I'm convinced that fluctuation is what we play against, not the house edge. Master recognizing when the variance changes and you'll master the game. You can't change it, but you can learn to steer your way thru it like a ship with radar. Variance can be our friend or our enemy. Isn't that what a progression really does, it rides the negative variance until it ends. The problem is, we never know how long it will last and a progression often hurts more than helps. Most players can't recognize negative variance until its too late. Most players just plug right along, no matter what the variance is doing and hope for the best.
Players use mechanical systems and have no idea what the variance is doing. The system just bulls its way forward and if its a good day, you win. Mostly you lose. Paying attention to the variance is too much work, when people gamble they want to have fun, not work. Adapting your bets spin to spin to match current conditions, is the way to beat roulette. The idea is not to go with a stiff betting plan and die with it, but adapt and evaluate the situation as the session develops.
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fnolinks.yourfunnystuff.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F09%2Fpug-riding-the-waves.jpg&hash=0cdf78e7c3f7b8190761142ba69ce21f604015e7)
Everything, including so-called "random" roulette spins is ultimately a wave within a wave within a wave within a wave etc. I do believe it can be predicted. But actually achieving it is a different story. I personally plan to focus more attention on these possibilities around the start of next year.
"random" roulette spins is ultimately a wave within a wave>>>
I've heard of this but don't understand how it works.
nice post spike
Quote from: Spike! on June 01, 2010, 03:23:15 AMI'm convinced that fluctuation is what we play against, not the house edge.
Absolutely. I've said that before -- even with a small edge, most of those we see in the casino will still lose.
True. Even with a huge edge you can still lose without proper money management.
I think Kelly once mentioned a VB player who had a huge edge but went bankrupt because he didn't use proper money management.
If you have 20% edge on the even chances and bet over 20% of your capital with each bet, there is a chance you will go bankrupt.
The KC is the most optimal bet you can ever place. Betting over it creates a Risk of Ruin, betting below it grows your capital slower than it could.
Flat betting is ok if you have an edge but it's not the best (contrary to what Spike says) since it grows your capital MUCH slower than % betting.
If you want to see this for yourself, I highly recommend writing spreadsheets/simulations to test different performances of different betting plans on different edges.
Quote from: Steve on June 01, 2010, 03:38:37 AM
Everything, including so-called "random" roulette spins is ultimately a wave within a wave within a wave within a wave etc.
Yes, that is because random walks (nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_walk) are fractal (nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal) / self-similar (nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-similarity) in nature.
Quote from: Steve on June 01, 2010, 03:38:37 AM
I do believe it can be predicted.
I used to believe that too not too long ago. Further investigation proved otherwise.
The answer is: not really. By definition it is unpredictable. If it were predictable it is no longer what it is: random. Its suddenly becoming predictable in nature would turn a lot of things upside down. True randomness is real and necessary in the universe.
Quote from: Noble Savage on June 01, 2010, 02:42:50 PM
The KC is the most optimal bet you can ever place. Betting over it creates a Risk of Ruin, betting below it grows your capital slower than it could.
So I must have missed something somewhere. What's "KC?"
The famous Kelly Criterion.
Grab a copy of W. Poundstone's Fortune's Formula (nolinks://nolinks.amazon.com/Fortunes-Formula-Scientific-Betting-Casinos/dp/0809046377) for a fun informative read on KC and money management.
What a cool thing to know. I've always wondered what percentage of bankroll was most advantageous.
Quote"If the edge is negative (b < q/p) the formula gives a negative result, indicating that the gambler should take the other side of the bet. For example, in standard American roulette, the bettor is offered an even money payoff (b = 1) on red, when there are 18 red numbers and 20 non-red numbers on the wheel (p = 18/38). The Kelly bet is -1/19, meaning the gambler should bet one-nineteenth of the bankroll that red will not come up. Unfortunately, the casino doesn't allow betting against red, so a Kelly gambler could not bet."
The odds mean nothing to the person that times their strategy to parallel what is currently happening. It's possible to ride the global effect of the current state. If that person is willing to change as the current state changes that is. But then, that brings the Kelly criterion back into the positive condition. This opens an entire field for me. I need to create a valuation for the current state advantage statistic for determining the current state's percentage of advantage. I know the current states and the global effect when it occurs. Now there is a need to apply numbers to that so that I can use this Kelly criterion formula on it. I might as well give it a name. It's a concept for each spin's current advantage state. So each spin has it's own individual Kelly criterion type percentage of bankroll ratio. So it's a kind of current state KC ratio In the end it would be wise to have a few different ratios pre-decided. Like 20% of your bankroll for high advantage states and minimum or nothing for low advantage states.
I need to study this idea of using so much of your bankroll.
A good start to understanding the "wave within a wave" principles: nolinks.genuinewinner.com/waves.pdf (nolinks://nolinks.genuinewinner.com/waves.pdf)
Also "Living Energies" by Callum Coats. I dont have all the answers and cant accurately predict ECs, but have succeeded in applying part of the principles to real spins with sector predictions.
If it were predictable it is no longer what it is: random.>>>
Thats just not correct. Truly TRUE random, like that from decaying radioactive material, has no definable or repeating patterns. The random from a roulette wheel obviously does, even a newbie can see them. So there must stages of true random, from crude to advanced. I've seen the radioactive advanced random, expressed in 1's and 2's. Its jibberish.
The famous Kelly Criterion.>>>
If you have a very small edge, the KC is OK. If you have a larger edge, the same thing can be accomplished by raising your bet appropriately on a session to session basis.
>>Grab a copy of W. Poundstone's Fortune's Formula>>
You can learn more on Wikipedia about the KC than from this book. Poundstone has no idea how to write a book thats not a slapped together mess.
Quote from: Steve on June 01, 2010, 06:24:38 PM
A good start to understanding the "wave within a wave" principles: nolinks.genuinewinner.com/waves.pdf (nolinks://nolinks.genuinewinner.com/waves.pdf)
Also "Living Energies" by Callum Coats. I dont have all the answers and cant accurately predict ECs, but have succeeded in applying part of the principles to real spins with sector predictions.
I'm sorry Steve but that waves.pdf is not a good start. It's political, it's a broad brush job of it applying to everything in the spectrum. It's vague as it applies to Roulette. I would suggest reading the entire library at Alexandria and then digesting that for visiting Martians. After that come up with a solution for stopping the progressives from starting the next civil war. And last but not least redefine the meaning of life. Then you will be ready to talk about waves and Roulette.
How about a well written description of what that waves.pdf means to you and how that applies to Roulette?
I second what Gizmo just said.
Quote from: Spike! on June 01, 2010, 06:44:05 PM
If you have a very small edge, the KC is OK. If you have a larger edge, the same thing can be accomplished by raising your bet appropriately on a session to session basis.
That's wrong. I can show proof.
Quote from: Spike! on June 01, 2010, 06:44:05 PM
You can learn more on Wikipedia about the KC than from this book. Poundstone has no idea how to write a book thats not a slapped together mess.
Well sure, if all you want is the formula and the math behind it.
As many others agree, the book contains entertaining and informative stories around the KC and its use in the real world by real people who made real money.
Quote from: Spike! on June 01, 2010, 06:41:47 PM
If it were predictable it is no longer what it is: random.>>>
Thats just not correct.
Yes it is and you can't prove otherwise (which makes it pointless).
Randomness is unpredictable, if it were even slightly predictable we wouldn't call it "randomness".
Quote from: Spike! on June 01, 2010, 06:41:47 PM
Truly TRUE random, like that from decaying radioactive material, has no definable or repeating patterns. The random from a roulette wheel obviously does, even a newbie can see them. So there must stages of true random, from crude to advanced. I've seen the radioactive advanced random, expressed in 1's and 2's. Its jibberish.
Nonsense.
Coin flips, Red/Black roulette outcomes, atmospheric noise (Random.org), or radioactive decay. These are all random processes where "
the occurrence of one event makes it neither more nor less probable that the other occurs". No one is more"jibberish" than the other.
>>If it were predictable it is no longer what it is: random.>>>
Thats just not correct.
>>Yes it is and you can't prove otherwise (which makes it pointless).>>
No, YOU can't prove it, all you can do is prove you lose with all forms of random outcomes.
>>So there must stages of true random, from crude to advanced.>> <<Nonense>>
Have you ever seen the outcomes from decaying radioactive material and compared it to coin flips or roulette EC outcomes? They look nothing alike at all. Where you can see obvious patterns in the former, whether they are really there or not, in the latter there are none. It looks like this:
111111122222211112222222211111221122222111111222211221111111
There are stages of true random, depending on the type of RNG used.
Quote from: Noble Savage on June 01, 2010, 07:59:50 PM
Randomness is unpredictable, if it were even slightly predictable we wouldn't call it "randomness".
That is completely the truth.
But randomness is also coincidental in that things happen by coincidence. An example would be 3,25,16,18 all a stretch of red numbers. It's because of the game Roulette that randomness takes on different characteristics. Nothing stops the random feed of spins from being random. Yet things happen by pure coincidence. I'm trying to say there is no force that causes the streak of reds. It just happens from time to time. Streaks come and go in bunches too. Singles in series come in bunches too. It just happens for no reason at all.
Well, true randomness is highly debatable topic. It is hard to define a RNG as absolutely true since they all rely on some deterministic procedures. "Physical sources of randomness have to be measured, and the measurement process introduces some bias." If designed well, a PRNG can even generate better statistical results than so-called TRNG.
John von Neumann (nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann), a mathematician whose studies involved the nature of randomness, said: "Anyone who uses arithmetic methods to produce random numbers is in a state of sin." However, distinguishing true-random from pseudo-random is a challenging task...
Riding the waves of fluctuation implies that you are already out there in the random sea. But in reality you must get out there first. The most effective way to get out there is by diving through the waves.
So before you can ride any waves you must dive through some of them. :)
In the context it is usually used (not necessarily the precise definition), there is no such thing as "random". To say any event is random is exactly the same as saying there is no cause and effect. Nothing ever happens without a cause - that should be obvious and not the focus of discussion.
The real question is whether or not these so-called random events are predictable with enough accuracy to overcome the house edge.
Gizmo, yes the waves.pdf document is partly political. It appears clear you dont understand the relevant parts. You want it spelled out for you in plain language:
Everything is energy, everything. Energy is a recursive waveform. Everything affects everything. The universe is not solid like you may perceive. Putting it into a way that's easier to relate to: where the ball lands is never random - it is due to various factors such as ball, wheel design, air pressure, pocket shapes etc etc - essentially though it is all energy.
What affects where the ball lands? EVERYTHING, to varying degrees. To make a prediction, do you need to consider EVERY factor? Well yes if you want to know EXACTLY where the ball will land. Is it realistic? No. Is it more realistic to predict a sector? Yes. Do you need to know EVERY factor to predict sectors with reasonable accuracy - ie enough accuracy to overcome the house edge? No. Advantage players get their edge by considering a reasonable amount of variables.
It is hard to wrap your head around this concept if you view the universe as solid, but to predict the so-called random events, you would need to figure out how to represent the interaction of energies. I believe there are streaks, sure they are statistical, but I do believe there is structure. Exactly what? I dont know, that's what we are trying to figure out.
Where to start: first we need definitions, to define any pattern. We might divide the wheel into three sectors and attempt to predict streaks for that sector. We would also need to define each wavelength - the greater the definitions, the more accurate we would be.
Let's say:
1-2 spins
1-3 spins
1-4 spins
1-5 spins
1-6 spins and so on.
We may be able to use this information to predict trends. See attached image and red line with down-trend.
This may be wrong, but it's a start, and sure as hell is better than most stuff on forums.
I know for a fact the science is legitimate, but TRANSLATING it into the way you need for predicting trends is a real challenge.
>>Randomness is unpredictable, if it were even slightly predictable we wouldn't call it "randomness".>>
>>That is completely the truth.>>
My point is, there are different grades of randomness. Like crude oil, its all 'oil', but there are grades of it up and down the chart. Lumping all random together is a mistake, because it depends on where it comes from. Some of it is much easier to work with than others. Random.org results are a little more difficult than roulette, computer RNG is too chaotic, and radioactive is impossible. None of it is predictable, the best you can do is make guesses.
Riding the waves of fluctuation implies that you are already out there in the random sea. But in reality you must get out there first. >>>
I prefer parachuting in..
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fnolinks.paraglidingparagliders.com%2Fimages%2Fparachuting-1.jpg&hash=4487c13969cfe4afbf5f78b80e19c22afd34fb5e)
We might divide the wheel into three sectors and attempt to predict streaks for that sector.>>>
You're better off using EC's, less choices, less math, narrower parameters. Always start small and gradually expand.
Well yes. With a big enough bankroll parachuting in is the way to go. Jet ski tows aren't bad either.
Quote from: Steve on June 01, 2010, 08:49:44 PM
In the context it is usually used (not necessarily the precise definition), there is no such thing as "random". To say any event is random is exactly the same as saying there is no cause and effect. Nothing ever happens without a cause - that should be obvious and not the focus of discussion.
The real question is whether or not these so-called random events are predictable with enough accuracy to overcome the house edge.
Gizmo, yes the waves.pdf document is partly political. It appears clear you dont understand the relevant parts. You want it spelled out for you in plain language:
Everything is energy, everything. Energy is a recursive waveform. Everything affects everything. The universe is not solid like you may perceive. Putting it into a way that's easier to relate to: where the ball lands is never random - it is due to various factors such as ball, wheel design, air pressure, pocket shapes etc etc - essentially though it is all energy.
What affects where the ball lands? EVERYTHING, to varying degrees. To make a prediction, do you need to consider EVERY factor? Well yes if you want to know EXACTLY where the ball will land. Is it realistic? No. Is it more realistic to predict a sector? Yes. Do you need to know EVERY factor to predict sectors with reasonable accuracy - ie enough accuracy to overcome the house edge? No. Advantage players get their edge by considering a reasonable amount of variables.
It is hard to wrap your head around this concept if you view the universe as solid, but to predict the so-called random events, you would need to figure out how to represent the interaction of energies. I believe there are streaks, sure they are statistical, but I do believe there is structure. Exactly what? I dont know, that's what we are trying to figure out.
Where to start: first we need definitions, to define any pattern. We might divide the wheel into three sectors and attempt to predict streaks for that sector. We would also need to define each wavelength - the greater the definitions, the more accurate we would be.
Let's say:
1-2 spins
1-3 spins
1-4 spins
1-5 spins
1-6 spins and so on.
We may be able to use this information to predict trends. See attached image and red line with down-trend.
This may be wrong, but it's a start, and sure as hell is better than most stuff on forums.
I know for a fact the science is legitimate, but TRANSLATING it into the way you need for predicting trends is a real challenge.
This looks like a job for Peyote man! (https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fi499.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Frr351%2Fskakus%2FCactuar.png&hash=6b1bee23fad5af6bb01b2f7c69ba456bb49be5d1)
Surprised Roadkill Cactus strikes again..
Steve, I use wave movement all the time. I watch the transitions of several cycles, all at once, in order to determine the current states of many wave forms. I watch for direction, amplitude and cyclical change all the time. But there is something else that I do too. I watch for interval patterns like chord voicing changes done in music. You can invent anything you want to create characteristics from spin results in roulette. Here is a pattern that I won 3000 with in thirty minutes: 1,1,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,1,1,2. The ones represent the same 12 numbers, the twos represent the remaining 26 numbers. There was no physics that formed that pattern of cyclical wave structure. It was my recognition process for creating groups that symbolize form.
@Steve:
Ultimately nothing is random, cause and consequence, etc. etc. I'm aware of all that.
But there's a difference between:
A) Someone observing a coin toss, looking at the physical variables involved in producing the outcome (coin weigh and dimensions, toss velocity, air resistance, etc.) and making a prediction (VB?) or someone exploiting any biases in the coin (one side may be heavier than the other due to different pictures creating a slight long-term bias).
B) Someone who looks at past outcomes and guesses future ones using things like numerology or educated guessing.
The first is trying to find the non-randomness (cause/consequence relationship) and exploit it. While the second is looking at the final outcomes of the process that are random, trying to guess future ones using nonsense.
>>While the second is looking at the final outcomes of the process that are random, trying to guess future ones using nonsense.>>>
Obviously if it works, they aren't using 'nonsense', are they. A written foreign language looks like useless nonsense to me. To somebody who knows how to read it, its anything but..
Gizmo/Spike, what you do may or may not work - I dont know enough of what you do to say 100% either way. But if a "way" were to work and be replicated by others, it would need to be definable - like a clear algorithm where if you came across the same spins, the predictions would be the same. The exception would be precognition. Only when something with clear rules and procedures is defined can it be considered something beyond mere guesswork.
Honestly if I had the holy grail for gambling, roulette or otherwise, first I would thoroughly exploit it over a few years, then I would publish it freely. Why? Because I dont like casinos and what they do to people.
where if you came across the same spins, the predictions would be the same.>>>
Nope, it doesn't work that way. Its never exactly the same two times in a row.
>>Only when something with clear rules and procedures is defined can it be considered something beyond mere guesswork.>
This is all guesswork. But its educated guesswork, nothing 'mere' about it. :blush2: