Like I said to TwoCatSam you need to reduce volatility as the first step in beating roulette.
So how?
It's really not that hard.
I will use EC bets to explain.
The odds of an EC bet are 50/50.
But a series still follows the rules of series. Each set being one half the prior. Though the series is comprised of the prior it in no way cares about the 50/50 odds. It is going to get what it needs to stay within the statistical average.
Problem is that there is too much volatility due to the simple a or b result. You as a limited player you will lose too much in a downturn.
So what do you do. Find something to combine it with thereby decreasing the odds of it happening. This will create another set of series that will make sure it stays within the statistical average. It is also completely seperate from the first three, The first singular probability and the 2 resultant series possabilites.
This will decrease volitility or amplitude in the waveform. If reduced enough you can determine where in the cycle you are and enter fairly quickly. Then exit once you know you are above the average which will gain you the trough to peak range.
Simple and easy to do.
Monte Carlo
OK, I'm sort of playing the "Devil's Advocate" here.........
If I read Monte correctly he is saying something akin to this: If red has slept five spins and the small numbers have slept five spins, bet the big, black numbers. Both are out of synch and the wheel is dying to right this error.
I once spoke of "double-advantage" numbers, so I believe in this idea.
But a wheel is a dead, non-feeling, non-thinking object. How could it "want" anything such as balancing its production of reds and blacks, odds and evens and so on?
Why do I believe in what I don't believe in??
Sam
That's sort of half right.
But the timeline is too long in dispersion and your sample to small to realize an answer in your example because of the simple probability it is based on. I am showing you how to shorten it though combanitorics so that it can be better assesed.
Monte Carlo
Monte
I will continue to study your posts as you show me how to shorten it.
I could wait for five blacks in a row, five evens in a row and five littles in a row and then bet the red, odd big numbers. My friend, Coussin Gonflable, posted this system and called it the "Wait 'till you're darn near dead system" as it rarely produces a bet.
Sam
No actually if you do it the way I am talking about then you will be betting on nearly every spin.
Monte Carlo
I'm all ears. How do you play?
I have an ear to. how do yo play?
Bloom
Alright!! All you guys with ears, give a listen!
"If reduced enough you can determine where in the cycle you are and enter fairly quickly."
I don't agree. The entry point is hard work to find.
A - B is very volatile. 1- 37 is less yet on both an entry point is hard to find.
QuoteI will use EC bets to explain
I'm all ears!
Cheers LS
Ok I will explain it again,
Take a simple EC bet, a coin toss
The odds are ½
There are no other odds available, no variations, there are only the choice is heads and tails and the only other information that can be used is distribution of series.
Roulette EC bets are not really like a coin toss. They are like a bag of marbles.
We have a bag with 18 -black and 18 red marbles and then 2 green ones (I[ch8216]m going to use an American wheel because it gives more extreme house edges). No matter how many marbles you take out there are still the same number in the bag.
You can[ch8217]t bet on the green marbles with the same payout, therefore you will get slightly less that 50% odds.
At this point you have approximately the same conditions of a coin toss.
Except in roulette you have 3 bags of marbles not one.
Can this be exploited somehow?
Well if you were to bet on taking a marble from each bag in succession and betting on each bag separately then no, but in roulette you can bet on more than one bag at a time.
Lets use only 2 bags to simplify things. The other bag will have 18 white and 18 blue marbles plus 2 green ones also.
Since both bets a based on a singular occurrence then how are they related. What is the parent event?
The parent event is another bag of marbles. This is what we actually bet on, Except these marbles have 2 colors.
They can be red/white, red/blue, black/white and black/blue, the green ones would become green/green.
Now you have two coins to bet.
You can bet 2 coins on either bag A or B, or bet one coin on each bag.
In the first option you have the same thing as the coin toss. But in the second option you have changed the odds. There is a 23.6% chance you will win 100%, a 28.9% chance you will lose 100% and the rest of the time you break even.
Now lets look at all the things that have happened.
By only taking 2 choices of opposites R/W & BK/BL
In terms of the odds of profit we have something. T
The win/loss is a wash. Therefore 47.2% for a win 57.9% to lose remains.
The house edge is increased 50% from 5.26% to 7.9%.
What have we gain from the increase in house edge is a reduction of volatility by 50%
Since to create a situation with 19 of the same, like we saw on 02/05/08 in Wiesbaden. We would require the same 9 specific numbers to repeat 19 times. Which is beyond statistical probability. (approx 1E12)
The question is this exploitable?
For those of you convinced on progression, yes very much so. It just reduced a very rare series of 19 to either a series of 9 or 10. But it also increases playing time because occurrences are spread out.
For someone like me who uses a flat betting system based on predictable volatility and statistical deviation, then yes also.
Monte Carlo
MC
Thank you for that explanation. I have printed it and will study it thoroughly. I do not understand the math, but I will get it.
Samster
Monte Carlo
By "volatility" you mean Black followed by Black to infinity?
So a pure lack of volatility would be Black followed by Red followed by Black to infinity?
Or do I have it backwards?
Sam
TwoCatSam
Yes that is what I mean.
I don't want to use the term variance because it is a specific reference in satistics related to standard deviation specifically.
Here it is a measure on a xy axis profit over spins. Which is the standard graph you have all been using.
Now as you plot the distribution of series on it you get a wave pattern. What I am doing is changing the wave pattern so it becomes more shallow by altering selection criteria so that the odd of occuance remain the same in relation to the bet 1:2 but
the odds of repeated occurance are reduced due to complexity in premutations.
Monte Carlo
Mr. Monte
I am studying your math and have made some inroads. I am interested in your increase in the house edge, both in this post and the one to wannawin about the Flaming Torch system
I devised and discarded that method of betting about three years ago. I think mine was as good or better than the one posted, but I've yet to study it.
Sam
Sam
In WannaWins system the math is simple, he has left 3 squares open. Essentially creating 3 zeros for the house. the rest equals out due to mathemematical balance. He is using a static mechanical system. If you add a dynamic element then things can change. but I doubt sufficently to overcome the house edge.
In my example it is a bit more complex.
In the larger dataset incorporating the thrown out numbers the house edge remains 5.26%. But due to the structure of the bets a portion of the numbers are negated in their impact, essentially throwing them out of the dataset for values. Yet they are still incorporated into the numbers accounted for in the permutation dataset. So in reality n=all numbers, but after neutral value bets are elliminated n=(all numbers - neutral numbers) when plotting volatility for bankroll. Yet the number of zeros remains the same in this dataset as in the other. This is what increases the house edge.
Monte Carlo
Gimme a couple of days on that one!
Thanks, MC................
MC
I've been racking my brain on this. but I think im closing in on what you are talking about by applying principles I've been using in the lottery games, particularly the permutations types.
Basically one has to build a matrix of various series groups of numbers based upon the board/wheel layout. In a way the GPM matrix in part is a very balanced a may play a part also. Im not sure because I just starting reading about GPM from the forums. Maybe Kimo Li can help with this also.
Bloom
Ok, here goes. My first attempt at creating the matrix series. You can modify it or change the coding as you wish. MC. I think you are on to something. Let me know if I am on the right track. If I am watch watch out.
1 2 3 4 5
rlo 1 3 5 7 9
rho 19 21 23 25 27
rle 12 14 16 18 0
rhe 30 32 34 36 0
blo 11 13 15 17 0
bho 29 31 33 35 0
ble 2 4 6 8 10
bhe 20 22 24 26 28
Version 2
I think this one is a little more balanced
1 2 3 4 5
rlo 1 3 5 7 9
rle 12 14 16 18 0
rho 19 21 23 25 27
rhe 30 32 34 36 0 (zero or double zero)
ble 2 4 6 8 10
blo 11 13 15 17 0
bhe 20 22 24 26 28
bho 29 31 33 35 0 (zero or double zero)
Bloom
bloomone2002
A matrix is a good way to understand it. But start out simpler and work up.
Lets start with EC since its what I have used so far as a sample because of it's simplicity.
Matrix
red | odd
- - - -
black | even
now limit your bets to either (red and odd) or (black & even)
Think about it for awhile and tell me what is happening. It's better if you learn by working it out. Then you will understand it and can apply it to other areas of the board.
Monte Carlo
Great!, I understand the concept.
My version 2 Matrix chart is all EC. It is a tighter version. It incorporates all ECs
Matrix
red | odd | High
- - - -
black | even | Low
but i do see what you are talking about with the simplicity. However, I've been down this road before with lottery permutation games. So, I will look at it from the simple way and the integrated way Ive created here. I know this has been an effort to open our eyes to this. I think you are on to something.
bloomone2002
If you are talking about a powerball type of lottery then this won't wok. You can't interpolate the bets because each bet it independent.
Monte Carlo
Quotebloomone2002
If you are talking about a powerball type of lottery then this won't wok. You can't interpolate the bets because each bet it independent.
Monte Carlo
Nope, Im not you are correct, those are combinational for pick 5 and above, I'm talking about permutations type...pick3 and 4. I think we on the same page.
Bloom
Updated Integrated Matrix Format
Color O/E_L/H Row Sectors Subgroup col 1 col 2 col 3 col 4 col 5
Red x1 1 A1 rlo 1 3 5 7 9
Red x1 2 B1 rle 12 14 16 18 0
Red y1 3 A2 rho 19 21 23 25 27
Red y1 4 B2 rhe 30 32 34 36 0 0_0
Black x2 5 B3 ble 2 4 6 8 10
Black x2 6 A3 blo 11 13 15 17 0
Black y2 7 B4 bhe 20 22 24 26 28
Black y2 8 A4 blo 29 31 33 35 0 0_0
Now that I am looking a this it can probably be used for ECs and straights. You can also apply this version to the complex or simple EC.
example:
so MC if you play now limit your bets to either (red and odd) or (black & even) as suggested. This would be the following:
red & odd= row 1 and 3
black & even= row 5 and 7
Ah, now I can visually see that if you play red&odd or black&even, you have more numbers than if you played red&even or black&odd, when playing ECs or Straights.
sorry this chart didnt line up good. But I think this is as far as I can take the chart. Now hopefully this can spur some application ideas. Personally I think this chart be productive, however, I am open to any other modifications or variations we can chart and track. Maybe Kimo Li's GPM's can add a little favor or maybe that would be overkill or maybe GPM could be another chart type similar to one above. I'm just throwing out ideas to fuel the creative juices. I know cps10 know where I am going with this. Maybe he can jump in with some bet selection and progression (flatbet, slight or pluscoup) criteria.
Bloom
bloomone2002
I wouldn't be so concerned about which numbers are connect to the three EC's. It doesn't matter. Though the result is driven by an initial selection based on the number spun. The choice of what to do isn't related to the actual number draw but rather related to laws of distribution within the EC bets. Permutations of the multiple simulatious bets would negate the ability to say if a 17 is spun then you should be on these 5 numbers. A 17 could be spun resulting in either bet following depending on other criteria within the stucture of your system. What I am showing you here isn't a system in itsself but rather a method of exploiting a limited dataset though interpolation.
Monte Carlo
MC, thanks for responding
Quotebloomone2002
I wouldn't be so concerned about which numbers are connect to the three EC's. It doesn't matter. (Ok, but it matters more with straights than with ECs?)
Though the result is driven by an initial selection based on the number spun.
The choice of what to do isn't related to the actual number draw but rather related to laws of distribution within the EC bets. (What is the laws of distribution? and how do we relate it to EC bets?)
Permutations of the multiple simulatious bets would negate the ability to say if a 17 is spun then you should bet on these 5 numbers. A 17 could be spun resulting in either bet following depending on other criteria within the stucture of your system. (Yeah, I wouldn't call the matrix I created a system, but a structure that can be manipulated in multiple methods to be used as a system. Therefore, it is only a tool. I did apply it to a sample test using straights successful. Maybe, this Matrix tool is more appropriate for Straights.
Series Sample test
1, 27 A2
2, 32 B2
3 21 A2
4 35 A4
5 31 A4
6 30 B2
7 10 B3
8 21 A2
9 20 B4 bet B1
10 11 A3 L-5 or I could have bet A1&B1 here
11 12 B1 w31= 26 units or w 27 units (A1 hit 9 spins later)
Anyway, back to EC bets.)
What I am showing you here isn't a system in itsself but rather a method of exploiting a limited dataset though interpolation. (Ok, please breakdown this method of interpolating the limited dataset as it relates to EC bets. Seems like a form of curve fitting or regression analysis, which with an intelligent program, especially a Neural Net can be outfitted very well. However, from a very basic manual application by the user, how can this be applied? What are our dependent and independent variables? Etc... How do you recommend applying the variables? Geez, I don't know if I'm on track with my line of questions. I only have a limited understanding of these concepts. So a sample application for ECs will be very effective and appreciated...i.e a chart, graph, etc..)
Monte Carlo
Going back over previous post about a series and combining we have the following formations associated with the spins, which in theory will reduce the volatility because, when focusing only on the R/B even though statistically it is 50/50 over the long run, in a short session, Red could occur 20x consecutively. It has a much higher likelihood than if we were looking for Red & Odd to occur 20x consecutively. So, the volativity of change factor is reduced. However, are not dealing with 50% of the field at this point, but closer to 25%, We would have to wait for a dataset opportunity, where this R/O series has a 50% probability rather than a 25% probability, but then you have said in a previous post that we could bet almost every bet and this reasoning does not provide that flexibility. So, im probably shoot some blanks.
Quote
Matrix
red | odd
- - - -
black | even
now limit your bets to either (red and odd) or (black & even)
Monte Carlo
Ah, ok maybe, it is like the following example:
if 2 consecutive R/Os occur or 2 in 3, it is a higher change that the next spin is B
Limited dataset example
3
9, play B
Short Session (incorporating all ECs: R/B_O/E_H/L)
29BOH
31BOH, play REL
12REL, hit
5ROL
23ROH, play BE
10BEL, hit
Sample Series: Dominant or Consecutive
R consecutive series =ok, RE consecutive series =stronger, REL consecutive series= strongestI'm done. Please step in MC.
Ok, I lied, heres another series, incorporating for EC or straights, depending upon application, thereof, implementing street filtering as part of the series:
31BOH (street11)
33BOH (street11)
22BEH (street 6), play RL
12REL (street 4), hit
MC, if I'm not on the your track, I'm think I am definitely on to something here, and I just opened the door. There is much more here. Anyway, please MC, please give more specific details. Conceptual and philosophical lingo is cool. Let's get to the instructions with examples.
Thanks
Bloom
Gang........
I have spent several hours working on the math of this beast and I've yet to figure out what MC means by reducing volatility by 50% and increasing house edge by 50%.
Anytime Red or Black cancels each other out, you have done nothing but expose yourself to the zero.
Bloom, I will study your thoughts on it, but I am at a stalemate.
Sam
Bloomone2002 and TwoCatSam
I keep thinking that I am explaining this simple enough. I will have to think about it some more about an easier way to explain. This is only one part of the expression, the next ones are even more confusing.
Monte Carlo
P.S. I made a technical error in my language. It's based on extrapolation not interpolation. It's a fine line. I research using the one and work pactically with the other.
QuoteBloomone2002 and TwoCatSam
I keep thinking that I am explaining this simple enough. I will have to think about it some more about an easier way to explain. This is only one part of the expression, the next ones are even more confusing.
Monte Carlo
P.S. I made a technical error in my language. It's based on extrapolation not interpolation. It's a fine line. I research using the one and work pactically with the other.
Geez, extrapolation is totally different!. How many parts are their to the entire expression?
Also, if you are looking for a simplier way to impart the knowledge. It would be through a
simple application sample.
In the meantime I will be rethinking these concepts within an extrapolating construct.
MC, enough explaining this initial part, give an example. i.e. A1+b= A1B.
ok, here is my 3rd rework on this
Ok, what you are doing is taking a limited dataset and determining what is the trend for the most likely event on the next spin, but in order to do that. We must assign to the
Red vs Black, multiple indicators, which establishing more flexibility in our determination of the value and less volativity in within the multiple indicators. The question is what happens most on opposite ends of the curve.
So, that in theory with each limited dataset, we will project what is the resultant that is 80% most likely to occur, within the 50/50 game of which is likely less than a overall 50/50 game due to the zero. So if you get the formula correct from one spin projection to another, then it is a likelihood of 62% hit rate. I don't know if this is correct or not.
Bloom
TwoCatSam
you said:
"Anytime Red or Black cancels each other out, you have done nothing but expose yourself to the zero. "
No you don't play them simultaneously. You play either red or black. It's the permutation with another EC bet that creates the cancelling effect.
Homework:
What are the permutations of red/black and high/low?
Monte Carlo
Monte
I will study on it.........
Thanks
Sam
Bloom
you said (in quotes):
"Ok, what you are doing is taking a limited dataset and determining what is the trend for the most likely event on the next spin"
That's pretty much the definition of analytical extrapolation.
"but in order to do that. We must assign to the [exprapolate from] Red vs Black, multiple indicators, which establish ingmore[less] flexibility in our determination of the value and less volativity in within the multiple indicators.
"The question is what happens most on opposite [the right] ends of the curve. "
Essentially correct but you are confusing one part of the equation with another. At this stage you don't even need a graph.
"So, that in theory with each limited dataset, we will project what is the resultant that is 80% most likely to occur"
I have never bothered to work out the exact number for accuracy, I know it is much higher than the median. Maybe i will work it out later.
"within the 50/50 game of which is likely less than a overall 50/50 game due to the zero."
ok
"So if you get the formula correct from one spin projection to another, then it is a likelihood of 62% hit rate. I don[ch8217]t know if this is correct or not."
Neither do i because I have never calculated the number exactly.
Monte Carlo
Ok, I think I need my math wiz friend for this or basically an applied example from you. MC are you still working this out in your head? Are you using this method in actual play?
At this point, I feel I'm explaining or attempting to explain your methods more than you and that is fustrating. I'm starting to lose faith in the process and its potential because of no clear direction. Even the greatest ideas must have clear direction, otherwise it becomes ignorance.
Please give an applied example, please?
Simplfied example
ECs format with limited dataset
1,R,O
2,R,O
3,B,E
extrapolation is below:
Resultant= R or B and why? and what is the probability for accuracy? and how is it determined? What is the hit rate calculation?
Depending upon your response this maybe my last post on this subject.
Bloom
OK, betting both Red and Odd here's the shake-out............
R/O WIN 2
R/E PUSH
B/O PUSH
B/E LOSE 2
What are the chances of red and odd hitting on the same spin? 18/37 = 48.65% 48.65 X 48.65 = 23.67%. The chances of winning two units are 23.76% which is exactly the same as the chance of losing two units. The two pushes do nothing except give the zero a couple of extra shots at you.
If I'm seeing this wrong, someone tell me. I need to either understand this or move on.
Sam
In relationship to what I tried to explain in this post from the begining. (american wheel)
2 EC bets R/B & H/L
PERMUTATIONS
1. R & H
2. R & L
3. B & H
4. B & L
RESTRICT BETS TO #1 & # 2 @ ONE UNIT EACH
IF BET = RH
THEN PAYOUT =
1. +2
2. 0
3. 0
4. -2
IF 0 THEN PAYOUT = -2
ODDS
1 TROUGH 4 = 23.7%
0 = 5.26%
DISTRIBUTION & VOLATILITY
Volatility is reduced because of distribution.
To acheive 19 red in series requires the repeating of 18 specific numbers 19 times.
odds=1/(.47419)=1 in 1,446,143
To acheive 19 red/high in series requires to repeating of 9 specific numbers 19 times.
odds=1/(.23719)=1 in 7.58E11
CONCLUSION
If volatility can be reduced the following can potentially be exploited:
i) Swings in bankroll value will be reduced therby allowing the player to wait through negitive play due to adverse clustering in system play without hittng his daily loss limit.
ii) Reduction in maximum series will allow player to apply betting progressions that exceed calculated allowable risk countermeasured through table limits, but at a cost of longer timelines
iii) Reduction in volatility will allow for greater potential in designing systems. Systems designed to exploit short series will see less negitive potential.
iv) Reduction in volatility will allow for systems that exploit inverse betting criteria to be more accurate in gauging inflextion points in the curve.
That's about as simple of an explaination as I can think of.
Monte Carlo
Quote
CONCLUSION
If volatility can be reduced the following can potentially be exploited:
i) Swings in bankroll value will be reduced therby allowing the player to wait through negitive play due to adverse clustering in system play without hittng his daily loss limit.
Sample Resultant
ii) Reduction in maximum series will allow player to apply betting progressions that exceed calculated allowable risk countermeasured through table limits, but at a cost of longer timelines
Sample Resultant
iii) Reduction in volatility will allow for greater potential in designing systems. Systems designed to exploit short series will see less negitive potential.
Sample Resultant
iv) Reduction in volatility will allow for systems that exploit inverse betting criteria to be more accurate in gauging inflextion points in the curve.
Sample Resultant
Monte Carlo
Ok thanks MC, we are getting there. Thanks for the explaination. Now what I would ask is for each of the 4 conclusion statements, please give a simple resultant example, if your concept is applied with a system for these types of bets?
Bloom
For illustrative purposes only.
I don't recommend doing this all the time without other rules.
I just hit print screen at Spielbank around 6:30 tonight and did this while having a coffee.
I am going to try and attach a scan of the printout.
Using only red/odd and black/even simply because the are the most common due to a natural skew in board distribution. Betting the table limit of 100 each or 200 per bet. I leave the table at +400/-400. Just alternate the bet on each win or loss.
Once again for illustrative purposes only.
Table 1
20 -BE entry point
1 -RO -RO -+200 =+200
9 -RO -BE -(-200) =0
12 -RE -RO -
25 -RO -RO -+200 =+200
13 -BO -BE -
18 -RE -BE -
4 -BE -BE -+200 =+400 exit point
using just red/black you would have
E/WLWLLLL = (-300) since 100 is the max bet
using just odd even you would have
E/WLLLWWL =(-100)
It's the volatility that kills you. What i have taught you solves that problem. Essentially it's oo many of the same in a row.
Since I don't want to spend all night writing this: here is a summary.
Table 2 +400 in 9 spins
Table 3 +400 in 5 spins
Table 4 +400 in 7 spins
Table 5 (-400) in 11 spins but I took it to the bottom of the page for the hell of it and got to (-200) and if I didn't have the zero I would have made the +400 in 5 spins. I am pretty certain I would have made it back to 0 at a minimum if I had more numbers.
Conclusion:
+1200 in less than 1½ hours table time.
Monte Carlo
p.s. I tried to attach an image file to this thing but I got no idea how. If anyone knows I have the scan.
numbers on the table if you want
tab 1
20
1
9
12
25
13
18
4
6
5
18
6
15
6
25
11
14
26
8
Tab 2
13
28
24
18
6
25
27
5
35
34
24
32
17
10
34
31
33
12
Tab 3
24
14
33
31
7
6
35
0
28
14
18
20
1
33
20
10
8
5
tab 4
29
23
35
13
24
11
17
17
7
23
11
14
35
12
21
23
27
19
22
tab 5
2
27
12
25
27
0
29
26
23
23
6
23
0
28
10
34
20
31
27
All are from the same moment in time, I started each time at the very first one and took whatever numbers came up.
MC thanks for the sample workout that was very clear for me. Ok, going back to your 4 conclusion statements from reply #34, I can apply the first point. the third point, I understand where you are going but I dont know quite yet what are the best choices. Now points 2 and 4, I need a little more help. So, let just deal with point 2 first.
Quote
CONCLUSION
If volatility can be reduced the following can potentially be exploited:
ii) Reduction in maximum series will allow player to apply betting progressions that exceed calculated allowable risk countermeasured through table limits, but at a cost of longer timelines
Monte Carlo
"Reduction in maximumum series", assumption: I guess if the volatility is reduced, then the length of the session is reduced because the series of spins is reduced, so you only need play a handful of spins to acheive goal?
Please give an example of:
"will allow player to apply betting progressions that exceed calculated allowable risk countermeasured through table limits, but at a cost of longer timelines." I guess that has something to do with placing bets at the table limit? please associate your examples or example directly to this point.
Thanks
Bloom
Bloom
The length of the session is reduced so much because I used a flat bet.
As for an example of a progression, you don[ch8217]t need me to do that. It is everyone here who argues over the virtue of progressions, I am the one who says they are redundant. They drag out the time at the table and expose you to added downside risk. They put the capital G into Gambling. But I have already said enough about that elsewhere on this board.
The reason that this exploit helps you with this is because table maximums on the outside bets are calculated by the casino to virtually guarantee that the law of series will overcome any progression except ones that wait for rare events like 10 reds or more in a row. Which means that you will win your 5 buck start progression once every couple sessions. If you start your progressions earlier then loss ratios will claw back those winnings with painful losses. Hardly a threat to them, more like an amusement. Mathematically it doesn[ch8217]t matter, the odds are virtually the same, the timeline is just pushed.
But if you halve the statistical odds of series then you expose them to twice as much danger of losing. Still with the doubling of timeline occurrence you could find yourself at the table as a job not a simple quick way to earn a few bucks. Better to stick with flatbeds that mitigate risk though low loss recovery ratios.
Monte Carlo
Ok, MC, I just re-read your thread on progressions and I'm open minded to your views and after re-reading
your explaination here I do understand. However, concerning conclusion point#2 it seems that the point is contradictory to other statements made. Are you saying that the benefit is that you get shorter amount of bets but you have to wait for the right time to play, which means you still have longer overall play time at the table. If this assumption is true, it contradicts playing about every spin. This is why I confused by the statement. As I stated before, I work with words in my profession more than most and I've come to realize that word structuring means different things to different people. So a visual application accompliment is key for my understanding, especially when explaining something of technical value.
Ok, ignoring progressions per say- What is an example of a bet that exceed calculated allowable risk?
- What is the calculated allowable risk in a particular scenario?
- Please give an example of the calculated risk being countermeasured through the table limit?
- Also, in an illustration please show why the previous will cause longer timelines? and longer timelines of what? is it actual bets made or actual time at the table or both?
Bloom
Bloom
[ch8220] However, on point #2 it seems that the point is contradictory to other statements made.
Are you saying that the benefit is that you get shorter amount of bets but you have to wait for the right time to play, which means you still have longer overall play time at the table.[ch8221]
No I play every spin starting almost immediately, I only need to read the marquee. I don[ch8217]t wait around. The above example shows that. There is no contradiction.
[ch8220]So a visual application accompliment is key for my understanding, especially when explaining something of technical value.[ch8221]
Agreed, and I believe the learning experience gained from doing yourself is the best learning tool. So look at the example above. It is relatively simple to work it out for yourself a few times. I even mentioned the parameters. I don[ch8217]t have the time to provide repeated examples of the same thing.
As for your questions:
1. Casinos don't want more than a 5 or 6 max fold progression using a marty. That is why they set the outside table limit the way that they do. Low enough for punters and not a wide enough spread for progression players.
2. Whatever risk the casino wants to accept as terms of the bet. They decide that not you. Work out the math for yourself. All odds and repercussions are calculatable.
3. The table limit is a countermeasure in roulette. The real concern here is if enough people would learn what I am talking about then the casinos will be forced to narrow the spread by half. The lower limit is directly related to the upper even on high roller tables.
4. If you don't understand why the timeline (x-axis) has been lengthened then you don't understand any of what I am saying and you need to go back to page one and start again. I have explained this in as simple terms as I can think of and do not plan to repeat myself ad nauseam.
Monte Carlo
Well i have read the posts and got dizzy in the head :) i think that is a good thing :)
Well M Carlo i think i understand the concept and i will try it.
Thanks for sharing.
Cheers Lucky Strike
Quote
CONCLUSION
If volatility can be reduced the following can potentially be exploited:
iv) Reduction in volatility will allow for systems that exploit inverse betting criteria to be more accurate in gauging inflextion points in the curve.
That's about as simple of an explaination as I can think of.
Monte Carlo
Ok, MC, i'm just about there with my understanding
What is an inverse betting criteria? and how did you associate your examples to the inverse betting criteria?
Bloom
I have a program that converts any txt file with spins to 3 different columns, RB HL EO, if you want it let me know, i send it to you, PM me with your email. That would speed up things and make the testing go fast :)
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fimg185.imageshack.us%2Fimg185%2F9355%2Fseperateol6.png&hash=af1d93269dc3c90d9d16f6d85f7a5bd2307e5adc)
Cheers Lucky Strike
Bloom and anyone else following this,
I thought I would have gone further into this than I have but it is obvious that it is far to complex for everyone. I haven[ch8217]t even started to explain the mathematics and we are at 45 replies on this one point which was intended to be a minor precursor to the rest of the explanation.
Look at it this way I have basically described a brick (exploit) in which to construct at house (system). I do not intend to spend two hours a day writing things out 5 different ways on each point. I don[ch8217]t have the time and I have far too much work in mathematics to put that kind of time into this. The mathematics that I am seeing used by most roulette players is the equivalent of sandcastle houses and every time a wave of bad luck rolls in you are going back to the beginning again. You have to get the fundamentals right and you have to understand what causes all the other systems to fail on a structural level.
I assure you the game is mathematically beatable in the long run. I have given you at least the first piece and now you will have to assemble the rest on your own. I was prepared to spend more time explaining the actual mechanics and mathematics, unfortunately I realize now that I would take too much time. What time I do wish to spend on roulette I would rather use actually playing the game.
Incidentally if you take the principle I showed you, then take the square root of the initial matrix and multiply it by the inverse of the second criteria you will maintain the reduced volatility while returning the house edge back to the original value. Thereby negating what you gave up in the first equation but keeping what you gained. (this is not what I am taking about in conclusion #4, that is even more complex)
I wish you all luck in your search. Maybe I will check back in a year or so to see if you have gotten anywhere.
Monte Carlo
Lucky Strike, thank you for the offer of that program. It is unnecessary. I already know what I do works. I no longer need to test it. The casino confirms that every time I go there.
Man that really sucks! I thought I was being reasonable in my efforts to understand and was ready to move on to the rest of the methods, I am very disappointed in his actions to be an ex-member. Well life moves on. So, is this method any clearer to you more experienced players.
Bloom
well i send you an PM and a email ;)
I will read the post again and see what happens :-?
Cheers LS
Thanks....I'm too emotional right now. ;D >:( :'( ::)
Bloom
Bloom
You were most patient and did nothing wrong. As to your question about the "method"; I saw none. That is not to say there isn't one; actually I'm still looking.
I enjoyed bantering with the fellow. He gave me some things to think on. I understand his point that it's better to play (if one can) than to teach others how to play.
He'll be back in a year. Maybe we should call him the Monte Carlo Comet and expect him to blaze through every year in May!
Sam
Thanks Sam. Honestly, MC really stirred me up. In more ways than one. Mostly positive. I'm thinking of starting a testing thread that will make an effort to decipher this concept further only if their is an interest. Maybe, me yourself and Lucky Strike can lead the effort. I am confident there is something of great value here and to some extinct I've already received it, but I want to dig further. I would need the help of some very experienced system players and a math whiz. We can pick this thread appart. I will be recruiting anyone who believes in the concept that roulette is mathematically beatable.
Bloom
Using Monte's example
"Table 1
20 -BE entry point
1 -RO -RO -+200 =+200
9 -RO -BE -(-200) =0
12 -RE -RO -
25 -RO -RO -+200 =+200
13 -BO -BE -
18 -RE -BE -
4 -BE -BE -+200 =+400 exit point"
Unless I am mistaken all he is doing here is betting the opposite of what came. 20 was BE, so he bet RO and won first time out. His trigger was then RO and he bet BE and lost.
I am going to work on the math of this idea and post it later.
Sam
Yes, at this point in my opinion the initial process describe here has been simplified. To me the issue is understanding the mathematical impact throughout the game itself. When you apply math to a series of events. It should always perform the same way within that mathematical structure created. If you want to change your result, you just adjust your mathematical structure. Their is no concern about winning or losing, just following the rules to maintain the adjusted rate of success.
Bloom
I may be, possibly, understanding what his bloke was saying. Or not............
Look at it this way:
Red has a 48.65% chance of occurring. So does black, odd and even. The chances of red occurring with odd or even is 48.65% X 48.65% or 23.67%.
Here are the permutations:
R/O
R/E
B/O
B/E
Each of those permutations has a 23.67% chance of occurring, and adding them you get 94.68%. This leaves 5.32% for the house edge, which is almost exactly 2.7% x 2. (5.4%)
So perhaps he's right! It does seem he is saying this:
When betting red, the house has a 51.35% chance of beating you every spin with a 2.7% edge. When betting red and odd, the house only has a 23.67% chance of beating you, but with a 5.32% edge.
Does that make sense? Is my math flawed? Someone who is good in math check this out, please!
TwoCatSam
Sam, I think you about got it correct only in the last incidence when betting r/o the house edge is increased by 2.7% with the american wheel. Therefore, the house is 7.9%.
Man, I'm i wish he hadnt left. I'm ready for the next lesson of the full equation of the method.
Please come back Monte Carlo, I promise to read and re-read, learn, practice and apply.
Bloom
Bloom,
Yes, I definitely calculated it on the single 0 wheel.
I am going away for the weekend and will try to sneak a calculator and notepad along for the ride.
I am wondering about betting Red/Odd/Top and figuring the permutations of those. Know it shakes out to about 13.51% for R/O/T. But using all three you get the "win one, lose one" scenario.
Laters........
Sam
Wouldnt that be win one -lose two or win two - lose one or win three or loss three possibilities?
Enjoy your weekend ride, watch the gas prices..lol
Well i have to agree i have backtrack every exampel and he plays opposite. RE play BO.
There is actually no more or less then test it to find out the varience, i think.
Cheers Lucky Strike
Yes, this is true. We all agree on that. However, the variance will be of min. significance, because the fluctations in the game have been reduced in half. See reply#13. That is the goal look to isolate from our dataset. The key now is understanding how to capatilize on an environment that doesnt fluctate as much. Before the game was watch the fluctation because it could kill you or get you ahead in the game but in the long run you would break even or lose money because of the house edge.
The objective would be to design a flat betting system that thrives on a method with min. change and provides consistent profit at about 20%.
So, I recommend start with a sample session using RO & BE and evaluate as many ways to exploit that session.
Here is a live session
Table 3: 3/7/08
27
19
6
12
5
27
4
15
14
19
15
18
13
23
31
11
15
9
29
19
0
23
28
20
-- -- --
9
5
9
31
4
28
36
17
6
29
15
16
13
32
12
-- -- --
29
4
17
23
5
9
36
18
16
6
3
32
29
20
35
QuoteWe all agree on that. However, the variance will be of min. significance, because the fluctations in the game have been reduced in half.
Well i made a short test and it doesent work to play opp. I can post it if you want to see it!
Sorry for that...
Cheers LS
Yes, please post
LWWWLWWLWLWWWWWLWLWLWLLWWLLLLLLW
15 B 15 L BL
20 B 20 H BH +0
17 B 17 L BL BL -200 -
22 B 22 H BH +0
36 R 36 H RH RH +200 +
5 R 5 L RL +0
16 R 16 L RL +0
7 R 7 L RL +0
26 B 26 H BH +0
8 B 8 L BL BL +200 +
25 R 25 H RH RH +200 +
12 R 12 L RL +0
17 B 17 L BL +200
35 B 35 H BH +0
24 B 24 H BH +0
2 B 2 L BL -200 -
24 B 24 H BH +0
22 B 22 H BH +0
24 B 24 H BH +0
31 B 31 H BH +0
14 R 14 L RL +0
19 R 19 H RH RH +200 +
16 R 16 L RL +0
17 B 17 L BL BL +200 +
8 B 8 L BL BL -200 -
12 R 12 L RL +0
7 R 7 L RL +0
34 R 34 H RH RH +200 +
1 R 1 L RL +0
19 R 19 H RH RH -200 -
17 B 17 L BL BL +200 +
31 B 31 H BH +0
32 R 32 H RH RH +200 +
13 B 13 L BL BL +200 +
5 R 5 L RL +0
9 R 9 L RL +0
30 R 30 H RH RH +200 +
13 B 13 L BL BL +200 +
22 B 22 H BH +0
0 Z 0 Z ZZ -200 -
36 R 36 H RH RH +200 +
1 R 1 L RL +0
36 R 36 H RH RH -200 -
33 B 33 H BH +0
29 B 29 H BH +0
29 B 29 H BH +0
4 B 4 L BL BL +200 +
18 R 18 L RL +0
24 B 24 H BH +0
7 R 7 L RL +0
0 Z 0 Z ZZ -200 -
22 B 22 H BH +0
21 R 21 H RH RH +200 +
36 R 36 H RH RH -200 -
5 R 5 L RL +0
0 Z 0 Z ZZ -200 -
2 B 2 L BL BL +200 +
7 R 7 L RL +0
28 B 28 H BH +0
26 B 26 H BH +0
24 B 24 H BH +0
20 B 20 H BH +0
33 B 33 H BH +0
23 R 23 H RH RH +200 +
29 B 29 H BH +0
35 B 35 H BH +0
31 B 31 H BH +0
22 B 22 H BH +0
21 R 21 H RH RH -200 -
25 R 25 H RH RH -200 -
14 R 14 L RL +0
12 R 12 L RL +0
33 B 33 H BH +0
25 R 25 H RH RH -200 -
21 R 21 H RH RH -200 -
5 R 5 L RL +0
12 R 12 L RL +0
25 R 25 H RH RH -200 -
28 B 28 H BH +0
19 R 19 H RH RH -200 -
26 B 26 H BH +0
14 R 14 L BL BL +200 +
Ok, let do the session this way.
Only bet R/O or B/E
If the entry point is R, bet B/E
If the entry point is B, bet R/O
Alternate bets with R/O and B/E on each win or loss
if a break even result its same as last bet
Okay will back soon with the results :-?
Cheers LS
Well i want to know if i am doing it correct before i continue to run them for the long run, tests! :o
5 SPINS +400
21 R 21 H
11 B 11 L BL +200
31 B 31 H RH
27 R 27 H RH +200
18 SPINS +400
12 R 12 L
27 R 27 H
34 R 34 H BL -200
21 R 21 H RH +200
12 R 12 L BL +0
33 B 33 H BL +0
17 B 17 L BL +200
31 B 31 H RH +0
10 B 10 L RH -200
16 R 16 L BL +0
13 B 13 L BL +200
2 B 2 L RH -200
22 B 22 H RH +0
30 R 30 H RH +200
18 R 18 L BL +0
36 R 36 H BL -200
30 R 30 H RH +200
6 B 6 L BL +200
9 SPINS -400
13 B 13 L
4 B 4 L RH -200
17 B 17 L BL +200
24 B 24 H RH +0
36 R 36 H RH +200
34 R 34 H BL -200
14 R 14 L RH +0
8 B 8 L RH -200
27 R 27 H BL -200
6 SPINS +400
23 R 23 H
7 R 7 L BL +0
11 B 11 L BL +200
10 B 10 L RH -200
13 B 13 L BL +200
30 R 30 H RH +200
8 SPINS +400
18 R 18 L
17 B 17 L
22 B 22 H RH +0
18 R 18 L RH +0
12 R 12 L RH +0
28 B 28 H RH +0
19 R 19 H RH +200
8 B 8 L BL +200
Cheers Lucky Strike
You are including High/Low for the double EC bet with Red/Black. I was asking for Odd/Even as the double bet. You can do it that way. But we have to establish which combinations are the greatest and the smallest, so that we bet on the dominant groups from the High/Low. The dominant groups in o/e is R/O and B/E.
How many
BL #s
BH #s
RL #s
RH #s
Also, you can use the sample spins in reply 36, to get the following results for validation of the method rules before doing extensive test run:
Table 2 +400 in 9 spins
Table 3 +400 in 5 spins
Table 4 +400 in 7 spins
Table 5 (-400) in 11 spins
I'm about to go to bed
Well this is the result i get...
+200 W
+200 W
+200 W
+200 W
+200 W
-200 L
-200 L
+200 W
+200 W
+200 W
+200 W
-200 L
+200 W
+200 W
+200 W
+200 W
+200 W
+200 W
+200 W
-200 L
+200 W
-200 L
-200 L Zero
+200 W
+200 W
+200 W
-200 L
-200 L
+200 W
+200 W
-200 L
+200 W
Cheers LS
I've been giving this a lot of thought from the purely logical point of view and I'm seriously doubting if there is anything there. Yes, we reduce volatility, but we also reduce our winning percentage. We now have a 50/50 chance of winning with a greater house edge. Playing just red we have a lesser chance of winning with a lesser house edge.
I spent many, many hours on a system using three ECs years ago only to find this same conclusion. I thought MC had found what I was looking for, but I really don't think he has.
As Lucky said, you win one/lose one and finally win all three or lose all three. Mathematically it will shake out a loser in the end. At least it did for me.
Someone named kawa has posted a system of numbers I'm going to go chase for a while.
Sam
@Sam, enjoy that system is looking interesting. However, I will say this, I believe, because their is limited voliatity you as a player have less than in result and because their is less change is win/loss, you can play til you have desire result, that is the whole point. I hope.
Also, this way my quote:"Wouldnt that be win one -lose two or win two - lose one or win three or loss three possibilities? " If this is what you were referring to.
LS, here you go
Table1 (+400)
0 Spins blank RBG Evens/Odds
1 20 B E Entry point
2 1 R O RO 200
3 9 R O BE -200
4 12 R E RO 0
5 25 R O RO 200
6 13 B O BE 0
7 18 R E BE 0
8 4 B E BE 200
9 6 B E 400
Table 2 (+400) within 5 spins
0 Spins blank RBG Evens/Odds
1 13 B O ep
2 28 B E RE 0
3 24 B E RE 0
4 18 R E RE 0
5 6 B E RE 200
6 25 R O BO 0
7 27 R O BO 0
8 5 R O BO 0
9 35 B O BO 200
10 34 R E 400
Table 3 (+400) within 5 spins
0 Spins blank RBG Evens/Odds
1 24 B E ep
2 14 R E RO 0
3 33 B O RO 0
4 31 B O RO 0
5 7 R O RO 200
6 6 B E BE 200
7 35 B O 400
Table 4 (+400) Within 13 spins
0 Spins blank RBG Evens/Odds
1 29 B O ep
2 23 R O RE 0
3 35 B O RE -200
4 13 B O BO 200
5 24 B E RE 0
6 11 B O RE -200
7 17 B O BO 200
8 17 B O RE -200
9 7 R O BO 0
10 23 R O BO 0
11 11 B O BO 200
12 14 R E RE 200
13 35 B O BO 200
14 12 R E 400
Table 5 (-400) within 9 spins
0 Spins blank RBG Evens/Odds
1 2 B E ep
2 27 R O RO 200
3 12 R E BE 0
4 25 R O BE -200
5 27 R O RO 200
6 0 G BE -200
7 29 B O RO 0
8 26 B E RO -200
9 23 R O BE -200
10 23 R O -400
Hopefully, you have the idea now.
Bloom
bloom
Sorry about giving your quote to Lucky. Frankly, my mind is about to go on this---if it hasn't already!!
I sincerely hope you are right and I will be watching the posts and studying them carefully.
Sam
Ok, this a live spin sample session an my independent dataset
Table 3: 1/1/08 (+400) within 6 spins
0 Spins blank RBG Evens/Odds
1 5 R O ep
2 31 B O BE 0
3 31 B O BE 0
4 10 B E BE 200
5 27 R O RO 200
6 4 B E wait 400u
Reset and Continued session with next 4 spins (+400)
7 15 B O ep
8 20 B E RE 0
9 35 B O BO 200
10 12 R E RE 200
11 27 R O 400u
Summary: 800u in 10 spins ..total 800 u
Bloom
Ok guys, well I dont know if I am posting to myself at this point, since the Master MC is gone. I certainly wish he would come back. Anyway, I think I've come up with another concept to add to the method that can be used within a system. Modifying the the LW registry to L0W registry. This will enable you see patterns within the compound structure we've built. I'm just thinking outside the box. Ignoring the mainstay rules and creating mine own. Along as it doesnt conflict with math and can be used as a tool for mathematical application. This is certainly an example.
L0W Registry Legend
L=loss (negative unit)
0=breakeven (zero unit)
W=win (positive unit)
Bloom
Table 2 (+400) within 5 spins
0 Spins blank RBG Evens/Odds L0W
1 13 B O ep
2 28 B E RE 0 0
3 24 B E RE 0 0
4 18 R E RE 0 0
5 6 B E RE 200 W
6 25 R O BO 0 0
7 27 R O BO 0 0
8 5 R O BO 0 0
9 35 B O BO 200 W
10 34 R E 400
L0W registry: 000w000w. Do you see a pattern there. I do...lol
Table 3 (+400) within 5 spins
0 Spins blank RBG Evens/Odds L0W
1 24 B E ep
2 14 R E RO 0 0
3 33 B O RO 0 0
4 31 B O RO 0 0
5 7 R O RO 200 W
6 6 B E BE 200 W
7 35 B O 400
L0W registry: 000ww. Do you see a pattern there. I do...lol
Modified Rules
Ok, let do the session this way.
First Session Bet is opp of entry point
Alternate the opp bet on each win or loss
if a break even result, its same as last bet
If stop win goal is achieved, skip a spin and wait for next spin entry point trigger
Apply the L0W registry where needed
Bloom
Ok, I'm still thinking here. Lucky Strike, I think your Cut Point Methodology can be modified to benefit this method's functionality. I just did a quick read of the concept, I didnt understand it all, but my intuition says it will be beneficial when combined with the L0W registry.
Bloom
Well i will keep it up and give it some thoughts i will test some things but i have to say that i agree with Two Cat Sam, but at the same time i find it fun and interesting to play that way, i will continue this but every thing takes time because this is a new concept for me.
I will be back and maybe we can come up with a strategy that does work. Now i have to make some effort to the baccarat section.
Cheers LS
bloomone2002 should we make something out of this or should we skip it.
Well, i think there is something here, but if no one adds to what is already here, then we will have put on it hold for now. I am willing to entertainment any continued progress on this topic. It is unfortunate the thread author abandoned the thread
Gents
I put in a lot of hours on that little bugger. Many hours of thought while building a carport. I had that idea years ago and wanted to re-visit the thought.
Here is my opinion:
What he calls a "reduction in volatility" is the same as just betting every tenth spin of the wheel. You can say, "Hey, I will only face the chance of loosing one spin out of ten." You have also reduced you chances of winning to one spin out of ten.
I did find it interesting that he actually increased the house edge. I didn't think that was possible.
Sam
I think in part that is true. i personally think, if you review my last 6 post or so on this topic it is more about adding variables to the same.
i.e. you take an apple. it will always be an apple you can bet on it. However, if you factor in other variables about the apple like, shape, color, height, width, depth, texture, smell, etc. now you you are armed with getter distinction but the top level (apple) doesnt change. That's another reason, i created the L0W registry, to evaluate a more multi-dimensional change. The more dimensions you add to something the less subtle the changes are within itself. it is the interworking of all multi-dimensional subtle changes that causes the big top level change, like an apple gone bad in texture, shape, smell. i dont mean to get too metaphysical here but it does have its root in this application.
Also, for greater emphasis here, the work that Victor and Lanky have done on the LW methodology is fundamental here, however, it is only linear to this concept, its needs to be applied in a more dynamic or multi-dimensional fashion, again that is why i modified that concept with the L0W registry. its like tracking the LW for several interconnected games to give you one best case result of the overall game, because what manners most is the overall game. I hope I am making sense here. I feel I'm starting to write that the author of the thread. Scary!
Bloom
OK, bloom
I reviewed your LOW idea. Let's get specific. You look for three Os? What about three Ls? Combination?
As I studied the Lw Methodology, we first had to determine what pattern the wheel was producing.
Are you saying something like this: When the wheel has produced three non-Ws in a row, we bet? Example: LOO, LLO, OLO, LLL, LOL.
I'll study with you on this as it's a new twist.
Sam
Yes, Sam and there maybe other acceptable patterns to capitalize on. The key is applying the fundamentals of the LW to a multidimensional structure (ie. b/r & e/o or b/r & h/l or more add one more dimension b/r & e/o & h/l), essentially we have to establish an out of balance pattern, that would otherwise be subtle to top level game. So, we would have to look at more spins and maybe we should start a new thread in the testing zone to iron this out. These out of balance patterns to me are stronger than the typical 2 dimensional patterns we have been used to. If you agree, i will start a new thread and maybe LS and others will join in at some point. In reply #73, my 2 independent test, i up 800 u in 17 spins, using the L0W registry, now i dont know if this will hold up, but this is what i call exploitation from those results, even if short term. i could walk out the door with those results.
Bloom
bloom
Sure, start a thread.
Could you post exactly how you are doing the test?
I'm thinking I'll do this:
Look for the EC + EC then wait for three Ls or Os, then bet the opposite of that EC
Example: Red/Odd is the first thing I see. I am seeking Black/Even and wait for three spins with no Black/Even winner the bet for B/E to occur.
I assume zero is always a loss.
Is that acceptable?
Sam
yes, that is an acceptable start
Hai all,
After reading a lot of statistics books and after studying a lot of the systems/strategies that can be found on the web, the remarks of monte carlo really puzzle me (sorry, I'm not a native speaker).
Has any of you heard of this person again? I'm really interested in what he means with "inverse betting"!
greets rd
Because when I do the math, I see indeed a tiny decrease in variance and an increase in the house edge, but I am not able to keep a reduced variance and standard house edge by "taking the square root of the original matrix". Need some input here!
greetings rd
OK,
It took a while, but I finally cracked it: the statements of monte carlo are, unfortunately, not true.
By combining two EC bets, say high/low and black/red we do decrease the "volatility" when we defined this by win/loss per number of total bets, but we actually INCREASE the probability of a long loosing streak!
I will not bother you with mathematics, but a simple example will show what I mean:
When we combine bets there are many ways to loose two times in a row:
break even= b/e
loose =l
l - l
b/e - l - l
b/e - b/e - l - l
etc. . .
l - l
l - b/e - l
l - b/e - b/e - l
l - b/e - b/e - b/e - l
etc. . .
l - b/e - l
b/e - l - b/e - l
b/e - b/e - l - b/e - l
etc. . .
if we do the math, the probability of loosing two times "in a row": 0. 2770. When this with only black/red:
The probability of loosing 2 times in a row with black/red is equal to (19/37)*(19/37)=0. 2637 for European roulette. In other words, the probability of loosing two times in a row increased!! Well, we can actually proove that this is always the case with even money bets.
This basically means that all other conclusions drawn by monte carlo are incorrect as they depend on reduction of loosing streaks.
Good observations reddwarf.
Unfortunately. I would, like many others, rather have it otherwise. I tested all kind of methods for almost a year and these are my conclusions:
1. spins are truly independent: online casino's do not need to cheat, they just have to invest in good RND generators
2. in the end the house edge will get you
3. progressions do not work, in the end
4. systems where you have to bet on single numbers have a better "survival rate". no wonder systems based on single number bets take a long time to prove unsuccessful, but in the end the house edge will get you
5. things like Allison mixtures, Parrondo Paradox, Volatility pumping, Kelly criteria all do not work because no betting combination favors the bettor
There is one more system that I'm designing: a system that is using unlikely events to come out positive: all systems I have seen thus far focus on regular winnings. money management is used to try to survive rough times.
After that, I'm done with gambling: I lost (luckily) only a few hundred dollars. And many, many hours simulating million of spins for almost all systems that I could find on internet (+ a couple of my own design that were also used to study Parrondo, Allison mixtures and Volatility pumping, Optimal strategies). None of them were winners, although, again, systems using single numbers might give you the illusion that you have an holy grail somewhat longer than systems where you bet on outside bets. And I found 1 system that gave you winnings 99. 7% of the time, but it was devastating 0. 3% of the time.
All your conclusions are valid.
The Kelly criterion does work though, only if you have an edge. It's supposed to optimize capital growth on an already winning game, so there was no point testing it on a losing game (I wonder how you made the calculation with no available edge).
Quote from: reddwarf on March 31, 2010, 05:40:52 AM
After that, I'm done with gambling: I lost (luckily) only a few hundred dollars. And many, many hours simulating million of spins
I hear you.
That's why I hate it when people give others false hope with no real knowledge of what they're talking about. It's us guys who spent endless hours with the game, seen millions of spins and tested every single approach who know. That's what backs up our conclusions, verifiable proof (along with every scientific source on earth), not some "bumblebees can fly so I can beat the math", "man beat gravity so the math is beatable", or some self-contradicting gibberish about reading randomness.
Yep i agree.
Although I do like it when people challenge "common beliefs" and knowledge. By the way: I tested kelly criterium in combination with the common belief that after a couple of times "red" "black" must occur (in other words an edge must appear). I simulated many spins, in which I varied the fraction of bank roll used for bet as a function of the streak length. So actually I tested several things at once. Anyway: the result was negative.
Quote from: reddwarf
Although I do like it when people challenge "common beliefs" and knowledge.
Unfortunately where money is involved people are willing to believe anything.
Yep, you are right. When money is involved people tend to believe a lot: not believing would, in the case of roulette, mean a lot of studying, and when doubting testing.
I think it was Einstein who also sad something like: "stupidity is trying the same thing again and again, hoping for a different outcome". In that sense I was stupid. Now it's just a nice hobby to test new methods/systems and believe it or not, I learned a lot about programming, statistics (I am a physicist), randomness, finance.
Quote from: reddwarf on March 31, 2010, 01:18:55 PM
In that sense I was stupid. Now it's just a nice hobby to test new methods/systems and believe it or not, I learned a lot about programming, statistics (I am a physicist), randomness, finance.
Same here. :)
"That's what backs up our conclusions, verifiable proof (along with every scientific source on earth), not some "bumblebees can fly so I can beat the math", "man beat gravity so the math is beatable", or some self-contradicting gibberish about reading randomness."---Noble Savage
With games of chance you have unfair payouts--the casinos would not profit unless the game was heavily in their favor. And yes, it would be better not to gamble looking at the maths, a cogent arguement.
With that said, when I test a system, my goal is to test by hand (at least 5 hours a day) for 30 days to see how well it holds up. If there is a decent return the following month, then I try with a small bankroll to see what happens.
As for the bumblebees remark, science ultimately is a finite resource. It is a testament to what mankind doesn't know.
The Holy Grail does exist. If someone doesn't seek it, we'll never find it. I will never stop looking.
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fi499.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Frr351%2Fskakus%2Favatar_2016.gif&hash=ffe2829eff5bf50e91a4c8b5bcc71ad8e1ce9322)
Quote from: bombus on March 31, 2010, 06:08:45 PM
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fi499.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Frr351%2Fskakus%2Favatar_2016.gif&hash=ffe2829eff5bf50e91a4c8b5bcc71ad8e1ce9322)
lol bombus bombus bombus
I am Monte Carlo.
I can't believe you are still trying to figure this out 2 years later. Incidentally the concept was merely a preamble to explaining a much more complex idea. Like explaining buoyancy before ship building. Nevertheless;
1. RedDwarf you are wrong. You have calculated the wrong math equation. It is not about the probability of losing 2 times in a row. It's about the probability of the number of possible repeats within a cycle, this is the volatility. The casino developed the spread on betting of an e/c bet based on this number but using simple rather than combinatoric probability. But in doing what I am talking about you have to pay a price, a 50% increase of the house edge. In return I know the range of volatility has been reduced by 50%. The question then becomes how can you exploit this?
2. This theory does apply to a roulette solution but the theory is not an answer in itself. And no system wins 100% of the time. I just win a hell of a lot more than I lose.
3. I never raised the issue of Kelly criterion of wage management. At least I don't remember doing so. In any case it's not relevant to understanding the basic concept presented since it is not a solution in itself.
Good luck I will check up in a couple of years and see how you are doing.
Monte Carlo
Hi Monte Carlo,
Thanks for your reply. Yes, if your definition of volatility is the number of repeats in a cycle, you are absolutely right. The thing is however: how to utilize this, so again you are right again: it is not a system in itself, but it could help in building a system.
OK, I'll give this one another try than (I actually stopped testing systems etc as I thought it is fruitless, but your claims are interesting though)
c'ya in two years time
i dont you can reduce volatility. playing roulette you can expect and you probably have seen R R R R R R, B B B B B B or even R B R B R B R B . . . . is this a shock to you? should hope not ! however over 1000 spins regardless of the mentioned patterns you will still expect something like a 50/50 red/black percentage. considering that all spins are RANDOM and the PROBABILITY of any number/colour is even to each other, reducing "volatility" is relative.
what i am saying is that BBBBRRRRRRRRRBBBBB is volatile over 50 or so spins . . . but over 1000 spins this is insignificant.
i guess you can reduce volatility by being consistent over many many spins!
Remember the data set remains the same with every spin counted but because of the push which returns your bet you have reduce the data set in relation to wager only. (Ignoring zero for argument) The odds of black or red occurring remains the same at ½. The odds of r/o or b/e with r/e and b/o being the push is ¼. This means that even though you have a 1/1. 04E6 chance of 20 reds in a row. The odds of 20 r/e are 1/1. 09E12. To reduce the odds to the same one in a million chance you will have to have 10 r/e in a row but this only applies to your wager. Which is half the volitility of the data set as a whole. Since we have created two separate volatility curves pushing a greater number of stochastical outcomes into lower tier brackets only in relationship to wagers, a changeover in trend line should occur earlier and be exploitable through prudent wage management.
It is clear to me that if volatility is defined as more of the same, that volatility can be reduced. In the extreme case of volatility =0, we basically have created a conditional game which can always be won in when the example of Monte Carlo is used (combined bets). The question therefore is: does a reduced volatility change the "nature" of randomness, and if so, how can it be exploited, because there is a catch:
Lets assume we play a game where we simultaneously bet on two EC's (color/parity for example). It is true that the volatility has been reduced but:
1. it came at the cost of increased outcome space (we now have 4 possible outcomes: r/e, r/o, b/e, b/o)
2. and, depending on the betting strategy, it also comes at the cost of increase house edge as the percentage of "zero's" versus the outcomes that either generate win or loss has increased.
So my question to other readers is: how to avoid that the "game" collapses again in a regular loosing game: for example if we would ignore the break-even events in out betting strategy, we basically created a new game with two possible outcomes (win/loose) with an increased house edge, and even worse, with an unreduced volatility: the game with reduced volatility "collapsed" onto an game that is even worse than the original. (this means that we can not ignore the break evens and treat them as "nothing-happened" situations
What I understand from Monte Carlo's post is that he claims that a slight conditionality (in other words, past spins do influence future spins) is introduced. I'm willing to accept that this might be possible, even from a mathematical point of view. But at this moment it is still unclear to me how he ensures that the game does not collapse.
A question to Monte Carlo: can you please explain "we have created two separate volatility curves" to me? Do you mean with the two volatility curves the old one and the new one? Or two new ones?
Red dwarf
While playing inside bets volatility can be reduced playing numbers favoured by a hit at least. Discard those numbers that havent had a hit coz they can be cold numbers for a long time. Produce the right strategy to play those numbers that have shown recently. Rightstrategy means tracking tools that will tell you which of those "hot numbers" are most likely to repeat next spin.
Hmm,
this is not what I'm looking for, so I will ignore it.
It is a mathematical fact that we can create "less" random sequence by combining two perfect random sequences. This "mixing" must meet specific requirements. (By the way, people who believe it is not possible, just google on "allison mixtures").
The "less" random sequence has nonzero auto correlation. How must correlation be interpreted?
1. if there is positive auto correlation, above average performance tends to repeat (when the sequence is purely random and people wrongly believe that data is positively auto correlated, they talk about "hot games", "hot numbers" etc)
2. if the set is negatively auto correlated, below average performance tends to repeat (when the sequence is purely random and people wrongly believe that data is negatively auto correlated, they believe that a color is due because it did not come up for some time: gamblers fallacy!)
So now back to Monte Carlo's remarks: a reduced volatility will lead in the extreme to a negative auto correlation (volatility =0), but again, this can never be achieved. But still it there might be a way to achieve a "mild" form by combining bets. So the goal is to transform the purely random sequence into less random sequence, which is indeed possible for sequential bets, but still the question remains if this can be utilized.
Conclusions thusfar: nature of randomness can be changed by very specific combination of bets (at least sequential bets). If this can be utilized remains to be seen
Still investigating and looking for an answer (but not the commercial kind!)
OK,
I'm done studying:
1. yes, combining bets SEQUENTIALLY does introduce auto correlation in the resulting sequence. This can not be used however because it does not help predicting where to put the next bet, it is just an attribute of the history of hits!
2. While investigating I encountered some really puzzling, roulette related facts, as far as I know I've never seen them mentioned in this or other forums, so I will start a new thread soon. Anyway, volatility reducing bets are the worst bets you can imagine! From every perspective! (reduced probability of winning a session of bets, higher probability of gamblers ruin etc)
Red dwarf
@Monte Carlo(if he still watches this thread)
I have been reading this thread recently. Very interesting, I can't believe I missed this one.
You stated with your method (2 EC's IE Black/Even, Red/Odd) the odds are 23. 6%=W, 28. 9%=L, and 47. 5%=tie.
Do you think there is a possiblity you can turn the 23. 6% win into a tie and MOST of the 47. 5% into a win? Keeping the w/l unit amounts the same? EI w = +4 l = -4.
Quote from: Gerrard on September 04, 2010, 01:35:01 PM
@Monte Carlo(if he still watches this thread)
I have been reading this thread recently. Very interesting, I can't believe I missed this one.
You stated with your method (2 EC's IE Black/Even, Red/Odd) the odds are 23. 6%=W, 28. 9%=L, and 47. 5%=tie.
Do you think there is a possiblity you can turn the 23. 6% win into a tie and MOST of the 47. 5% into a win? Keeping the w/l unit amounts the same? EI w = +4 l = -4.
Playing this on En prison rules and FLD...it is a winner on the long run.
Playing this on En prison rules and FLD. . . it is a winner on the long run.
[/quote]
FLD?
Follow Last Decision = FLD
Quote from: Far-Q link=topic=1060. msg119984#msg119984 date=1283638574
Follow Last Decision = FLD
I thought so. Just wanted to make sure though. Thanks
BTW @Far-Q
Nice avatar
No problem......and thanks.
Oh boy, here we go again: please do understand, applying the scheme as mentioned in the thread, you will lose, even if you take out the zero and even if you follow the last, or the penultimate or the parity of the time in seconds or whatever method there is to select the bet.
Although I still doubt Monte Carlo's claims, I think that what he does illustrate is that the reason why we lose at Roulette is NOT because of the house edge, but because of the volatility:
The casino has, compared to us, unlimited bankroll. Due to volatility we are going to loose anyway, even if the house edge would be zero or even positive! yes when the house edge is positive, there are methods (kelly) to reduce the posibility of gamblers ruin. And yes, because the house edge is negative we lose even more!
I think that if Monte Carlo is honest, and he does have a method: he must have found a way to exploit the reduced volatility. This then must be a combination of money management and clever bet selection (reduced volatility at some point implies conditionality, meaning, the previous spins do contain information about the next spin). And if he has a method, than is must be a rather complex one!
What he claimed thusfar is true: combining bets does decrease the volatility, which is illustrated with his examples, but the examples themselves can never be the method! (as he also indicates in his replies)
reddwarf
Quote from: Gerrard on September 04, 2010, 06:15:21 PM
Playing this on En prison rules and FLD. . . it is a winner on the long run.
FLD?
medo, prove it.
Show us the maths behind it.
Quote from: Number Six on September 10, 2010, 02:03:49 PM
medo, prove it.
Show us the maths behind it.
No time.Must be on the run to Slovenia--there is En prison table.
I have run several 100 000 spin samples just to find the Loss streaks of betting BE every spin in single zero roulette.
I ran a few dozen 100 000 spins samples (so just a few million spins) and the least amount of losses in a row in 100 000 spins was 12. The most was 23! Look at this session I just ran:
BE %
W 27108 27.108
L 29593 29.593
P 43299 43.299
100000
(P stands for Push W is BE, L is RO)
8 B E W 0
36 R E P 0
9 R O L 1
5 R O L 2
19 R O L 3
3 R O L 4
5 R O L 5
9 R O L 6
3 R O L 7
35 B O P 7
27 R O L 8
35 B O P 8
1 R O L 9
13 B O P 9
31 B O P 9
27 R O L 10
32 R E P 10
7 R O L 11
7 R O L 12
1 R O L 13
1 R O L 14
1 R O L 15
36 R E P 15
23 R O L 16
25 R O L 17
29 B O P 17
34 R E P 17
5 R O L 18
23 R O L 19
So his claim that you will see lower loss streaks that simply betting a single even chance is wrong. Actually the loss strings will be longer.