What Does Reading Random Mean

[Mike]

Exactly. 

Sports betting could be something. Maybe Poker ? Naa.. I doubt the pros would go for it, but theoretically....

You're probably right about the pros, but the theorem seems to be known in poker circles -
nolinks://nolinks.ruffpoker.com/blog/poker-math-baye%E2%80%99s-theorem/

Gizmo, it won't work in roulette, but thanks for the info! 

[Mike]

Gizmo, you do understand why it can't work in roulette, don't you? 

[gizmotron]

Quite obvious, but why don`t you show us a bet where bayesian principles are used to generate a bet ?  Please dont tell me that you cant.

I'm doing it right now. But this is the point where I'm not going to show the internal workings of the black box. It wouldn't be a black box if I kept showing what's inside. Up till now I have been using the algorithm to send messages that show me that all stages up to that point are executing properly. I showed everything of that on this forum. I managed to isolate the only sleeper in the outside bets. What I'm writing now is using that sleeper to place the next bet. It ferreted out that it was the best and most powerful trend. But that's not all my method is about. I know what to do with selected bets strategically. I'm writing that too. Nothing is obvious here. You see with your data and I see with mine. You've been answered. If you don't like it then make something up.

[Kelly]

Christ, what just happended while i was enjoying a bit of red wine. 3 windows open on Bayesian probabilitys, and 4 on modern portfolio theory.............. im off.

LOL

[gizmotron]

As far as I can see, Baye's theorem is just a way of calculating conditional probabilities. "Conditional" meaning given that such-and-such has occurred, then the probability of something else occurring is so-and-so.

Pretty obvious, as kelly says, why you can't apply this to roulette, and why ultimately it's a waste of time.

You could use it for sports betting, no doubt. But not roulette.

Why not?

I don't get the joke. I am using it on Roulette. I've been advocating using it for more than two years. "Calculating conditional probabilities" is exactly what my software is doing. I'm using Boolean logic principles combined with recognizable conditions.

[Mike]

You see with your data and I see with mine. You've been answered. If you don't like it then make something up.

It doesn't matter whose data it is. Can anyone tell me why it won't work?

cheese?

Surely a lot of people must know this in a roulette forum. Or maybe that's the point. They don't.  

[gizmotron]

Gizmo, you do understand why it can't work in roulette, don't you? 

Great, you can carry the baton at the fools parade.

I would love to hear a cogent argument on why I can't do what I'm actually doing right now. Could you please provide one of those revelations. Now would be a good time.

[Mike]

Never mind Gizmo, I don't see the point in arguing, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I await your software with anticipation. The first thing I'm going to buy is a solid gold yacht. 

[gizmotron]

Never mind Gizmo, I don't see the point in arguing, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I await your software with anticipation.

Well I was considering a logo for my software. How about an image of a fresh pile of shit? So when you try it out you can think about savoring that.

[mr.ore]

Hi all, I'm following this discussion for some time, and I have to admit that even though I know that math tells us that it is impossible to beat random and predict trends, I'm still trying even when I know it is pointless. I believe that math is right though. There are several clever ideas that seems to work if you thing about them, even if a simulation proves them wrong. Because bet selection does not theoretically matter, it does not hurt that much if you try it. Then why not try it?

While there is no conditional probability in roulette, we know that random can produce anything, even a not so random sequence. Gizmo in his posts says, that he can find such a pattern and ride it before it is done. How often is the chaos the game throws at us perfect? I don't know. What I agree is that there might be a mechanical method to select trends that are trending long enough, and if you notice them soon enough, you can GAMBLE that they continue. There is a killer sequence that after you notice a trend and jump in, trend change, then you try another trend and it stops trending again and so on until you lose. Because the possibility is there, in the long run it will happen and suck all wins you have by previous correct riding trends. Riding trends is difficult and I can't do it well, but the idea does not look so bad, and I see some reason for it to be useful. It should not hurt that much to at least try it.

Another correct thing Gizmo says and I agree upon is that there are three states of random.
A: clearly winning
B: choppy or slowly losing
C: clearly losing

If it is clearly winning, there is really a big advantage, because it has to overcome a zero. This "advantage" is a Phata Morgana, but it happens from time to time somewhere, so a good method should be ready to catch it.  If it is clearly winning, an opposite side is clearly losing. A => C on opposite chance.

If it is choppy, then we have to look at a graph without zero. Many times it is winning without zero, but it is choppy if zero is there. If it is choppy, the opposite side is also choppy, but it can be also losing. My simulations and graphs showed me, that if one even chance is choppy, the opposite one is often losing. B => B or C on opposite chance.

If it is clearly losing, then the other side is clearly winning. C => A on opposite chance.

How to deal with trends? I am trying to use same method that traders use, like trailing stoplosses and moving averages, right now I'm looking into indicators. They should not work in long term, I know, but what if I find that combining them in a right way can catch random for a prolonged periods of time? If random by chance produces sequence that is not so random, then it should be able to catch them.

Example of my pre-alpha trend catching system:
It plays an even chance, and there is a rolling stoploss for that. This even chance means "buy", and opposite one means "sell". As long as it is going up, system continues and only if rolling stoploss is broken, then system reset stoploss and immediately plays another chance, thus changing a position. In this way a new graph is produced, and we can deal with that as with an another even chance. So same thing is done with this virtual play, and only decisions from that are played. It sometimes works, sometimes not. If the original even chance is losing enough, it can turn it into winning one. The problem is a choppy sequence, that causes a clearly winning or losing streak. That can be filtered with another layer. The problem is if choppy produces a choppy graph again. If I look at any graph, I can thing that with complex enough rules, it would be possible to turn it into profit, flat betting. What can an eye see, is hard to program into working code. There is a need for better indicators than rolling stoploss or moving average, one specifically developed for roulette. It will not work forever, of course, and in fact it does not work for me most of time, but I see an idea. If a system could create Phata Morgana often enough, I am OK with that. I add a graph of even chance (green line) turned into profitable play(red line) with virtual game (violet line) and two rolling stoplosses. Sometimes it works, often it fails, it is just a component and right now I am looking into for any useful components.

Another thing is that wining and losing streaks are often quiet cyclic. Moving averages and even that rolling stoplosses resemble a sine wave, maybe something like that could be used as an indicator. Another image has two simple moving averages, slower and faster one, and if faster is above slower, it bets original even chance, if it is below or equal it bets opposite side. It does not work always, just another component to be put together. Both of them somehow resemble sine wave.

Maybe it is useless to try to find a system, when it has been proven that negative expectation game cannot be beaten, but it is really  exciting and fun to try to do impossible.

[Kelly]

I would love to hear a cogent argument on why I can't do what I'm actually doing right now. Could you please provide one of those revelations. Now would be a good time.

First of all, no one knows what you do, except you claims that you beat  the house.  Now, we have a hard time believing you are beating the house, we even have a hard time believing you are playing roulette judging from your way of handling a little bit of wind in the face from the casino.  Apart from that, you dont beat the house because the payout sucks and you cant change that.

That way, that is.

[gizmotron]

First of all, no one knows what you do, except you claims that you beat  the house.  Now, we have a hard time believing you are beating the house, we even have a hard time believing you are playing roulette judging from your way of handling a little bit of wind in the face from the casino.  Apart from that, you dont beat the house because the payout sucks and you cant change that.

That way, that is.

Nice try Kelly but that was not an argument of why I can't use "Calculating conditional probabilities." That was just an attack against my claims. You are still on track to enter your float in the fools parade. Keep up the good attitude.

[gizmotron]

If it is clearly winning, there is really a big advantage, because it has to overcome a zero. This "advantage" is a Phata Morgana, but it happens from time to time somewhere, so a good method should be ready to catch it.  

Nice going: "Following a trend is no better or worse than following a mirage. But sometimes the mirage is right in line with the real thing."

You might like attempting to attack that Phata Morgana while it happens. I do.

[cheese]

I await your software with anticipation. The first thing I'm going to buy is a solid gold yacht. 

Don't hold your breath. 'Vaporware', as he calls this, means its a myth, its never going to happen. I exchanged over a thousand emails with Gizmo, and he told me many times that his favorite thing to do is make fools out of people on forums, then sit back and laugh and laugh. Too bad we're all onto to him now, he's only talking to himself and doesn't even know it.

[cheese]

Another correct thing Gizmo says and I agree upon is that there are three states of random.
A: clearly winning
B: choppy or slowly losing
C: clearly losing

But this is meaningless. Its what every roulette player experiences, whether he has a system or not. You're always in one of these three states. Winning, winning and losing, and clearly losing. Watch people randomly betting, you can see it happening right in front of you. To trumpet this as some kind of 'discovery', as Gizmo has done, is ludicrous. Its an integral part of roulette, so what. It tells you nothing you can use to beat the game.

[cheese]

-