Popular pages:

Roulette System

The Roulette Systems That Really Work

Roulette Computers

Hidden Electronics That Predict Spins

Roulette Strategy

Why Roulette Betting Strategies Lose

Roulette System

The Honest Live Online Roulette Casinos

Randomness versus unpredictability

Started by VLSroulette, April 25, 2009, 02:38:57 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

VLSroulette

Randomness is an objective property. Nevertheless, what appears random to one observer may not appear random to another observer. Consider two observers of a sequence of bits, only one of whom has the cryptographic key needed to turn the sequence of bits into a readable message. The message is not random, but is unpredictable for one of the observers. One of the intriguing aspects of random processes is that it is hard to know whether the process is truly random. The observer can always suspect that there is some "key" that unlocks the message. This is one of the foundations of superstition and is also what is a driving motive, curiosity, for discovery in science and mathematics.

Under the cosmological hypothesis of determinism there is no randomness in the universe, only unpredictability, since there is only one possible outcome to all events in the universe. No event under determinism can be defined as having probability since again there is only one universal outcome.

Some mathematically defined sequences, such as the decimals of pi, exhibit some of the same characteristics as random sequences, but because they are generated by a describable mechanism they are called pseudorandom. To an observer who does not know the mechanism, a pseudorandom sequence is unpredictable.
Chaotic systems are unpredictable in practice due to their extreme dependence on initial conditions. Whether or not they are unpredictable in terms of computability theory is a subject of current research. At least in some disciplines of computability theory the notion of randomness turns out to be identified with computational unpredictability.

Randomness of a phenomenon is not itself 'random'. It can often be precisely characterized, usually in terms of probability or expected value. For instance quantum mechanics allows a very precise calculation of the half-lives of atoms even though the process of atomic decay is a random one. More simply, though we cannot predict the outcome of a single toss of a fair coin, we can characterize its general behavior by saying that if a large number of tosses are made, roughly half of them will show up "Heads". Ohm's law and the kinetic theory of gases are precise characterizations of macroscopic phenomena which are random on the microscopic level.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random




What is your opinion on Randomness versus Unpredictability guys? Hopefully we can start debating this interesting aspect here.

Regards.
Victor

VLSroulette

Quote from: Gizmotron on April 25, 2009, 03:13:47 PM
Let's try not to solve the wonders of the universe.

I agree. The focus of this study group then should be narrowed on how to exploit the nature of randomness AT THE ROULETTE TABLE :thumbsup:

Thanks for your reply my friend.
Victor

Spike

you have already done that with this supernatural gift you have.>>

Its neither a gift nor is it supernatural. Its the result of investigation and hard work.

potatochips

QuotePattern recognition is the research area that studies the operation and design of systems that recognize patterns in data.

What I find strange is when you ask an expert in one of these research areas if we could use their techniques to beat a medium such as roulette they all answer the same thing: No we can't use our techniques to get an edge in game of chance whose outcome is strongly influenced by some randomizing device.  You seem to imply the opposite, how do you explain this?

Mr Chips

Let's say after 111 spins ( 3x37) number 6 is a sleeper. Not only is it a sleeper, but it is the last number to come in, as all the other numbers
have appeared at least once. Are the other numbers affected in any way because 6 is a sleeper. Of course we are told that all numbers are
independent of each other and there is no connection whatsoever.
 
I have always been interested in sets and it is a fact that on many occasions, certain sets will take the lead. The finals 4, 14, 24, 34 could
well come in more often than the other finals, for a certain number of spins.
 
If we take the 6 sleeper will this in any way affect the numbers in the other sets? We all are aware of hot numbers, but the assumption is
they are just random numbers and any number could repeat 3, 4, 7, 10 times in 111 spins. There is also the opinion they are previous sleepers
that have just woken up and are now hot numbers.
 
The 6 sleeper belongs to three particular sets, Finals 6, 16, 26, 36, also digit sum 6, 15, 24, 33 and lastly clock sets 6, 14, 24, 30.
 
So the fact that 6 is a sleeper, how will it effect the three sets that 6 belongs to. Is it likely that one of those sets will go in the lead.
Well yes it could, as for example 24 is showing in two of the sets and so the 4 finals mentioned above which are active could they be
affected by sleeper 6?
 
As mentioned in the first post " The message is not random, but is unpredictable for one of the observers". Therefore in the sleeper 6 example
is it possible to evaluate the various sets in relation to sleeper 6. It would become very complex to also consider the other numbers in the sets,
which also belong to other sets:
 
7, 16, 25, 34
8, 17, 26, 35
9, 18, 27, 36

4, 14, 24, 34
3, 12, 21, 30
0, 10, 20, 30
 
It would certainly be interesting to take a sleeper and see how the various numbers and sets relate to each other if at all, or just unpredictable
to most observers.
 
Mr Chips

potatochips

QuoteI have continually tried to tell people that I check to see if it's working as I go along

I thought that all players whether experiemented or not were doing this. They all check to see if their method works as they go along who would not?

potatochips

QuoteTherefore in the sleeper 6 example is it possible to evaluate the various sets in relation to sleeper 6

When you evaluate all this in your head there is no problem but when you begin to play then the problems occur.

Mr Chips

Gizmo,
 
I briefly did go down that path some years ago looking at hot numbers after they had slept and I know several people have explored it,
with various degrees of success. I came to the conclusion that it lacked the link with the other numbers, which sets produce.
 
When you have the sets off pat it gradually builds up a picture in your mind. If say 24 has come in for the 3rd time and is the 2nd number
to have appeared three times the links go through your mind that the other number was 30. You wouldn't of course associate the two
numbers, but they are part of clock set 6,14,24,30. So two numbers in the set are 'active'. That get's you thinking about 6 and 14 in the
set. Say they haven't come in yet then you check out the other sets associated with 6 and 14. Both 14 and 24 are in this set and so far
in the finals 4,14,24,34 only 24 has come in. It could be two or more numbers ending in 4 could be sleepers.
 
As more and more numbers come in, the links with the sets get stronger and you can reach a point where it seems obvious, where to place the
chips. It requires intense concentration, but there is a great deal of satisfaction when the selection proves to be correct.
 
Regards
 
Mr Chips

Spike

You're bottle feeding me nonsense>>

Algebra looks like nonsense to a 4th grader. You have to go thru the steps leading up to it to understand it. And its not for everybody. I tried it explaining a little to a girl in a casino once and she was sure I was correct but liked her method better, which was losing 2 out of 3 EC bets. Each to his own..

Spike

Gamblers by their very nature are usually very lazy people. Thats why they gamble, they think its a shortcut to getting rich. When you tell them work is involved, LOTS of work, they rebel against it. They tell you you're full of crap because they just know the Grail will be accidentally stumbled on and it will be so easy that anybody can use it. For them, hope, like ignorance, springs eternal..

johhnyg

Gizmotron, I just want to say thanks for making the effort to explain your thoughts regarding randomness. I think spike and your good self should be cut some slack here. This is where all mechanical systems fall down. The nature of randomness needs to be understood to some degree to move forward and discover ways to stop hitting the brick wall so to speak. It does require a lot of thought and it takes time. Unfortunately we are in a society where most people want everything now (the "quick fix") I agree with gizmotron who said either here or somewhere else that to most people it would be like talking a foreign language when trying to explain these concepts. That is not to put anyone down but nobody becomes an A grade french student overnight and the same applies here. This is not a case of If A comes then do B. It could be a case of if A comes then do C. Or forget all about A and look what D is doing. When you look at enough charts showing you a line going straight down then you start to say "hold on a minute, then the opposite would be straight up" But are you clever enough to understand what is going on and how to adapt to it. If you are stuck following some rigid gameplan then you are going down with the ship.

VLSroulette

There is a large bunch of readers here who would love to know what Mark/Gizmo has to say regarding randomness. I for sure am included. Let's say this is a matter of believing, of "seeing things" which may or may not be real physically, yet by perception they are there for the observer.

If you use those perceptions (not neccesarily realities) to make money -real money- at the casino, who would complain about them not existing for a mathematician?

Guys, worst thing which can come from this is for people to continue playing exactly at the house edge rate of -2.7%, so there's nothing to "lose", everyone who plays at the house will continue to do shall they never find any application to what mark is trying to point us here!

Hence, let's allow mark to explain what he considers with us, not the exact methodology he is using, but at least to lead towards the right path.

We have a whole hardrive so there aren't web space constrains, we can host ALL gizmo wants to say and I'm sure others will follow the reading and make benefit, if not to beat the casinos, there is the benefit of increasing awareness and understanding regarding the nature of randomness, the point of this study group.

Let's allow the man to expose in peace.
Victor

bombus

Quote from: VLSroulette on April 26, 2009, 10:06:24 AM
There is a large bunch of readers here who would love to know what Mark/Gizmo has to say regarding randomness. I for sure am included. Let's say this is a matter of believing, of "seeing things" which may or may not be real physically, yet by perception they are there for the observer.

If you use those perceptions (not neccesarily realities) to make money -real money- at the casino, who would complain about them not existing for a mathematician?

Guys, worst thing which can come from this is for people to continue playing exactly at the house edge rate of -2.7%, so there's nothing to "lose", everyone who plays at the house will continue to do shall they never find any application to what mark is trying to point us here!

Hence, let's allow mark to explain what he considers with us, not the exact methodology he is using, but at least to lead towards the right path.

We have a whole hardrive so there aren't web space constrains, we can host ALL gizmo wants to say and I'm sure others will follow the reading and make benefit, if not to beat the casinos, there is the benefit of increasing awareness and understanding regarding the nature of randomness, the point of this study group.

Let's allow the man to expose in peace.
Victor

I agree in principle with this post. However I don't think this study group should be a winwithmath type situation where it's all up to one person to spoon feed the throngs. It should be interactive between members. It is about understanding the nature of randomness, so we should all be able to toss it up.

Many people won't agree, and there will be calls of, "off with his head", but I believe this study group and the numeronomy study group are two wings on the same bird.
Both schools attempt to identify periods of harmony within the random turmoil of these few 37/38 numbers by using presently unconventional and peripheral techniques.

In fact all schools of roulette thought should be given credence in this forum. Well except maybe AP, 'cause those guys just gave up and said, "oh well we can't beat roulette so let's just figure out ways to cheat"..... only joking guys, keep up the good work.

Spike

You are both good guessers and nothing else.>>

Do you know how ridiculous that is? There's no such thing as a 'good guesser', either you know something or you don't. If you consistantly guess better than 50% of the time, obviously you have an edge and writing it off to 'good guessing' is preposterous.

gizmotron

Quote from: bombus on April 26, 2009, 07:55:01 PM
I agree in principle with this post. However I don't think this study group should be a winwithmath type situation where it's all up to one person to spoon feed the throngs. It should be interactive between members. It is about understanding the nature of randomness, so we should all be able to toss it up.

I'm not controlling anything. I can only delete my own posts, just like you. Post what you want.

gizmotron

-