What do you think about WAKERS?

[admin]

Hey john,  

What do you think about the waker methodology?

Interesting to know your thoughts about it, since to me waker seem smarter than sleepers!

[john_solitude]

Hey Victor,

Basically as I see it, roulette players are divided in two types of players,
that is playing 'sleepers' or playing 'wakers'.

Below the surface of these opposite strategies,
there is mostly some kind of expectation going on:

PLAYING WAKERS

A statement that is often heard by the 'waking' players, is the concern about bias (I've gone into this possibility in another thread nolinks://vlsroulette.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1199643503 ).

The 'waking' roulette players do have the argument IF (and only IF) a wheel would be biased,
playing sleeping numbers that do not appear on a serious amount of trials, is the worst thing one could do: on a biased wheel some sectors or numbers would just keep coming up at a higher rate than mathematically expected.

So people who tend to believe there is a bias (even without having collected a large sample of outcomes BEFORE one could statistically validly make such a statement) will tend to play the numbers which appear or start appearing.

Also an argument that is often heard by the 'waking' people is that a man made device can never be 100 % perfect. The question is rather concerning today's high standards for gaming equipment:

Is a wheel imperfect enough to make a profit playing only the numbers that appear regularly or start appearing? One may not forget that a very slight bias is not enough, it should be sufficient enough to overcome the house-edge otherwise one would play a zero result game (one would neither win or loose in the long term).

I tend, based on the large amount of money that casino's invest in security these days, state that in a far majority of the cases casino's would not leave a wheel in operation that could undermine the profit of the casino (unless there is an inside forge going on: for instance inside staff who tries to undermine the technical standards of the game to make a profit with their accomplices).

There is another statement which is often heard by the 'waking' players:
the law of the thirds. However, this phenomenon does not tell a player which numbers will appear above or below the expected average. So, applying this law may seam that a player makes a profit, because his pick of numbers comes up more than expected, but on other sessions this will not be the case.

Also, playing numbers that appear or start appearing has another downside: one will simply play more spins, because there will always be numbers to play that have started appearing.


PLAYING SLEEPERS

Underlying is the expectation that in the long term the result of a game of equal chances will be around the average. However, I hurry to add: what is mostly underestimated is the amount of trials (spins) that this can take AND the wheel itself has no memory.

The only reason why I favor playing sleepers above wakers, if people ask me, is because one would play less spins (invest less money). Waiting for a certain remote event to happen and collecting a sample takes time, and if one has the patience to wait for this remote event, one will not be playing, but only be keeping track of the outcomes. Then, one can only hope, if one decided to engage, that on the spins one invests his money, one of the 'sleeping' numbers comes up.

Playing as less spins as possible on a negative expectancy game (which simply means the odds are against the player for making a profit in the long run), is also an argument for the 'sleeping' players: one will not play, only collect a sample, and then on a certain predetermined entry-point go for an all-or-nothing shot, hoping a number or sector which did not appear for a long amount of time comes up on the trials you will be playing.

[john_solitude]

-