It is just a matter of knowing what the wheel is throwing at the time.

[gizmotron]

I am the only one on the forum who offer his free study programs I am specialised in study small samples up to 250 spins.Diagrams tell a lot more than all the words and not studied jargon.

How about a screen shot of one of your free programs? It might be nice to see one of those.

[gizmotron]

Here is an example of extracted data from my free training software:


| L M H | 1 2 3 |  | B "R"| L  H | O  E | -- ## -- Line
| X     | X     |  | X    | X    |    X | -- 10 --  1
|   X   | X     |  | X    | X    | X    | -- 13 --  2
|     X |   X   |  | X    |    X | X    | -- 35 --  3
|     X |     X |  |    X |    X |    X | -- 30 --  4
| X     | X     |  | X    | X    |    X | --  4 --  5
|     X |   X   |  | X    |    X |    X | -- 26 --  6
| X     |   X   |  | X    | X    |    X | --  8 --  7
|   X   |     X |  |    X |    X | X    | -- 21 --  8
|     X | X     |  | X    |    X |    X | -- 28 --  9
|     X |   X   |  | X    |    X | X    | -- 29 -- 10
|     X | X     |  | X    |    X | X    | -- 31 -- 11
|     X |   X   |  |    X |    X |    X | -- 32 -- 12
|     X |     X |  |    X |    X | X    | -- 27 -- 13
|   X   |   X   |  | X    |    X |    X | -- 20 -- 14
|     X | X     |  | X    |    X | X    | -- 31 -- 15
| X     | X     |  |    X | X    | X    | --  1 -- 16
|   X   |     X |  |    X | X    |    X | -- 18 -- 17
|     X |   X   |  | X    |    X | X    | -- 35 -- 18

As you can see, this is more than just a simple screen shot. It's real data. My free software has line number groupings in specific extractions and individual columns (single section) extraction that gets cut to your computer's clipboard. This was done so that discussion could take place looking at the same data. My free software also includes automatic loading. You can share an exact same sequence of spins and it loads in less than a second. Every spin has a line number so that referencing spins is easy to communicate. It represents a lot of work to be given away for free.

[Mike]

There are a very few people who can compute the Expected Value of the complicated systems.My conclusion is the knowledge of the roulette play is very poor.

Is it necessary to be able to compute the expected value of a complicated system? apart from an academic exercise, I don't see the point. The simple negative expectation proof is enough because it applies to all systems. The only knowledge of probability you need is that the game DOES have a negative expectation.

[VKM]

I think that it's very important to be able to compute the expected value of a complicated system and at the same time be ever aware that roulette is a negative expectation game.  How else will the winning player know how much money to return to the casinos?


VKM

 

[gizmotron]

Is it necessary to be able to compute the expected value of a complicated system? apart from an academic exercise, I don't see the point. The simple negative expectation proof is enough because it applies to all systems. The only knowledge of probability you need is that the game DOES have a negative expectation.

Negative expectation is a fallacy. It's based on expectation. That expectation does not exist in a perpetual state. The zeros sleep for hours at a time. That is a well documented fact. While that happens the outside bets are a true 35/1 payoff. The EC's are true 50/50 odds. But you must check the bone density of your skull to see if any zeros have hit in any recent spins. Oh, that's right, past spins have no effect on future events. Don't be a bone head.

[gizmotron]

  How else will the winning player know how much money to return to the casinos?
VKM

That's right. I'm expected to give back my winnings.

[Mike]

Gizmo, you're reading too much into the word "expectation". The mathematical expectation is just the average ( a weighted average). So on average, you lose; that's what negative expectation means and it's determined entirely by the unfair payout. The unfair payout exists no matter how complex and convoluted the system. Am I right or am I right?  

[gizmotron]

Gizmo, you're reading too much into the word "expectation". The mathematical expectation is just the average ( a weighted average). So on average, you lose; that's what negative expectation means and it's determined entirely by the unfair payout. The unfair payout exists no matter how complex and convoluted the system. Am I right or am I right?  

You are wrong.  I'm right. Frequentist inference is no better than Bayesian inference around here. You are just being stubborn. I don't care if you can't win. I can, whenever I want to. Soon you will see that. I'll of course get tired of showing you. I can do all kinds of demos. I can bet every bet just so you will see that I can't win if I bet every bet. But when I go into a casino I hunt for when the casino is in a defenseless state. When I get that I always win. So I'll have to demo reaching my goal and quitting. I know you are so stubborn that none of this will matter. You are invested in your beliefs. Until someone with the Nobel prize comes along and bongs you on the head with it you will be a skeptic. There is no open mindedness in you.

[Mike]

You are invested in your beliefs. Until someone with the Nobel prize comes along and bongs you on the head with it you will be a skeptic. There is no open mindedness in you.

I AM open minded, but my mind isn't so open that my brain falls out. If you're a bayesian you should know that evidence is required to update beliefs, and extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

[Nathan Detroit]

Minds are  like parachutes in order to function they should be  open.


Repeated by:

N.D.

[gizmotron]

I AM open minded, but my mind isn't so open that my brain falls out. If you're a bayesian you should know that evidence is required to update beliefs, and extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

I'm working on it Beanie Boy. You know that a working computer algorithm is as good of proof as any mathematical explanation is. At least where new ideas are credited or validated that is. It's like proving that Einstein was right with a solar eclipse. I can prove my opinions with a working computer algorithm.

[Mike]

I'm working on it Beanie Boy. You know that a working computer algorithm is as good of proof as any mathematical explanation is. At least where new ideas are credited or validated that is. It's like proving that Einstein was right with a solar eclipse. I can prove my opinions with a working computer algorithm.

Agreed. I'll believe it when I see it. 

[cheese]

No matter what system you use you will need to be able to deal with losing streaks.

I don't use a system, I use a method. Systems don't work. Educated guessing is god, I but worship at the alter.

[cheese]

Here is an example of extracted data from my free training software:

One guy offers free training, another offers free software. With all the freebies around here, seems like somebody should be able to beat roulette. I don't give nuttin away for free, except instructions to the casino every time I play. But they never pay attention.

[cheese]

The simple negative expectation proof is enough because it applies to all systems. The only knowledge of probability you need is that the game DOES have a negative expectation.

To all systems, not to all methods. It has a general negative expectation at its base, which very few ever get beyond. Look at the house edge as the starting point, not the ending.

[cheese]

-