All the MathBoyz have on major truth, one thought, one mantra: Each spin is an independent trial and past spins have no physical influence on future spins.
Who's arguing with that? I never have, its the inarguable truth. Past outcomes can have no physical influence on where the ball will fall next. How could they?
They can, however, influence your DECISION on where to bet next. They can influence it as much as you want them to. So they have no physical effect on the next spin, so what? They tell you where the wheel has just BEEN and maybe where its going NEXT. Whats so hard to understand about this? You'd think I was advocating human sacrifice to a sun god, the way they carry on about it. Why are using past spins so obviously offensive to MathBoyz?
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fcosmoscrystal.com%2Fgraphics%2Fimages%2FGoofy-scratching-head.gif&hash=fb55743af08aacab443b772d919fa4acd955c549)
I think our mathematician members have a lot to offer. They maintain a very pragmatic approach to the game and in the end no one can really argue with their evaluations. They are correct about independent trials, unfair payouts, probabilities, variance, distribution, et al. They are mostly into AP, but not all, and beating the gaming device would seem the only obvious avenue open to us roulette players.
The knowledge they impart is absorbed by those who need it, and can only help improve everyone's understanding of the game. However all of us deserve the freedom to approach the game in any way we desire.
Just don't be compulsive gamblers, and do enjoy your roulette experience.
I think our mathematician members have a lot to offer.>>>
Really? Do they mow lawns? I pay $10 an hour.
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fbartblog.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F06%2Friding-mower.jpg&hash=99ee367413953af1cf84f379844325e32d7f3c50)
Quote from: Spike! on June 24, 2010, 10:07:19 PM
All the MathBoyz have on major truth, one thought, one mantra: Each spin is an independent trial and past spins have no physical influence on future spins.
Spike,
The mathboyz are not arguing that previous spins don't have a physical influence on future spins. The notion of
statistical independence has nothing to do with cause and effect, only that events are independent when the occurrence (or nonoccurrence) of one of the events
carries no information about the occurrence (or nonoccurrence) of the other event.
One misunderstanding of independence involves interpreting a dependent relationship between events as a causal relationship. Obviously there are such relationships, for example an increase in the speed of an object is caused by an increase in force on the object. But there are plenty of examples of dependent relationships between events where there is no causal relationship: fire depends on the presence of oxygen, but the fire is not
caused by oxygen.
I agree though, that the way statistical independence is presented can be confusing. 'Past spins don't influence future spins' seems to imply that there is no cause and effect between past and future, which is true, but it doesn't make clear that the issue really concerns information content.
That lawn looks like S H I T! You need a horticulturalist, not a mower. ;D
;D Like to see Spike challenge Lance Armstrong on that!
>>events are independent when the occurrence of one of the events carries no information>>
Past spins convey information. They show where the wheel has just been.
Quote from: Spike! on June 25, 2010, 06:07:59 AM
Past spins convey information. They show where the wheel has just been.
Oh Lordy. ::)
Finish the sentence, don't just take part of it and ignore the rest:
events are independent when the occurrence (or nonoccurrence) of one of the events carries no information about the occurrence (or nonoccurrence) of the other event.There are
two events: one is the past spins, the other is the future spins. The first event conveys no information with regard to the second. It makes no sense to talk about independence with regard to one event.
Nice try though.
"Past spins convey information. They show where the wheel has just been" >>> I agree. Ken
G'day,
Quote from: Bayes on June 25, 2010, 07:31:03 AM
The first event conveys no information with regard to the second.
If you're betting that the next decision is going to be the same (decision) as the last
OR opposite for that matter, it would
help if you knew what the last decision was let alone
the fact that it
does affect the next decision to the effect of getting the desired result!
Glenn.
Quote from: Spike! on June 24, 2010, 10:07:19 PM
Who's arguing with that? I never have, its the inarguable truth. Past outcomes can have no physical influence on where the ball will fall next. How could they?
Quote from: Spike! on June 25, 2010, 06:07:59 AM
Past spins convey information. They show where the wheel has just been.
Spike you make me laugh. ;D
Quote from: bombus on June 24, 2010, 11:10:29 PM
I think our mathematician members have a lot to offer. They maintain a very pragmatic approach to the game and in the end no one can really argue with their evaluations. They are correct about independent trials, unfair payouts, probabilities, variance, distribution, et al. They are mostly into AP, but not all, and beating the gaming device would seem the only obvious avenue open to us roulette players.
The knowledge they impart is absorbed by those who need it, and can only help improve everyone's understanding of the game. However all of us deserve the freedom to approach the game in any way we desire.
Just don't be compulsive gamblers, and do enjoy your roulette experience.
Well said. :)
The math argument always comes down to independent events. So please explain the independent event of ten reds in a row. Just because ten reds in a row occurs that does not mean that it has any influence on when the next time that ten reds in a row will occur. Everyone knows that it takes ten independent coincidences to put together a string of ten reds in a row.
I'm tired of arguing these fundamental truths with people that never see the bigger picture. The discussion I want to have is about acknowledging these basic truths and discussing things that relate to circumstantial coincidences. The other truth is that these independent thinkers have know idea how to deal with visible coincidences. They have no idea that there are times when patterns and trends lay out at times that give the player an almost 100% advantage for a brief period. It's ridiculous to keep beating this dead horse. The discussion of independent trials is acknowledged and done. It's also a crutch that prevents the wider discussion that is almost feared to occur by many here.
Gizmo/Spike,
When someone brags that they are NOT a "Mathboy(z)", they are essentially bragging that they are ignorant.
Consequently, why would any one with an education want to consider roulette advice offered by someone that's ignorant of math?
It would be like taking advice on how to write a book from someone that brags that they are NOT a "Readingboy". ;D
Also, why on Earth should we believe you when you tell us that all of the encyclopedias and mathematicians are wrong? After all, how would you know? You've already admitted that you're ignorant. :yahoo: :yahoo:
-Herb6
There are two events: one is the past spins, the other is the future spins. The first event conveys no information with regard to the second.>>>
The past spins contain so much info, they are almost a roadmap to future spins. You just have to learn to read them. The map isn't perfect, you have to learn to fill in the gaps. MathBoyz start with a faulty premise, that past spins have no info whatever, so they close their briefcases and go home for the day. The faulty premise is, random is useless, random is empty, random is unreadable. They think past spins can't hold any info because they're independent. In a way, Gizmo is correct. Talking about this with fanatics is like telling a Catholic hell is a myth thought up to scare children. They just pat you on the head and feel sorry for you..
Herb reaches deep into his bag of famous Herb quotes and comes up with:
Blah blah, blah blah blah blah.
Ignorance, math, encyclopedias, the same thing he's posted a hundred times on the subject. Translation: We're all idiots because we're not MathBoyz and he's a genius because he is. We get it, Herb. Yawn....
It's what you do too.
It's also a crutch that prevents the wider discussion that is almost feared to occur by many here.>>
A crutch is needed when your worldview is threatened. Its like when card counting was discovered by the casinos in the 60's. It had been going on since BJ was invented but the casinos didn't believe it and were mostly ignorant of it. They literally went berzerk when it came to light. They moaned and cried and had meetings in boardrooms that went on for days. They slapped so many restrictions on the game people almost stopped playing it. The card counting revelation so shattered their worldview that a lot of them still haven't gotten over it. They had their heads in the sand, just like MathBoyz do over past spins.
Yeah well card counting can be proved as to why it works, now theres a gap you need to fill regarding your random reading claims. It also says a lot that you count in 99,9% of the population as fanatics who rants about independent trials and the 2 of you as the "knowing ones".
Mind you, the gap needs to be filled before we stop the laughing.
Im amazed that you can`t come up with some new topics, i wasn`t sure that i werent reading the same pages as for 14 days ago.
I'm tired of it as well but I won't lose sleep over it....... There are 37/38 numbers and the payout is 35:1 OR any number can hit at any time! No sh*t, really? I ignore it. Its the EASY way for people to not study methods more, IMO. Ken
Quote from: Mr J on June 25, 2010, 04:45:17 PM
There are 37/38 numbers and the payout is 35:1 OR any number can hit at any time!
You guys want it both ways. Yes, any number can hit at any time BUT there are 'clues' in past spins which tell you that it isn't the case. :girl_wacko:
It doesn't really bother me but if you made your minds up it would make you look a little less ridiculous.
When a patient sits down in your office and says, "Doctor, I have chest pain," you begin a game of guessing what is going on under that person's skin. Since you can't be certain without doing something implausible like examining a potentially diseased organ with your naked eye, you must make a choice without being sure it is the right one.
Information(past numbers) can help you reduce your uncertainty. It allows you to reduce your uncertainty about how uncertain you are about the cause of the patient's symptom!(following numbers)
"Four hundred years of scientific research and the broad acceptance of a formal axiom system have not brought a common agreement on the philosophical foundations of probability theory
Bayes rule, also known as Bayes theorem, provides a method of updating the probability of a random variable when information is acquired about a related random variable. The standard format of Bayes rule is:
P(B) is called prior probability of B, as it reflects our belief in event B before obtaining information on event A. Likewise, P(B|A) is the posterior probability of B, and represents our new belief on event B after applying Bayes rule with the information collected from event A.
Bayes rule provides the formal basis for the active and rapidly evolving field of Bayesian probability and statistics. In the Bayesian view, inference is a problem of belief dynamics. Bayes rule provides a principled methodology for belief change in the light of new information."
Probabilities are the states of partial information about past numbers when applied in the correct way can assist you with playing the next numbers.
Regards
Max
"any number can hit at any time BUT there are 'clues' in past spins" >>> I dont see how these two statements contradict each other. Ken
Just let`s all go to the casino and leave the math boyzz with their opinion at the key board. :ok:
Nathan Detroit
HAPPY WINNINGS!!!
Im amazed that you can`t come up with some new topics>>>
You mean all those OTHER ways to beat roulette? You're too funny. Are you the person on the BJ list who complains that all they talk about is card counting? There IS nothing else worthwhile in roulette, unless you like staring at the wheel for hours and hoping for the best..
Yes, any number can hit at any time BUT there are 'clues' in past spins which tell you that it isn't the case. >>>
No matter how many times its explained, you never seem to 'get' it. Having a clue to the next spin doesn't negate the fact that the ball can land anywhere it likes. How could it. Do you even know what a guess is? It means you don't know the next outcome, you're giving it your best shot. It could land in any pocket, you're just trying to narrow it down to which half.
Information(past numbers) can help you reduce your uncertainty>>
Exactly so. They help narrow down your choice for the next bet.
>>Four hundred years of scientific research and the broad acceptance of a formal axiom system have not brought a common agreement on the philosophical foundations of probability theory>>
Amen, brother.
>>Probabilities are the states of partial information about past numbers when applied in the correct way can assist you with playing the next numbers.>>
My god, the light of truth! Where have you been? Will you be my new best friend? My email in in my profile..
Quote from: Spike! on June 25, 2010, 05:23:40 PM
Having a clue to the next spin doesn't negate the fact that the ball can land anywhere it likes.
Correct. But if your 'clues' turn out to be valid (which they must, because you claim better results than expectation) then that implies you know where 'it likes'. Since you don't take into account any factors which determine where it 'likes' (ie; the initial conditions of the ball and wheel), we are forced to admit that the whole enterprise of guessing is absurd.
QuoteNo matter how many times its explained, you never seem to 'get' it.
Funny, just what I was thinking.
Quote from: MAX on June 25, 2010, 05:07:17 PM
"Four hundred years of scientific research and the broad acceptance of a formal axiom system have not brought a common agreement on the philosophical foundations of probability theory
Max
Um, since when does a common agreement among a bunch of philosophers in their ivory towers determine whether probability WORKS or not? That's the hallmark of the scientific method, it gives results. The foundations of probability are irrelevant to the real world.
If you knew anything about philosophy you'd realize that many philosophers trash the whole scientific enterprise as being 'invalid', neither is there any consensus in any other field of philosophy.
Still, glad to see you brought up my theorem. ;D
I'd love to see an example of how you use it to get better-than-expectation results, as would other budding educated guessers I'm sure!
Please, give us a demo. :)
Quote from: Spike! on June 25, 2010, 05:23:40 PM
It could land in any pocket
Quote from: Spike! on June 25, 2010, 05:23:40 PM
you're just trying to narrow it down to which half.
:lol:
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fnolinks.shadowcat.co.uk%2Fblog%2Fmatt-s-trout%2Fhire-a-dev-shop-too%2F-media%2Fcontradiction.jpg&hash=32f0f592492696aebc8cb58ddb10d3ec2e14bda7)
Quoteyou're just trying to narrow it down to which half.
Noble, I missed that one. ;D :haha:
that implies you know where 'it likes'>>
How do you figure? Its a GUESS, not a prediction, not a certainty. All gambling is guessing. When I guess red, I feel its leaning more towards red than black, thats all. I don't know for sure, I don't know anything. Sometimes on 20 bets, I'm right 10 times and wrong 10 times. Oops. Other times I'm right 17 out of 20. It averages out to being right more often than wrong by a relatively small margin over 50%. Zippityydooda..
Quote from: Noble Savage on June 25, 2010, 05:57:49 PM
:lol:
Thats what all betting is, narrowing down your choices so you have a chance to win. Most people use blind guessing, which doesn't work too well. Educated guessing at least gives you a fighting chance.
Hehehe! This reading is to damn fun to read in a friday night, keep it going guys! :yahoo:
Fun and truthful.
Quote from: Bayes on June 25, 2010, 06:00:41 PM
Noble, I missed that one. ;D :haha:
Snicker snicker hee hee. You guys can exchange all the secret nods and winks you like, it won't change the fact that the forest is completely hidden from your sight because all you see is the trees.
Quote from: Spike! link=topic=16511. msg113311#msg113311 date=1277499978
I don't know anything.
No Sh*t !
Well, I wish you could have told us that
880 posts ago !!!
LOL
Quote from: Spike! on June 25, 2010, 06:06:18 PM
It averages out to being right more often than wrong by a relatively small margin over 50%. Zippityydooda..
WTF!! I can scarcely believe my eyes! are you trying to tell us that your win rate
isn't 72%? ... are you saying you've been.. been deceiving us all these years??? :'( :'(
I have to go and lie down. This is serious.
are you trying to tell us that your win rate>>
If I'm right 7 out of 10 times, thats two guesses better than 50%. Wow, hard to believe, huh.
Yeah wow.
Spike can you describe the difference between a guess and a prediction that both ends up with a bet on Red ? Both ends up with the same action but according to you its more legal to call it a guess rather than a prediction. Just a fancy phrase ?
Gotta say, i think most people that left GG and also Vls has been fed up with your attitude. They wanna see some action from you and it never comes, just the never ending selfpromoting super human skills that you never put some evidence behind. Personally im bored to death about it and i know im not the only one. Always the same "I know better (and im also from the US so i SHOULD know better, the rest can go fxxx them selfes attitude)"
Yeah well, show us what you got little man. Bring us out of our boredom and show us your superhuman guessing (not predicting) skills..
Personally im bored to death about it>
LOL! So who's forcing you to read my posts? There's lots of posts I don't read, is real easy. Try it..
Also, I've been gone from the roulette section on GG for months, its safe to go back. I won't hurt you. I promise.. LOL!
I don`t go here too often anymore, but when i do, 50% of all posts is from you. If there were some sort of filter i would probably come in more often. Convieniently you skipped most of the critic. As always........
yawn.
Buh Bye, Kelly. Hopefuly this means I never have to respond to one of your crybaby posts again. Yawn indeed... Go and post on GG, they need the traffic since I left..
What response ? You never answer anything. For good reasons, you are a internet dummy with a created character.
Only a fool would claim that he can correctly guess the ECs 72% of the time, while bragging that he's math illiterate.
In short, Spike's claim to fame is that he's ignorant and proud of it. ;D
" The foundations of probability are irrelevant to the real world."
Probabilities are the states of partial information about past numbers when applied in the correct way can assist you with playing the next numbers.
"I'd love to see an example of how you use it to get better-than-expectation results, as would other budding educated guessers I'm sure!"
Probability distributions of numbers are called Binomial distribution. For an example read The Holy Gral or G.U.T the Great Universal Theory
Regard
Max
Herb Says: Spike's claim to fame is that he's ignorant.
Translation: Herb buys everything he's taught hook line and sinker and can't see beyond it. He's a math 'company man', a math 'good ol boy'.. God bless em.
You never answer anything. >>>
Actually, I answer everything, I just don't give examples of what I do.
Quote from: MAX on June 26, 2010, 03:32:46 AM
" The foundations of probability are irrelevant to the real world."
Probabilities are the states of partial information about past numbers when applied in the correct way can assist you with playing the next numbers.
"I'd love to see an example of how you use it to get better-than-expectation results, as would other budding educated guessers I'm sure!"
Probability distributions of numbers are called Binomial distribution. For an example read The Holy Gral or G.U.T the Great Universal Theory
Regard
Max
Max,
A Bayesian approach is appropriate for a game like poker, where every time a player acts, you can use the theorem to update your beliefs about the way he plays. You could even use it in Blackjack. The difference between these games and roulette is...
Yep, you guessed it - roulette is a game of independent trials (I know, I know) :agree:
The fact that you don't seem to be aware of this (or don't know what it means) leads me to believe that you are talking bollocks (I have updated my beliefs).
roulette is a game of independent trials (I know, I know) The fact that you don't seem to be aware of this>>
According to you, Kelly, Herb, Number Six, Noble Savage and others, nobody here is capable of understanding it in the way you need us to. No matter how you try and explain it, we never quite seem to get it. Thats because to understand it your way completely, we have to buy the package of baloney that comes with it.
Quote from: Spike! on June 26, 2010, 05:23:46 AM
to understand it your way completely, we have to buy the package of baloney that comes with it.
It's called LOGIC Spike; certain facts imply other facts. You are constantly demonstrating your ignorance.
Where, specifically, is the baloney?
You say that:
1) spins are independent
2) valid 'clues' can be gleaned from past spins which enable you to achieve a better-than-expectation win rate.
If you can't see that these are incompatible, it means you don't understand the meaning of independence. 1) means that there is no connection between any two separate sequences of spins. You, the guesser, can
perceive a connection, but it doesn't mean that there really is one. Get it?
Finding meaning and connections is natural for human beings, and we're really good at it. Many of those connections don't really exist, they are subjective. It's the job of science to sift the good from the bad, the reality from the illusion. It's the best method we have for finding out how the world works. Science is based on logic and empirical evidence.
it means you don't understand the meaning of independence.>>
Obviously you attach many more meanings to the word independence than I do. You look at independent past spins as dried up useless husks devoid of information, and I look at them as fresh and vibrant clues to whats coming next. Its just semantics, past spins are whatever you want them to be. They are equally as valid as the next spin, they are the next piece in an ever changing jig saw puzzle.
Spike,
You've already proclaimed your IgNOrancE. So how would know if you know anything? ;D
Quote from: Spike! on June 26, 2010, 12:27:39 PM
Its just semantics, past spins are whatever you want them to be. They are equally as valid as the next spin, they are the next piece in an ever changing jig saw puzzle.
It isn't just semantics.
Look, if you pick 2 cards from a deck, what is the chance that they are both aces?
It depends on whether you discard the first card you pick before drawing the next, or not.
There are 52 cards in a deck, and 4 aces. The chance that the first card is an ace is 4/52. Now, the odds that the 2nd card will also be an ace depends on whether you put the first one (the one you've just drawn) back into the deck or not. If you
don't put it back, the chance that the 2nd card will be an ace is not 4/52 but 3/51. If you
do put it back (and re-shuffle!) the odds are exactly the same that the 2nd card will be an ace as were the odds that the first card was, because there are still 52 cards and 4 aces.
This principle of taking 'with replacement' and 'without replacement' is the difference between independent and dependent trials. Blackjack in the early days of card-counting was a game of 'without replacement' - dependent trials. The odds changed because cards were discarded after being drawn, which changed the odds of the next card being drawn being a particular value. These days it's pretty much a game of independent trials, because the cards are put back into the deck after having been drawn (into a continuous shuffle machine).
Obviously, roulette is a game of 'with replacement', the winning numbers and pockets aren't removed after each spin.
By using past spins as a guide to future spins, you are assuming that roulette is a game of 'without replacement', that somehow blacks or reds are 'used up' so that the likelihood of some pattern or other coming up is affected by what has just been 'drawn'. It should be obvious why this is a fallacy.
You can look at past spins how you like, give them any meaning you want, but whatever it is, an indicator to future outcomes shouldn't be one of them. At least not if you're in touch with reality.
You can look at past spins how you like, give them any meaning you want>>
They show where the wheel just was and where it might be going. You make too much of it. This isn't rocket science. Math people miss the nuances, they over think everything. Too bad, I doubt if its something you can unlearn. All you see is black and white, you miss all the shades of grey in between.
The fact that you think basic probability (nay, common sense) is 'rocket science' says it all. Sometimes you have to 'over think' because intuition isn't reliable. This is one of those times. Many highly intelligent people are taken in by the gambler's fallacy, it's what's called a 'cognitive bias' of which there are quite a few, and no-one is immune.
That's one reason why the scientific method is a relatively recent development in history, it took a lot of swimming against the tide to get it going and it came up against a lot of opposition (by the establishment of the day - the church).
If you don't follow a rigorous set of rules then a lot of garbage slips through, but that doesn't mean you can't have inspiration or be creative and have crazy ideas, and it certainly doesn't mean everything is 'black or white', it just means that you need evidence of your assertions which must also be logical in hindsight (but that doesn't necessarily mean that you came to the proposition by using logic).
>>The fact that you think basic probability (nay, common sense) is 'rocket science' says it all. Sometimes you have to 'over think' because intuition isn't reliable. This is one of those times. Many highly intelligent people are taken in by the gambler's fallacy>>
Are you trying to talk me out of what I do? I was in the casino for 3 hours today and did what I always do, are you saying I didn't or couldn't? Do you realize how insane that is? I'm showing you a green card, but you're color blind and trying to tell me all the reasons it can't be green. The casino saw it was green and paid me. Who should I listen to, the obviously insane person, namely you, or the casino?
Quote from: Spike! on June 28, 2010, 01:19:32 AM
Do you realize how insane that is?
Seriously, the only thing that's insane here is your arrogance. Without evidence you're just another internet troll blowing hot air, but you think it's not necessary - your word alone is the truth. :o
Seriously, the only thing that's insane here is your arrogance.>>
LOL, I somewhat agree with you. I'm always on a non drug induced high when I get home from playing roulette for real money. The casino is like a beautiful woman, I bend her over the roulette table and raise her skirt and, well, you know. It probably gets old, but I doubt it..... :haha: