VLS Roulette Forum

Do you know what a sine wave is?

If you play a balanced game then you can react to the conditions as they occur.

This is a sine wave:

(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fhome.earthlink.net%2F%7Egizmotron%2Fsinewave.jpg&hash=fe67a6a878ce7937a66fc6c5dd4539e73532474b)

You can play until you reach your goal, as long as your goal is well inside the normal deviations of your game.

Three losses followed by six wins gives you a simple three win goal as a result. With a three win goal you can become a millionaire with this technique. There is no reason that you must play all downturns until they take all your winnings. This is not a Martingale after all. 

I believe its also known as the bell curve. I'll tell ya something that MOST here will NOT do. Whatever your method is......test it at home (not RX) and find what/when the AVERAGE of the peak (bell curve) is, in regards to profit before it (and it will) starts to tank. Find this average over hundreds, if not thousands of trials. Once you have it, subtract around 20% of that. Remember (or record) what/when that average is. Thats the info you take to the casino with you for THAT method. When you hit it, LEAVE. Most will not.  Ken

If you play a balanced game then you can react to the conditions as they occur.>>

The game is constantly seeking to balance itself, its the nature of true random. Reacting correctly to unfolding conditions on a spin to spin basis takes patience and practice. Past spins tell you where it might be going.

Quote from: Mr J on June 30, 2010, 08:30:31 PM
I believe its also known as the bell curve. I'll tell ya something that MOST here will NOT do. Whatever your method is......test it at home (not RX) and find what/when the AVERAGE of the peak (bell curve) is, in regards to profit before it (and it will) starts to tank. Find this average over hundreds, if not thousands of trials. Once you have it, subtract around 20% of that. Remember (or record) what/when that average is. Thats the info you take to the casino with you for THAT method. When you hit it, LEAVE. Most will not.  Ken

Technically speaking the "bell curve" is a shape of the curve. The soft shoulder shape of the bell curve is a type of EQ effect where the location along the spectrum is altered with a soft curve. A noticeable difference would be the very sharp shape of the curve in a notch filter. This is useful for pulling 60 cycle hum out of some sound streams. If you look up information on parametric EQing you will see what I mean.

Regarding Roulette and sine waves I'm saying a balanced game will produce a short termed transition between a slight loss and a minimal win without much effort at all. The smart player takes notice of this simple effect.

"Regarding Roulette and sine waves" >>> I wasn't sure if my 'bell curve' example would fit into your thread. The PURPOSE of a bell curve is to show a PEAK of a a method in terms of net wins. Of course, it does not have to be related to gambling. EVERY method has an average of WHEN this peak hits/ends, regardless of how small the profit or none at all.  Ken

Theory can be correct, even if only partially, but it's one thing. Putting a method into a defined algorithm is another thing. If anyone achieves long term success without a defined method, it is luck, precognition, subconscious telekinesis or combination. Wave within a wave within a wave - everything is. Nothing is impossible, except making 1 + 1 =3

Ken, a 'bell curve' does fit into this thread just fine. But what I'm saying is that in the sine wave for Roulette you have below the line and above the line too. The shape of the sine wave is more like a sine wave for alternating current.

Got it and I Googled it. Ken

The famous "bell curve" refers to the shape of the plot of the Probability density function (nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_density_function) associated with normal (Gaussian) distribution (nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution) of random events.

@Mark:

"Waves" is a fun and interesting topic, I'm surprised not much people (trying to analyse/bet on randomness) seem to discuss it.

Back when I was into "educated guessing", I was very much into waves (wave analysis/reading/betting) but I never posted about it. Using a simple charting method I came up with, I would convert EC outcomes into waves, I would look at the overall "longer-term" wave in 30 to 60 spins, and then the "shorter-term" waves within that big/overall trend, and then the smallest waves. I looked for 2 types of waves: "Impulses", and "Corrections".

I defined an "impulse" as "a wave in the direction of the longer-term wave that it's on", and a "correction" as "an opposing wave correcting the impulse wave and going against the overall stream, I.e. the mother (longer-term) wave, but never completely reversing it. I would basically try to interpret and exploit what I see. I would keep an eye for reversals in the bigger waves (or what I called the temporary bias).

At one point I wrote an oscillator that does the tracking automatically as I wanted to spend less time on manual charting and more time on observing and, well, "guessing". The oscillator actually had 3 oscillators withing it (of different colors), one oscillator to detect and plot the big/bias waves, another oscillator with increased sensitivity to plot smaller waves, and another with even more sensitivity to plot the smallest waves. All in one oscillator that gives a pretty nice picture of what's going on. Something also worth mentioning is that, soon later, I noticed that, at times, there is a varying amount of "noise" (as I labeled it) which "distorts" an otherwise clear flow. I thought "this is what Spike must call the chaos". I tried to aknowledge and keep an eye for the "noise element" and tried to "de-noise" the data in my mind so I could see beyond the apparent chaos, when it happens.

Anyway, those were the tools, the rest was spending time with practice and manual testing. I did well, and as some friends of mine here (such as Bayes) know, I even started to preach about this "educated guessing".

It took some time for the whole thing to start to sink, my success was proven to be mostly due to some lucky positive fluctuation and partly to occasional unconscious curve-fitting while hand-testing.

The reality is that random outcomes do not generate a periodic sine wave (or any similar type of deterministic wave behavior). They do fluctuate, generating waves within waves within waves, but the length/duration/magnitude of the waves are completely random and non-deterministic. This means that no matter where you are in a wave, it can either go up or down regardless of what happened before. Previous behavior does not give any real clues to what is more likely to happen next (a reversal or a continuation). True random is true random. There is no way around it.

PS. This wasn't the only approach I used, but one of several approaches. But it was the last one before I decided to move on to AP and trading.

I wasn't asking.  Ken

Noble Savage, you probably missed the entire point. If you were looking for big swings in big wave forms then you would end up being disappointed. I'm looking for frequency pulsations that don't deviate from the larger sine waves  that do tend to even things out. There is a small balanced deviation based on balance and educated guessing. The small win is the key. That includes the small loss too. You mentioned the observation process and the tracking for that but you never mentioned bet selection much. The bet selection must come to a point that it out pases the statistical average. This is done by understanding change. A complete understanding of how randomness changes is completely necessary to achieve positive results. There is a difference between doing it and attempting wishful thinking. I'm suggesting that you didn't refine the bet selection process to a point that you were doing it to your advantage. I'm not going to say you gave up too soon. I'd suspect that you are not really done with your research.

Quote from: Spike! on June 30, 2010, 08:51:39 PM
The game is constantly seeking to balance itself, its the nature of true random. Reacting correctly to unfolding conditions on a spin to spin basis takes patience and practice. Past spins tell you where it might be going.

Spike has made it clear what works. "Past spins tell you where it might be going." The next spins confirm if you are correct or not. There is an entire game within the game inside of all of that. It takes playing experience to know when to go for it. You must know when it is going your way and when it is not.

Previous behavior does not give any real clues to what is more likely to happen next>>

Its all in how you interpret the last spins.

>>"Past spins tell you where it might be going." The next spins confirm if you are correct or not.>>

The two are connected, like it or don't..

@Mark, Thanks. I appreciate the openness. You're right I didn't say much about the actual bet selection process. My primary betting target was the smallest most immediate/short-term waves. As for the big ones, I only wanted to keep an eye on them just so I have an idea about the overall "temporary bias".

One of my favorite quotes is "Change is the only constant". My bet selection process was geared towards exploiting the short-term "oscillating" behavior of random outcomes. I didn't want to bet that the next spins will be black, or red; I simply wanted to bet that they will be random. I believed that is the only 100% sure information I have about the next spins, and I wanted to somehow enable my bet selection process to capitalize on such information using the short term characteristics of randomness.

This might not make sense (and I now do think it doesn't, lol) but with each bet decision, I would look at the waves and then ask myself "what is more random, if the next spin went up, or down?"

Anyway, it didn't work for me (and I moved on to other interesting things) but everyone has the right to experiment with this and drive his own conclusions based on his own experience.

but with each bet decision, I would look at the waves and then ask myself "what is more random, if the next spin going up, or down?">>

Typical MathBoy, overthink everything.

Quote from: Spike! on June 30, 2010, 11:42:40 PM
Typical MathBoy, overthink everything.

Is that all you got? It's going to take me some time to process so much insight from the master of educated guessing. ::)

Is having a bet selection process "overthinking" to you? Or is it that I didn't use any set of static blind rules? It was a simple discretionary approach. I recall you once mentioned that you need about 30 seconds (I think) to "think" about the next bet.

 I recall you once mentioned that you need about 30 seconds (I think) to "think" about the next bet.>>>

Never said it. The airball only gives me 30sec to write down the last outcome, decide, and bet. I'd be screwed it it took 30 just to decide.

Quote from: Noble Savage on June 30, 2010, 11:30:22 PM
I didn't want to bet that the next spins will be black, or red; I simply wanted to bet that they will be random.

That's remarkably insightful. You really did get far. I watch for randomness to occur in states of continuing or not continuing. Of guesses cooperating or not cooperating. When something is trending that it won't continue it might do that for a few more spins. The same goes for when the guessing is cooperating or continuing. For a few more spins or even one spin. It only takes a few wins to create a whopper of a system. The person that tries to win 55 out of 100 spins risks far more than the person that tries to win 3 wins and quits. Technically, one win is the simplest of all systems.

Gambler's Fallacy.

 Technically, one win is the simplest of all systems>>>

I used to mention that on GG and it was like the floodgates of Hades had opened, I stopped doing it..

So according to the sine wave theory i can just wait until i have 3 imaginary losses in the strategy and then start betting and freely pick up the 3 real wins ?

Been there done that and all that, the ball don`t know about your losses.   You can program that option into any system without any effect. I can document that if you don`t believe me.

Quote from: Kelly on July 01, 2010, 03:24:01 AM
So according to the sine wave theory I can just wait until I have 3 imaginary losses in the strategy and then start betting and freely pick up the 3 real wins ?

Well yes, of course you can. And I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you after your big win. You should go skinny dipping too. There are no alligators there that will feed on you. That's the ticket.

You must be the dumbest retard that ever got into the Special Olympics. You could win first place for dropping your brains all over the track meet. Why you are so stupid that they would have to set dumb animals next to you so you wouldn't have to feel so self conscious about it.

You must be the dumbest retard that ever got into the Special Olympics.>>

There is no Special Olympics for roulette. Oh wait, yes there is. Its every casino in the world. And they're no longer called retarded, they're called average players..

YYYAAAAAAWWWWNNNN! ::)

I love the way Herb cuts through all the long-winded discussions with two words - 'Gambler's Fallacy'  :)

He's right. You can take two routes, both will lead to the same conclusion. Either spend years searching and 'practising'  :sarcastic: or 'believe' what others have found before you, what all the textbooks and encyclopaedias say, and what is, after all, only logical - that past spins give no clues to future spins because <drum roll>

Roulette is a game of independent trials!

But, I don't blame anyone for having a crack at EG. The notion that you can walk up to any roulette wheel in the wheel and have an advantage is very appealing (it's also ludicrous). For some reason, everyone rejects physics as a viable alternative, maybe because they believe there are no opportunities any more (that's certainly what I thought) or because it seems 'messy'. Not every wheel is going to be playable, you have to find them first - what a drag! No gambler wants to work that hard. Also, you need to have an understanding of statistics, and be able to think critically. It helps if you're a bit of a nerd.

I love the way Herb cuts through all the long-winded discussions with two words - 'Gambler's Fallacy' >>

Yes, its very profound. Especially since thats his comment about everyhthing, as I frequently point out.

>>The notion that you can walk up to any roulette wheel in the wheel and have an advantage is very appealing (it's also ludicrous). <<<

Especially ludicrous for a MathBoy. Laughably ludicrous. I chuckle about it daily, I really do.. :lol:

>>For some reason, everyone rejects physics as a viable alternative>>

No mystery. Too much work for not enough money. Roulette is beatable in too many other ways.

<<Not every wheel is going to be playable, you have to find them first>>

LOL, now theres an understatement if there ever was one..... :lol:

Quote from: Spike! on July 01, 2010, 05:21:18 AM
Yes, its very profound. Especially since thats his comment about everyhthing, as I frequently point out.

No, it isn't. It's very obvious. That's what makes all these discussions a theatre of the absurd.

Quote from: Spike! on July 01, 2010, 05:21:18 AM
LOL, now theres an understatement if there ever was one..... :lol:

Never wise up a dummy. Isn't that what you always say?  8)

And it's odd, when you think about it. Why not keep quiet about EG (splutter)? If everyone can get to the point of winning 72% of their bets within a couple of years, why even mention it?

Quote from: Bayes on July 01, 2010, 05:58:05 AM
Never wise up a dummy. Isn't that what you always say?  8)

And it's odd, when you think about it. Why not keep quiet about EG (splutter)? If everyone can get to the point of winning 72% of their bets within a couple of years, why even mention it?

Are you joking? Everyone? None of you will ever put in the time, don't make me laugh. If someone is smart enough to master EG, he's certainly smart enough to keep the details to himself. You don't even believe its possible, who are you kidding..

Quote from: Bayes on July 01, 2010, 05:53:32 AM
No, it isn't. It's very obvious. That's what makes all these discussions a theatre of the absurd.

Only absurd to the losers, my friend. Its never absurd when you're winning.

Quote from: Spike! on July 01, 2010, 06:10:00 AM
Are you joking? Everyone? None of you will ever put in the time, don't make me laugh. If someone is smart enough to master EG, he's certainly smart enough to keep the details to himself. You don't even believe its possible, who are you kidding..

Ditto for AP. But, the difference with AP is that there is a valid principle which no-one can dispute (physics does determine where the ball will land). Whether you believe that this is irrelevant because no opportunities exist these days isn't the point; you can't argue with the principle. On the other hand, in EG (splutter), there is no logic or empirical evidence that past spins can be read such that your choices beat expectation. Your only principle ('balance') is a fallacy. In fact,  EG puts the cart before the horse.

Quote from: Spike! on July 01, 2010, 06:10:00 AM
You don't even believe its possible, who are you kidding..

You don't need to believe it's possible to try it. Noble Savage has tried it, I've tried it, but apparently we were both doing it wrong! We'll see how bombus fares.  :whistle:

If every member on this forum gave EG a decent trial, and none of them had success (not even a little bit) then you would say they were either doing it wrong or were quitters. You keep saying 'you can't prove that it doesn't work', but this is like a believer saying 'you can't prove that God doesn't exist'. Correct, but that is no evidence that he does. If you can't falsify a claim, then it's meaningless.

Your only principle ('balance') is a fallacy.>>>

Yup, every bet I make violates some form of gamblers fallacy. I posted a bunch of them the other day and I violate every one in every session I play. Conciously, willingly.

>>and none of them had success (not even a little bit) then you would say they were either doing it wrong>>

I sure as heck wouldn't say it was ME who was doing it wrong.  From the very first time I played by accident, I expected to win using past spins. You and the others expected to lose when you tried it. Self fulfilling expecttions, I'd say.

"Not every wheel is going to be playable, you have to find them first - what a drag! No gambler wants to work that hard" >>> Thats not even the BEGINNING of the nightmare. Then, after many many many weeks of searching, lets say you find ONE that is a bit off.

They (casino) may replace/repair it at 4am, how would you know? Oh thats right, find a little scratch on it (write that down) so you know. Lets say you notice, it IS a different wheel. Now what? Back to SEARCHING again? Not to mention, hopefully you live in an area (LV, AC etc) where there are PLENTY of casinos/wheels to choose from! What a joke. I said it before, it all looks good on paper, in theory, thats all.  Ken

Quote from: Bayes on July 01, 2010, 06:21:49 AM
... Your only principle ('balance') is a fallacy.

Not to me. I get balance for each spin when I ignore the zeros, when they appear to be sleeping, and I bet on 18 numbers with equal sized bets at the same time. I also get balance by winning two bets of 24 numbers while losing one time on the other 12, again by ignoring the zeros when they are sleeping and equal sized bets. I also play 26 numbers when the zeros are not sleeping. My form of balance comes from basic arithmetic. I don't seek balance (correction) in my guessing. I seek to find what is currently happening. That is a circumstance that is revealed in its completeness on the next spin's result, and only then. Correction is only one way of noticing and describing either change or direction. It doesn't really matter if it is because of some belief in correction or force of balance believed in. What matters is seeing it happen. A person comes up with their own vocabulary to describe the characteristics of randomness.

BTW, last year Herb said there is no such thing as characteristics of randomness. Now even the mathboyz that have tried EG have all demonstrated that even they can relate to these characteristics. Funny how time erodes even the most basic terms of disagreement.

>>BTW, last year Herb said there is no such thing as characteristics of randomness. Now even the mathboyz that have tried EG have all demonstrated that even they can relate to these characteristics. Funny how time erodes even the most basic terms of disagreement.>>

Ya, Herb knows everything (just ask him) until he learns a little more, then he knows everything even better. Especially Gamblers Fallacy, he REALLY knows about that.. LOL!

This is very interesting:

{Probability theory cannot legitimately be applied to any real life situation. Probability theory may only be applied to infinite samples, which may only be found in one complete set at infinity. You can't dissect infinity into periods of time or sets of samples to suit real life. There is no "long run". There is no convergence toward infinity. There are only infinite and single occurences. Probability theory deals with the infinite ONLY, while real life deals in single occurrences. The real life chance of winning a bet in a casino, then, is always even. You either win or you lose (or you push). Anything else is pure superstition disguised as "science".}

I agree with this. It explains exactly why HG works.

I'd like to know where you got that quote from.

It's hogwash. Probability is used every day in samples far from infinite. And anyway, there is no such thing as 'infinite', it's a purely mathematical term without meaning in the real world.

Nice try, but no cigar...

Quote from: Bayes on July 01, 2010, 03:08:03 PM
I'd like to know where you got that quote from.

It's hogwash.

I thought so too.

Have you noticed how spike is getting further and further away from reality as the years go by ? I don`t know, maybe we should call someone. His wife maybe. I think it could be serious.

Quote from: Kelly on July 01, 2010, 03:38:45 PM
I think it could be serious.

I was just thinking it could be serious. I should probably stop making fun of him.

You guys don't understand. You're all fooled by the probability theory. Just ignore it.

There are two "probabilities": one, looking forward, and dealing with the potential results of single events; and another, looking back, and dealing with the results of single events. You can't take the concept of probability, calculating what the probability WAS of a set of past events taking place, and apply it to real future events. Probability lives in the past, it cannot effect single events in the future.

YYYAAAAAAAWWWWNNNN!    ::)

:boredom:

Probability (noun) - a measure of how likely it is that some event will occur; a number expressing the ratio of favorable cases to the whole number of cases possible; "the probability that an unbiased coin will fall with the head up is 0.5"

Quote from: Noble Savage on July 01, 2010, 05:54:21 PMProbability (noun) - a measure of how likely it is that some event will occur; a number expressing the ratio of favorable cases to the whole number of cases possible; "the probability that an unbiased coin will fall with the head up is 0.5"

Yeah but that's just a theory. [/spike]

;D

Probability is a measure of how likely it is that some event will occur>>>

Probability is nothing more than an educated guess, then. So I'm playing EG against EG. Cool..