every "1", the wheel will throw 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 towards him.

Now imagine a system which "beats infinity" (0.00000000000000000000000000000001% positive edge, guaranteed to beat infinity with 100% certainty), but in practice has such horrible drawdowns that make it unplayable at casino conditions with real table limits.

Math gurus will bet that system instead of what Mr. J is doing...

[Mr J]

Good point Vic and I am NOT starting crap with this again. lol I'm only saying, the "gamblers fallacy" term is nothing more than a couple catchy words, thats all it is. If I had to GUESS, I would say in the last 18-24 months of my profits, 80% came from gamblers fallacy. So, I am either lying about it or its true but how can that be explained? Or, 80% of pure luck. I have NEVER got into the BS of 12 reds hit, now its time for a black. Are my ideas similar? Yes, but nothing even close to red/black.  Ken

[Mr J]

Another thing rjeaton >>> I started a thread a while back in terms of "event betting". I study the concept to this day........ EVENTS, which are not the same as gamblers fallacy or furthest back etc. If we made a list, we can come up with a few examples of events that *WILL* 100% happen. The big problem (obviously) is WHEN!  Ken

[Herb]

Why is it that the less someone knows about mathematics and gambling, the more certain they are that all mathematicians and all of the encyclopedias are wrong?  Especially when it pertains to gambler's fallacy?  LOL.

[Mr J]

Back at ya >>> why is it when a person cant win playing roulette but someone else does (not everytime) throwing around the term "gamblers fallacy" makes them FEEL better in their tummy?  ROFL  If you dont win, DO NOT blame me for it, its not my fault.    Ken

[Mr J]

To be 100% *FAIR*........ I win and I dont know if you win or lose, I have no idea. I have a good guess but no evidence.  Ken

[rjeaton1]

Another thing rjeaton >>> I started a thread a while back in terms of "event betting". I study the concept to this day........ EVENTS, which are not the same as gamblers fallacy or furthest back etc. If we made a list, we can come up with a few examples of events that *WILL* 100% happen. The big problem (obviously) is WHEN!  Ken

I'm going to see if I can find that thread Mr. J, it seems as though you and I are thinking along the same lines.  I too haven't ever played the "12 reds bet black things".  All my systems rely on inside number bets, but as of late, I've been incorporating "events" into when/why I bet.

For instance, I wrote an RXtreme file that bet the following way (it failed miserably, but there ended up being a HUGE upside...read on to hear what)

The system was as follows:

Track 3 spins of the wheel.  If in those 3 spins only 2 numbers came out (one number doubled) like this: 1,1,21 or 1,30,1 or 30,1,1 (you get the idea)
then bet EVERY number on the table except for those two numbers.  Want to know what happened (as if you couldn't guess)...miserable failure.

It would win roughly 30 times in a row, then fail, then work 30 times, then fail, etc.

The upside I mentioned earlier, was that the event of only 2 numbers coming out in 4 spins was a relatively "likely" event.

So, I re-wrote the .DGT file to track 3 spins and only bet when the aforementioned event happened, but instead of on the un-hit numbers, bet on the hit numbers (using a progression of course, as only betting on two numbers, the progression required isn't terrible at all).

Now what did I have?  A GREAT success.  Seriously...it's a great system....try it out yourself.  As you and I have both said/agreed on, it's just a pain not knowing WHEN the event will happen. 

The making of a list you mentioned Mr. J....I think I like that idea...

[rjeaton1]

Rj, my friend, math-wise, the sequence 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 is as likely.

"Gambler's fallacy" players work in the assumption they won't see some sequences over others while they are alive. They aren't immortals, hence they discard some sequences to be seen in their lifetime (fallaciously, agreed). For instance, 50 reds in a row, or -yes- 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1

If you device a method for which the above sequence make it lose, then as a "gambler's fallacy" player you can bet fairly confident you may not lose in a lifetime.

A math guru will be just as wary as with any other method as he will constantly fear after every "1", the wheel will throw 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 towards him.

Now imagine a system which "beats infinity" (0.00000000000000000000000000000001% positive edge, guaranteed to beat infinity with 100% certainty), but in practice has such horrible drawdowns that make it unplayable at casino conditions with real table limits.

Math gurus will bet that system instead of what Mr. J is doing...

Glad to have your input on the subject Victor!  I totally understand that "math wise" I will find it an impossible to find something that isn't more likely than another...or vice versa.

It's just funny how sentences (when being explained by somebody who stands firmly on the grounds of math) end sentences with, "sure it can happen, you just might not ever see it in your lifetime".  Well, I understand that it is totally possible for me to lose playing the system that relys on betting against an event "that I might not ever see in my lifetime".   But...if I might not ever see it in my lifetime, why not bet against that event?

It seems betting that way certainly makes more sense than betting against an event that "I'm guaranteed to see in my lifetime" (2 reds in a row for instance).

Just to make it a little clearer, I'm not saying I'm looking for events that won't ever happen, as I understand that I "mathematically" cannot find one.  I'm saying I'm looking for events that are "smarter" bets than others.

[Mr J]

@Herb >>> again, this gamblers fallacy thing you talk about is....new to me, please explain. lol I have drastically changed my style over the last 6 months or so. Yes, still incorporating SOME of my older ideas but with a "twist" (not sure what to call it?) One person knows of my latest "idea" and it is doing VERY WELL !!! I dont think it is gamblers fallacy (I laugh when I type those 2 words) because I need a SOLID definition of what it is. Feel free to slam me for a while, I'm off to the movies.  Ken

[rjeaton1]

also Herb, please understand I'm not arguing with you.  I understand from a mathmatics point of view what you're saying.

But, I'm speaking from a realistic point of view.  I mean, you and I both know that if we saw 33 different numbers come out, we would bet on those 33 numbers.


Well, I could be wrong about what you would bet actually, but I know that I would bet on those 33 numbers and I very likely would win (again, from a mathmatics point view this is incorrect) but from my experience it is a good bet.  As I've analyzed over 5 million spins using that program Tangram made for me and still haven't seen 37 different numbers in 37 spins.  The most I've seen so far is 33.

[MATTJONO]

Arnt table limits there because of this ''Rare events (if any)''

I remember back in the early days saying right what are the odds of seeing 12 spins with all 12 streets appeared..I didnt know the odds but I jumped in when I seen 9 spins with 9 streets appeared betting the 9 streets lost,,,,,more chips on the 10streets now  lost again,,,,,, betting all my bankroll on the 11 streets and I lost again it hit the unhit street.....SO I HAD 12 SPINS WITH 12 STREETS APPEARED.


MAYBE.... if we wait for the RARE EVENT TO STOP then bet for that rare event not to happen again any time soon.   

what im trying to say is the table limits seem to kill all our ''gambers fallacy'' ideas

regards
mattjono

[MATTJONO]

-