Why practice? Why is it so important? Here's why: Variance.
Variance is: "A measure of the spread of a statistical distribution about its mean or center. The distribution of your results over a set of sessions, or the swings in a positive or negative direction." In other words, variance is how far up and how far down a system can go, on average. The only way you can know this about your method of play is by lots and lots of practice.
How will you know whats going on with your play unless you practice? If you don't know what the variance for your system is, how can you go to the casino with any confidence. In practice you learn what to expect without wagering any real money. You get to see your system at its worst and at its best. The more you practice, the better you get at playing your game.
There are some players that believe you should play your game as much as humanly possible, in the casino and out. Its all one big session, whether you're at the table or using your wheel or actuals at home. A session in the casino is just an extension of a practice session at home, you know what to expect and are never surprised at the results. How many players do this? Not many. If in practice you get huge swings of wins and losses, why would you want to play that for real money? Keep searching for a method that has tight variance under most conditions, otherwise save your cash for something more worthwhile, like a boat or hard drugs. Stay away from the casinos.
Good post Spike, thanks
TSK
To the extent that reducing variance is a worthy goal, I agree with Spike, but to suggest that you can do it by 'practice' is absurd and misleading.
QuoteKeep searching for a method that has tight variance under most conditions,
Why not just say so in the first place?
'practice' is necessary and appropriate if you're learning to, say, play the violin. A teacher can point the way, but you have to put in the practice yourself to see results. You can study the techniques of the world's greatest violin players, but that won't put you in their league unless you put the hours in.
It's different with roulette (at least, the kind of systems we're talking about here). Roulette isn't a 'skill' in the sense that playing a violin is. When learning to play the violin, there are many continuous variables which you need to pay attention to. What I mean by 'continuous' is that a small change in any of them can have an effect on the sound you make. You could also call the 'system' of VIOLIN + PLAYER an 'analog' system. For example, the angle and pressure of the bow on the string, the pressure of your finger on a string etc. This makes playing the violin more of an art than a science. Same with other PHYSICAL skills like gymnastics.
Roulette has potentially many 'variables' too, but it doesn't require complex hand-eye co-ordination, split second timing, or simultaneous monitoring of self-directed activity in the way that the above mentioned activities do. Any 'skill' required for winning at roulette is purely skill in DECISION, not a 'physical' skill.
You either have a bet which wins (or reduces the variance), or you don't. If you really could reduce the variance (even by a small amount), you would have the holy grail. Suppose you found a method which limited your longest losing run on the even chances to only 7. If everything else stayed the same, you would win flat betting.
Programmers might like to try the following experiment: get a few thousand spins, then remove all black streaks greater than 7, and run the simulation again betting on Red. What is your edge? you could try this with different length streaks to see how the edge varies.
It's possible to systematically search for 'solutions' because the number of outcomes (and 'inputs') are strictly limited. In this sense ROULETTE + PLAYER is a 'discrete' system rather than an analog one. You don't have to conduct your research systematically, you could just play around, hoping to stumble on something worthwhile. But in any case, calling it 'practice' is not appropriate. You can keep searching for a method which wins, and if you find it then 'practice' is redundant.
If you have a combination lock, and have forgotten the combination, but after trying many numbers you eventually hit on the correct one, do you then have to 'practice' every time you want to open the the lock? of course not, that would be a meaningless and absurd suggestion.
Nice to know Spike's still full of C. R. A. P. .
(Classic Roulette Advice Posts)
Keep up the good work,
Jack Wad. .
In any case, trying to shorten the variance on its own isn't enough, for the same reason that just looking at the probability isn't enough. You can reduce the variance merely by betting on more numbers. You need reduce the variance in relation to the expected variance in order to make a profit. Is there any reason why it should be easier to do this than increase the probability in relation to the payout? it really amounts to the same thing.
You have a Wheel and a Sheet.
Let's divide the Wheel in 3 sections of twelve.. forget the zero.
Divide the sheet in 3 pieces of twelve like:
Angels: first six last six +zero =13
Q3: 10-11-13-14-17-18-20-21-25-26-28-29 + zero = 13
Other: 7-8-9-12-15-16-19-22-23-24-27-30 + zero = 13
So we have Angels-Other 25 numbers
Angels-Q3 25 numbers
Other-Q3 25 numbers
Propability 25/37 = 67.6% .
The 3 sections are the Sources, the 3 sequences of the sheet the target. It's a follow-up system.
Let us take a look at 5 days of german spinning.
ANG-OTH DAY-1
Som van freq Kolomlabels
Rijlabels S1 S2 S3
L 26 19 23
W 68 52 51
Eindtotaal 94 71 74
actuals 2.6 2.7 2.2
recovery 2.3 2.3 2.3
ANG-Q3 DAY-1
Som van freq Kolomlabels
Rijlabels S1 S2 S3
L 30 32 24
W 64 39 50
Eindtotaal 94 71 74
actuals 2.1 1.2 2.1
recovery 2.3 2.3 2.3
OTH-Q3 DAY-1
Som van freq Kolomlabels
Rijlabels S1 S2 S3
L 35 17 22
W 59 54 52
Eindtotaal 94 71 74
actuals 1.7 3.2 2.4
recovery 2.3 2.3 2.3
ANG-OTH DAY-2
Som van freq Kolomlabels
Rijlabels S1 S2 S3
L 11 21 18
W 35 50 48
Eindtotaal 46 71 66
actuals 3.2 2.4 2.7
recovery 2.3 2.3 2.3
ANG-Q3 DAY-2
Som van freq Kolomlabels
Rijlabels S1 S2 S3
L 19 17 20
W 27 54 46
Eindtotaal 46 71 66
actuals 1.4 3.2 2.3
recovery 2.3 2.3 2.3
OTH-Q3 DAY-2
Som van freq Kolomlabels
Rijlabels S1 S2 S3
L 16 29 26
W 30 42 40
Eindtotaal 46 71 66
actuals 1.9 1.4 1.5
recovery 2.3 2.3 2.3
ANG-OTH DAY-3
Som van freq Kolomlabels
Rijlabels S1 S2 S3
L 17 17 16
W 39 51 42
Eindtotaal 56 68 58
actuals 2.3 3.0 2.6
recovery 2.3 2.3 2.3
ANG-Q3 DAY-3
Som van freq Kolomlabels
Rijlabels S1 S2 S3
L 18 24 18
W 38 44 40
Eindtotaal 56 68 58
actuals 2.1 1.8 2.2
recovery 2.3 2.3 2.3
OTH-Q3 DAY-3
Som van freq Kolomlabels
Rijlabels S1 S2 S3
L 19 26 23
W 37 42 35
Eindtotaal 56 68 58
actuals 1.9 1.6 1.5
recovery 2.3 2.3 2.3
ANG-OTH DAY-4
Som van freq Kolomlabels
Rijlabels S1 S2 S3
L 25 22 20
W 41 54 58
Eindtotaal 66 76 78
actuals 1.6 2.5 2.9
recovery 2.3 2.3 2.3
ANG-Q3 DAY-4
Som van freq Kolomlabels
Rijlabels S1 S2 S3
L 18 27 31
W 48 49 47
Eindtotaal 66 76 78
actuals 2.7 1.8 1.5
recovery 2.3 2.3 2.3
OTH-Q3 DAY-4
Som van freq Kolomlabels
Rijlabels S1 S2 S3
L 17 26 25
W 49 50 53
Eindtotaal 66 76 78
actuals 2.9 1.9 2.1
recovery 2.3 2.3 2.3
ANG-OTH DAY-5
Som van freq Kolomlabels
Rijlabels S1 S2 S3
L 28 39 20
W 41 59 51
Eindtotaal 69 98 71
actuals 1.5 1.5 2.6
recovery 2.3 2.3 2.3
ANG-Q3 DAY-5
Som van freq Kolomlabels
Rijlabels S1 S2 S3
L 14 26 25
W 55 72 46
Eindtotaal 69 98 71
actuals 3.9 2.8 1.8
recovery 2.3 2.3 2.3
OTH-Q3 DAY-5
Som van freq Kolomlabels
Rijlabels S1 S2 S3
L 26 29 25
W 43 69 46
Eindtotaal 69 98 71
actuals 1.7 2.4 1.8
recovery 2.3 2.3 2.3
What's the variance ?
Day-1 : recovery 2.3 lowest 1.2 factor = -/- variance of -/- 1.1 // highest 3.2 = +/+ 0.9
Day-2 :recovery 2.3 lowest 1.4 factor = -/- variance of -/-0.9 // highest 3.2 = +/+ 0.9
Day-3 :recovery 2.3 lowest 1.5 factor = -/- variance of -/-0.8 // highest 3.0 = +/+ 0.7
Day-4 :recovery 2.3 lowest 1.5 factor = -/- variance of -/-0.8 // highest 2.9 = +/+ 0.6
Day-5 :recovery 2.3 lowest 1.5 factor = -/- variance of -/-0.8 // highest 3.9 = +/+ 1.6
The only thing is how to find the trigger ? lol
Quote from: Jack Wad on June 06, 2010, 10:06:00 AM
Nice to know Spike's still full of C. R. A. P. .
(Classic Roulette Advice Posts)
Keep up the good work,
;D
Very true.
Quote from: Jack Wad on June 06, 2010, 10:06:00 AM
Nice to know Spike's still full of C. R. A. P. .
(Classic Roulette Advice Posts)
Keep up the good work,
Jack Wad. .
:lol:
>>To the extent that reducing variance is a worthy goal, but to suggest that you can do it by 'practice' is absurd >
Thats the other side of the coin. Screw practice, just come up with a method and run to the casino with it. Either way, thru practice or thru playing, you'll learn a lot about your methods variance.
Um, your variance can be calculated and/or simulated easily by knowing the details of your bet (such as its edge, probability, and payout).
You just discovered the term "variance" Spike, thanks to NumberSix.
I like the saying "Correct practice make perfect"
No point in practicing something the wrong way......Just enhances bad habits. So yes practice makes perfect if it's the correct methods.
I saw on Discovery I think about that study about whether geniusses are just that or whether they were forced into a direction and because of thousands of hours they become masters. The studies concluded that it is all about the "time" that was put in. Something like 7000-10000 hours and you are there!
Cheers
Jackal
5 hours a day for 5 years brings you up to 9125 hours.
If you have not come up with something worth the effort by then, it could be time to look for another hobby.
Seriously though, if you think about the game of roulette, a lot of the stuff we end up studying is just the same old. It is very difficult to come up with original ideas and keep it real without reverting back to all the old premises which never worked. I mean if you were working on a progression for streets 20 years ago and today you are looking at a progression for dozens, then you would have to question how far forward you have really came.
Spike might have known about variance for a while, but what he doesn't understand is why it is impossible for it not to apply to him since whatever method he uses that considers past spins will perform no better or worse than random betting. The question is, can the variance of a classical mechanical bet be reduced in any way, and if not, can it at least be tamed?
The variance is typically exacerbated by negative progressions that very quickly spiral beyond all control when the wins dry up. It really doesn't take much deviation for these things to fail utterly. Variance is always reported to be much much worse that it really is or should be. So, can the effects of variance be reduced rather than the variance itself?
You just discovered the term "variance" Spike>>
I first heard about variance in 1977 in BJ. Search the GG archives and I have threads I started on variance dating back to 2006.
>>It is very difficult to come up with original ideas and keep it real without reverting back to all the old premises which never worked.>>
I fight that all the time. Unlearning bad habits is difficult, and a constant challenge. I think its laziness, its so easy to revert back and pretend you're not.
>>but what he doesn't understand is why it is impossible for it not to apply to him since whatever method he uses >>
Where did I ever say variance doesn't apply to me??
>>whatever method he uses that considers past spins will perform no better or worse than random betting.>>
Totaly untrue. The more of an edge you get from reading past spins, the less your variance.
The nice thing of a 25 numbers bet, there are always 2 winners and only one is losing.
Except for the zero (because of coverage) there are 3 winners.
Let's take a look more closer at the first 20 spins.
angel-other angel-q3 other-q3
Section-1 3/4 4/4 1/4
Section-2 6/6 2/6 4/6
Section-3 4/10 7/10 10/10
After a zero: no bet.
Let's define a target: the bet bet will be a 4 euro bet on 25 numbers, when winning 44 euro profit.
Or if there's a huge trend : a bet on only 1 13 number sequence, if winning a profit of 92 euro.
the target for the day : a range of 32-44 euro profit. No progressions.
The last spin was a seven: section 3.
What will be y'r next bet ?
buggered if'n I know, mate...
Personally,I do'nt want to be involved, simple by the fact i know the score of the next spin.
I divided the Wheel into 3 sections of twelve.. It's a follow up system.
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fe%2Fe8%2FEuropean_Roulette_wheel.png%2F600px-European_Roulette_wheel.png&hash=3be3b684b0cc9bea9afa9fb53401af3247aa4676)
So seven is a section 3 number.
Where will it spin ? into angel-other or angel-q3 or other-q3 ?
I gave you the first 20 spins..
Let's see if this system will be profitable in the long run ..
For all clarity, you do'nt have to bet, if you see more chances in the other sections..
2 losses of 100 euro, will be a stop-loss for the day. ?
You practicing this, Spike?
Quote from: bombus on June 07, 2010, 08:04:33 AM
You practicing this, Spike?
Probably Not.. he's a 50% player, i think.
But the general question is, if you look at the first twenty numbers,there's a trend.
The question is: will it be broken or will it continue ?
angel-other angel-q3 other-q3
More Info for the trend-players:
Section-1
WWL
LWW
WWL
WWL
Section-2
WWL
WWL
WLW
WLW
WLW
WLW
Section-3
WLW
LWW
LWW
LWW
WLW
LWW
LWW
WLW
LWW
WWW
Quote from: Spike! on June 07, 2010, 01:44:23 AM
Totaly untrue. The more of an edge you get from reading past spins, the less your variance.
You can't get an edge by looking into the past, that is the point. If each spin is independent from all the others, past spins should mean absolutely nothing at all. And it's true. They don't mean anything. There is nothing "happening", there is only what has
just happened. The chances of that continuing versus the chances of that changing are exactly the same and it's impossible to predict which way it will go. There is no present.
Here's a question: when you place a bet are there always 38 pockets on the wheel, and when the ball is spinning, does it have an equal chance of falling into any of those said pockets?
If the answer is yes, then you're 72% hit rate is a hoax because the real parameters of the game cannot ever be superseded or replaced by something YOU just made up. If you answer no, you're wrong.
You can't get an edge by looking into the past>>>
No, YOU can't get an edge, don't speak for me.
>> past spins should mean absolutely nothing at all.>>
But they do mean something, they mean everything as far as the next bet is concerned.
>>a hoax because the real parameters of the game cannot ever be superseded>>
Wrong. But its not your fault, its what you were taught. I don't blame you for your limited views. As long as the casino continues to feel the same way you do, I'm happy.
Where is the answer to the question?
You wrote: >>a hoax because the real parameters of the game cannot ever be superseded>>Wrong
Here's a question: when you place a bet are there always 38 pockets on the wheel, and when the ball is spinning, does it have an equal chance of falling into any of those said pockets?
If the answer is YES, the parameters can never be replaced or superseded and your hit rate on ECs can never be better than 18/38 or 37. It isn't about what I was taught, if you can count it's a clear fact of life.
Agreed. It should be obvious.
the parameters can never be replaced or superseded and your hit rate on ECs can never be better than 18/38 or 37.>>>
If you get correct clues from past spins, you can do better than 18/38 or 37. Much better if you get good at it. The parameters you state are for random against random. You erroneously conclude thats the best you can ever do.
>>parameters can never be replaced or superseded and your hit rate on ECs can never>>
You state that like its a fact. The fact is, you can't prove with math that an edge can't be gotten from past spins. Its an assumption based another assumptiom that you can never do better than a random bet selection.
The fact is, you can't prove with math that an edge can't be gotten from past spins.>>>
I'm just sayin... :give_heart: