Everyone has their own timeline. Playing the game changes the game.

[Herb]

One of the reasons I posted this thread was to make the point that when you walk away, your playing timeline leaves with you.

If one of your favorite numbers hit while you're away, then you didn't really miss a win on the number.   

-Herb.

[bliss]

I think this is Herb's way of reminding us that no matter what you do, the final result is -2.7%. 

[ryan08]

it doesnt have anything to do with the -2.7% as far as i can see

[Spike]

Whats a personal timeline, I've never seen it explained so it has no meaning for me.

[Marven]

Whats a personal timeline, I've never seen it explained so it has no meaning for me.

Spike,

To my knowledge, it's a term used to describe the entirety of spin results experienced by the player during every session he plays. These separate sets of session spins all combined together by chronological order in one spins profile would form the player's personal timeline -also referred to as 'personal actuals'.

The idea is this:

Say a player plays a session of 30 minutes everyday.
After a month, the spin results of every session he played, when put together, form his personal actuals for that month. The theory says that, statistically and since every spin is independent, these are no different than the actuals he would have experienced if he played one session of 15 hours at one table.

Someone who is not aware of this fact might for example think that if the martingale fails if played long, then it would win if he played only once a day. He might think that the dispersion of hits would "miss him" if he played this way, betting on red only once a day using the martingale. Which of course is not the case since, in his personal actuals, he will sooner or later experience that bad run.

As you would say, it's commonsense. But unfortunately many systems and pseudo-strategies that are being sold out there ignore this concept of independent trials/personal timeline.

Of course, and as I said, this is the theory.

In reality however, in a fairly large group of people, you might (by 'might' I mean: it is not impossible) find someone in whose lifetime personal actuals a 10 step martingale would never fail.
You may call it luck, but the dispersion actually missed this lucky fellow.

The problem would arise when such guy comes to a place like this and tells people that a 10 step martingale (or whatever it is the mechanical system he is playing) is the holy grail. That's where arguments commence. People would test his system and tell him it's an epic fail. The math guys would tell him it fails.
He gets mad and thinks everybody is being negative etc. etc.

Understanding randomness is very important in this game. Successful roulette players are obviously those who are fairly experienced with dealing with randomness, regardless of the techniques used.

Regards,
Marven

[TwoCatSam]

All........

Wasn't going to post on this thread until Marven wrote this:

Someone who is not aware of this fact might for example think that if the martingale fails if played long, then it would win if he played only once a day. He might think that the dispersion of hits would "miss him" if he played this way, betting on red only once a day using the martingale. Which of course is not the case since, in hit personal actuals, he will sooner or later experience that bad run.

This is why so-called hit-and-run sessions will not work.  (Hit-and-see-which-way-the-wind-is-blowing-and-then-either-stay-or-run are not the same thing.)  This is also why you can't depend on always getting up during a session.  Marven points out that, sooner or later, when you sit down at the table you will be at the beginning of the session from hell.

Sam

[Kon-Fu-Sed]

EXACTLY!

Exactly what I try to show in this thread:
nolinks://vlsroulette.com/reference-area/it-will-not-happen-in-your-life-time!/

I ran 50,000 sessions, betting High. I ended a session after losing 21 times in sequence...

The worst session started losing after only 135 bets.

27 had it coming before 1,000 bets
176 before 10,000 bets - that's one session of 284!
(How many sessions have you started?)

459 had to wait at least 10 million bets.
Wish you were here...

I also tested with 1100 RNG sessions of 1000 bets each...
And I tested 3689 LIVE-spins sessions with an average of 311 bets...
And I tested 3689 RNG sessions of exactly 311 bets each...

The losing sequence was there.


The conclusion:
The losing sequence will come as it should according to math, regardless the length of each session.
[smiley=3/shudder.gif]

/Kon-Fu-Sed

[geoff365]

"Say a player plays a session of 30 minutes everyday.
After a month, the spin results of every session he played, when put together, form his personal actuals for that month. The theory says that, statistically and since every spin is independent, these are no different than the actuals he would have experienced if he played one session of 15 hours at one table."

Incorrect.----The spread of numbers eg most, least over 450 spins (15hrs) play in one session will show the least staying behind. With the most staying in the lead. However if done over 30 days the wheel still spins in between sessions.

It could be said that the wheel as an object has it's own timeline. A bit far fetched I know, but memory or no memory it keeps spinning with the player there or not.

Cheers.

[bliss]

It could be said that the wheel as an object has it's own timeline. A bit far fetched I know, but memory or no memory it keeps spinning with the player there or not.

This is an interesting point. Suppose you're betting one number, but it doesn't hit after 300 spins. Your method allows for 400 spins without a hit(!) but you've run out of time -  the casino closes in 5 minutes, so this wheel's "timeline" is going to be "broken". If you had started playing your system a few hours earlier, you'd have been able to play the system to completion (either get a hit, or quit after 400 no-hits), but now, you have to come back the next day to continue.

Now, the next day, you have 100 spins to play, so you pick the same wheel you were playing the night before, and you make sure to get to the casino for the very first spin of the day. According to theory, you are no better or worse off than if you had started earlier the previous day and had the time to play your system to completion - all spins are independent. So this wheel you are playing today has exactly the same chance of going another 300 or more spins without your number hitting, right? in which case the wheel would have been spun 600 times without a number hitting, which is unheard of. The math says there is no reason to pick the same wheel over any other - does it make a difference? IMO the answer is no.

[Marven]

Incorrect.----The spread of numbers eg most, least over 450 spins (15hrs) play in one session will show the least staying behind. With the most staying in the lead. However if done over 30 days the wheel still spins in between sessions.

I disagree.

Mathematically speaking, there is absolutely no difference between:
- Flat-betting on section X for 10 spins per session, 2 sessions per day, over one year;
And:
- Flat-betting on section X in one session of 7300 spins.
Mathematically they are the same.

The least staying behind/the most staying in the lead are not determined by how you break down you sessions but by the system/strategy/method of play itself, and it's ability to keep you in the plus.

As you might notice, sometimes people say things like: "Play this, it wins consistently. But don't play for too long or the wheel will take it all back".
Such statements show nothing but an ignorance of the principle of personal timeline and the nature of randomness.

Of course, this is the nothing but the theory/maths. In reality however, there are a bunch of other factors to consider, such as the human factor. i.e. playing small separate sessions is obviously better than playing 800 consecutive spins for example, since getting tired playing long sessions could lead to making mistakes (regardless of the method of play) which would affect short and long term results.
I'd agree with that.

But in theory, it's the same.

This is how I view the matter, based on past trial and error.
Your mileage may vary.

Regards,
Marven

[Marven]

-