Like it or not, we all have our own timeline when we play roulette. Playing the game, changes the game.
Most of us have seen our numbers hit when we step away from the table or when we're watching others play.
What most people don't realize is that your participation in the game, changes the outcome of the game.
For example:
Let's say you're playing the number 20 and step away from the table to use the restroom. When you come back to the table you see the number 20 hit, while you were away!
You can't believe it, your heart sinks!
You blame yourself and think, "If I wouldn't have left, then I would have won!"
STOP! Not so fast! Think again.
Had you remained at the table to place your bet, the dealer might have taken a little bit longer to spin the ball because you required time to place your bets. You also may have delayed someone else from placing their bets. During this period, the wheel may have slowed more than would have because of the additional time that was required for everyone to place their bets. You may have also caused the dealer to do the opposite and speed the wheel back up. Sometimes, certain dealers will spin the wheel faster when there are more players, verses a table that has only one. At each moment in time, you're affecting how many events will unfold.
When you play the table your presence can affect many different things. This Includes other people and their actions. All of these factors influence the final outcome. So the next time you walk up to the wheel and see that your numbers have hit while you were away, relax! Had you played a different group of numbers would have likely hit.
-Herb
Excellent article herb, roulette & gambling framework material for sure.
... "Personal actuals" some like to name it. Your post bring more the understanding this phenomenon. Thumbs up! :thumbsup:
"Playing the game, changes the game."
Thanks for a nice post. Such a concept has deeper (philosophical) implications that go way beyond roulette. :thumbsup:
It made me think of the film It's a Wonderful Life!
>>Had you remained at the table to place your bet, the dealer might have taken a little bit longer to spin the ball because you required time to place your bets.>>
Yes, everything effects random. But this information is useless because you have no idea what to leave out or what to put in to effect the outcome in your favor. Your number had just as much chance of coming up if you went to the restroom or not. But understanding random is 90% of beating random, so the discussion is not wasted.
Quote from: Herb on January 23, 2009, 11:12:30 PM
Like it or not, we all have our own timeline when we play roulette. Playing the game, changes the game.
It kind of depends on if you had planned to make your goal in one play, like a progression player. What if you were to deliberately play for hours with the full knowledge that a win swarm, you hoped would happen, actually takes place in part of the stretch. Does playing roulette change the nature of randomness, as it relates to what you are waiting for in a stretch of play only? What stops a sought after stretch from not appearing. Can an other player going to the bathroom, for two spins, change what you have planned?
I agree with Herb, I suppose I would need to be Stephen Hawking to get that edge from it though.
Does playing roulette change the nature of randomness>>
Everything going on at the table influences the outcome. Isn't randomness just different forces interacting at the same time to produce a common result?
Hi Herb,
Nice post.Hadnt thought about that before!.Thanks
TSK
Nice post herb :thumbsup:
What do you think about airball roulettes, does your play have any effect on outcome?
cheers
It is the old Quantum-Theory, so it is nothing new.
But until now herb argued, that randomness is uneffected by anything!
So: Is it, or is it not effected?
and
and: Why are all the rules of statistics fulfilled, when it is effected?
and:
can one person simply make a number not appear by betting it?
I believe that simply observing the outcome also changes the outcome. All possible outcomes exist until one is observed. Even though this is roulette, quantum effects are in action.
Quote from: Herb on January 24, 2009, 06:30:50 AM
I believe that simply observing the outcome also changes the outcome.
But why should it change to the numbers I don´t bet only?
QuoteBut until now herb argued, that randomness is uneffected by anything!
Randomness is affected by the observer.
QuoteWhy are all the rules of statistics fulfilled, when it is effected?
In the random game of roulette, the probability of the event remains the same. For example: The odds of a number hitting in the random game remains 1 in 37, whether you play it or not.
However, there are exceptions as they pertain to a wheel with physical defects. Your presence can affect how fast or how slow the wheel is spun. This change in wheel speed can directly effect which numbers a physical defect will cause to hit. Therefore, in this example you can argue that the probability of certain numbers hitting has changed.
-Herb
QuoteBut why should it change to the numbers I don´t bet only?
Why would it change to the numbers that you do or don't bet? What I'm saying is that we affect the game in general.
Not to forget, others playing the game changes your game
Good point JHM.
In the random game of roulette, the probability of an event occurring hasn't changed. The odds of a number hitting remains 1 in 37. However, the numbers that hit may change.
For example: Two players go to the casino. Four different events can taken place.
Player one plays, and the following numbers hit: 1,2,3,6,8.
Player two plays instead, and the following numbers hit. 2,4,34,22,3
Both players play at the same time, and the following numbers hit. 6,25,24,23,11
Player two's wife shows up, and the whole thing goes to hell because she takes the money both players won and sends them both home.
-Herb
Quote from: JHM on January 24, 2009, 06:55:10 AM
Not to forget, others playing the game changes your game
so it is random and it is effected by nothing or by the same million effects that are always present.
QuoteRandomness is affected by the observer.
so a person effects the game by just being at the table, or not being there?
Quoteto a wheel with physical defects.
so only VB-players are effected, not the others!
No Winkel, I think everyone and everything has an effect.
Meaning even VB players are affected. :)
Look, its the same as a scientist doing an experiment. Its long been known that he cannot conduct the experiment and erase his input. He's a vital part of it whether he wants it or not. Its the same in gambling. You can't do anything about it, so quit worrying.
IMO this is one of those propositions that seems interesting on the face of it, but really it's meaningless because there is no way it can be tested or proved one way or the other. You will never know whether an outcome was affected by the participation of a player, because you will never be able to recreate those same conditions with a player absent (or present). I think this is more or less what Spike means.
what about online casinos?
are there any quantum effects in action?
does spamming the chat effects on dealer and outcome?
does simply placing bets have any effect?
It's called entanglement? Schrodinger's thought experiment (Schrodinger's Cat) me thinks? A pussy cat in a box thought experiment. Will the cat be alive or dead when you open the box. Or will your number land when you enter the toilet and exit the table or not? That's a costly flush what ever you believe. hehe :(
You will never know whether an outcome was affected by the participation of a player, because you will never be able to recreate those same conditions with a player absent (or present).>>>
Exactly. So the information that everything effects the random outcome is almost useless information and not worth wasting your time on.
I dont know if I agree with this as much as previous posters. If you DO agree, then that means you should not be a TESTER of methods using actuals or RNG. If I listed 200 actual numbers, can you spot for me where someone went to the bathroom, or a dealer change or someone colored in or a new buy in etc etc? If you cant do this (you can not) then whats the big deal about small factors, this is nothing more than a "what if" thread/question. Granted, it MAY be true, but its meaningless. Ken
Granted, it MAY be true, but its meaningless.>>
Its like the weather, might as well enjoy it because you can't change it.
Quote from: Boo_Ray on January 24, 2009, 05:35:34 AM
Nice post herb :thumbsup:
What do you think about airball roulettes, does your play have any effect on outcome?
cheers
yeah mate i think that is not changable. that is a machine doing exactly what it's doing spin after spin and humans cannot affect it........except if the machine screws up, jamming while u feeding it money and the machine tilts........well then u have had an effect lolol.
Quote from: Herb on January 24, 2009, 07:16:08 AM
No Winkel, I think everyone and everything has an effect.
Meaning even VB players are affected. :)
Herb i do not know much of vb. But don't u wait for the ball to be spun then calculate and then place your bet? I mean vb players should then theoretically change with the event happening. Surely using crossovers etc. should nullify whatever events happened prior to it.
cheers
jakk
The future cannot be altered.
I decide to watch the wheel spin. That decission has been made before I do it. I cannot alter the outcome.
It's life spanning out.
So does charting really work? Is it effective? Is it worth while?
8)
Quote from: geoff365 on January 25, 2009, 10:56:04 AM
So does charting really work? Is it effective? Is it worth while?
Why charting wouldn't work?
well It depends for what kind of stuff you are going to use that numbers..
Quote from: geoff365 on January 25, 2009, 10:56:04 AM
So does charting really work? Is it effective? Is it worth while?
Does a random act of causing any delay in the dealer's spin, a random event from spin to spin, added to an already random acting mechanism, have a reducing effect on it being random? Is it not just more random? All that has taken place is an added layer of randomness. This is the kind of thing that makes random.org tables more accurately random.
If the purpose of charting is to monitor the state of randomness then charting really works. If the charting is to discover dealer signature then how could it be effective. It would be effective dealer signature monitoring applied to a layer of randomness for a random set of results. You need a chart for charting the delay effect of extraneous factors. Good luck with that. The c**ktail waitress asks for chip exchange for tips, the new guy buys in, the craps table startles everyone for a half a second, etc...
The c**ktail waitress asks for chip exchange for tips, the new guy buys in, the craps table startles everyone for a half a second, etc...>>>
You snatch the ball out of the dealers hand and throw it across the casino. None of it can be charted so its an impossible task.
"None of it can be charted so its an impossible task." --- I agree. Ken
One of the reasons I posted this thread was to make the point that when you walk away, your playing timeline leaves with you.
If one of your favorite numbers hit while you're away, then you didn't really miss a win on the number.
-Herb.
I think this is Herb's way of reminding us that no matter what you do, the final result is -2.7%. ;D
it doesnt have anything to do with the -2.7% as far as i can see
Whats a personal timeline, I've never seen it explained so it has no meaning for me.
Quote from: Spike on January 27, 2009, 07:39:44 PM
Whats a personal timeline, I've never seen it explained so it has no meaning for me.
Spike,
To my knowledge, it's a term used to describe the entirety of spin results experienced by the player during every session he plays. These separate sets of session spins all combined together by chronological order in one spins profile would form the player's personal timeline -also referred to as 'personal actuals'.
The idea is this:
Say a player plays a session of 30 minutes everyday.
After a month, the spin results of every session he played, when put together, form his personal actuals for that month. The theory says that, statistically and since every spin is independent, these are no different than the actuals he would have experienced if he played one session of 15 hours at one table.
Someone who is not aware of this fact might for example think that if the martingale fails if played long, then it would win if he played only once a day. He might think that the dispersion of hits would "miss him" if he played this way, betting on red only once a day using the martingale. Which of course is not the case since, in his personal actuals, he will sooner or later experience that bad run.
As you would say, it's commonsense. But unfortunately many systems and pseudo-strategies that are being sold out there ignore this concept of independent trials/personal timeline.
Of course, and as I said, this is the theory.
In reality however, in a fairly large group of people, you might (by 'might' I mean: it is not impossible) find someone in whose lifetime personal actuals a 10 step martingale would never fail.
You may call it luck, but the dispersion actually missed this lucky fellow. :)
The problem would arise when such guy comes to a place like this and tells people that a 10 step martingale (or whatever it is the mechanical system he is playing) is the holy grail. That's where arguments commence. People would test his system and tell him it's an epic fail. The math guys would tell him it fails.
He gets mad and thinks everybody is being negative etc. etc.
Understanding randomness is very important in this game. Successful roulette players are obviously those who are fairly experienced with dealing with randomness, regardless of the techniques used.
Regards,
Marven
All........
Wasn't going to post on this thread until Marven wrote this:
Someone who is not aware of this fact might for example think that if the martingale fails if played long, then it would win if he played only once a day. He might think that the dispersion of hits would "miss him" if he played this way, betting on red only once a day using the martingale. Which of course is not the case since, in hit personal actuals, he will sooner or later experience that bad run.
This is why so-called hit-and-run sessions will not work. (Hit-and-see-which-way-the-wind-is-blowing-and-then-either-stay-or-run are not the same thing.) This is also why you can't depend on always getting up during a session. Marven points out that, sooner or later, when you sit down at the table you will be at the beginning of the session from hell.
Sam
EXACTLY!
Exactly what I try to show in this thread:
nolinks://vlsroulette.com/reference-area/it-will-not-happen-in-your-life-time!/ (nolinks://vlsroulette.com/reference-area/it-will-not-happen-in-your-life-time!/)
I ran 50,000 sessions, betting High. I ended a session after losing 21 times in sequence...
The worst session started losing after only 135 bets.
27 had it coming before 1,000 bets
176 before 10,000 bets - that's one session of 284!
(How many sessions have you started?)
459 had to wait at least 10 million bets.
Wish you were here...
I also tested with 1100 RNG sessions of 1000 bets each...
And I tested 3689 LIVE-spins sessions with an average of 311 bets...
And I tested 3689 RNG sessions of exactly 311 bets each...
The losing sequence was there.
>:(
The conclusion:
The losing sequence will come as it should according to math, regardless the length of each session.
[smiley=3/shudder.gif]
/Kon-Fu-Sed
"Say a player plays a session of 30 minutes everyday.
After a month, the spin results of every session he played, when put together, form his personal actuals for that month. The theory says that, statistically and since every spin is independent, these are no different than the actuals he would have experienced if he played one session of 15 hours at one table."
Incorrect.----The spread of numbers eg most, least over 450 spins (15hrs) play in one session will show the least staying behind. With the most staying in the lead. However if done over 30 days the wheel still spins in between sessions.
It could be said that the wheel as an object has it's own timeline. A bit far fetched I know, but memory or no memory it keeps spinning with the player there or not.
Cheers. 8)
Quote from: geof365It could be said that the wheel as an object has it's own timeline. A bit far fetched I know, but memory or no memory it keeps spinning with the player there or not.
This is an interesting point. Suppose you're betting one number, but it doesn't hit after 300 spins. Your method allows for 400 spins without a hit(!) but you've run out of time - the casino closes in 5 minutes, so this wheel's "timeline" is going to be "broken". If you had started playing your system a few hours earlier, you'd have been able to play the system to completion (either get a hit, or quit after 400 no-hits), but now, you have to come back the next day to continue.
Now, the next day, you have 100 spins to play, so you pick the same wheel you were playing the night before, and you make sure to get to the casino for the very first spin of the day. According to theory, you are no better or worse off than if you had started earlier the previous day and had the time to play your system to completion - all spins are independent. So this wheel you are playing today has exactly the same chance of going another 300 or more spins without your number hitting, right? in which case the wheel would have been spun 600 times without a number hitting, which is unheard of. The math says there is no reason to pick the same wheel over any other - does it make a difference? IMO the answer is no.
Quote from: geoff365 on January 30, 2009, 10:29:44 AM
Incorrect.----The spread of numbers eg most, least over 450 spins (15hrs) play in one session will show the least staying behind. With the most staying in the lead. However if done over 30 days the wheel still spins in between sessions.
I disagree.
Mathematically speaking, there is absolutely no difference between:
- Flat-betting on section X for 10 spins per session, 2 sessions per day, over one year;
And:
- Flat-betting on section X in one session of 7300 spins.
Mathematically they are the same.
The least staying behind/the most staying in the lead are not determined by how you break down you sessions but by the system/strategy/method of play itself, and it's ability to keep you in the plus.
As you might notice, sometimes people say things like: "Play this, it wins consistently. But don't play for too long or the wheel will take it all back".
Such statements show nothing but an ignorance of the principle of personal timeline and the nature of randomness.
Of course, this is the nothing but the theory/maths. In reality however, there are a bunch of other factors to consider, such as the human factor. i.e. playing small separate sessions is obviously better than playing 800 consecutive spins for example, since getting tired playing long sessions could lead to making mistakes (regardless of the method of play) which would affect short and long term results.
I'd agree with that.
But in theory, it's the same.
This is how I view the matter, based on past trial and error.
Your mileage may vary.
Regards,
Marven