Roulette I've seen a new absurd claim that the gambler's fallacy isn't.....

There methods to lose less and win more . They are part within the art of winning .

 

lose less when we lose, and win more when we win.

 

So you're saying the variance in a session can't beat the house edge?

Are you saying everyone who plays, loses to the house edge EXACTLY?

Are you saying the profits casino report are exactly the house edge?

Even with a perfect 50/50 bet with no house edge, without a plan most bettors will lose due to the variance. That's why I use math to understand my worst case scenarios to a degree of confidence and build around that. It will never be absolutely fail safe but a plan can be good enough to make profitable sessions and double bankrolls, where you are planning for the inevitable event because the math tells you it is going to happen.

Well that's plain wrong. You're saying there's no value in risk management or money management as those things don't apply to gambling. Ok I don't need to argue with your nonsense anymore.

 

Yes I got the method down pat. No gimmicks . Never even reached the loss limit .

A very uncomplicated MO.

 

Winning info not on forums .

 

I don't know who this is, but I like this guy already.
Prepare to have sword, knives and daggers thrown at you from all directions for saying such heresy !!!
Don't worry, their weapons are dull much like their imagination and ability to think outside the box.

 

The Only way to win according to Sir Anyone is Bias wheels with some defect - and the guy at the other forum likes concealed computers that predict the spin outcome. Anything else is rubbish, no matter how much you prove or explain it.
It's quite a waste of time going up against those kinds of people because they refuse to see past 1 spin.
"There are 38 numbers and there is a payout of 35 to 1 so there's no way to win" is their mantra and they refuse to see
otherwise. Strange though that their "Advantage Play" requires tons of past spins and collections of data to even
get to the point of placing a bet with confidence. But if the wheel isn't defective, then past spins and data mean
nothing ? If I see an event that happens 99% of the time and I bet on it, then I'm the foolish one (the point of
this thread). And they fall back on "Anything can happen"....Well, "random has limits".

 

Although this is true its not easy task to understand the math of prediction - it's beyond those who lack education. What's more true is there's no mention on any gambling forum for guidance about this math and how to apply it effectively.

 

This is true. That's why Casinos betting with house edge regularly encounter temporary losses due to negative variance. The extent of this negative variance is inversely proportional to the edge - the larger the edge the smaller the variance vv. And this limit can be calculated.

 

One simple way to know if your systems bet has a positive edge or not is to observe the limit of your negative variance, ie. peak at high water mark to trough drawdown. If the limit of variance is large then your systems bet has no edge, which is true in most cases.

 

Trans, TwoUp said that if he saw 150 spins with only 20 occurrences then he would start betting.
Isn't that using past spins to predict future spins?
And the bit about arguing with a professor is silly. None would tell you that maths can help you win.
We can say that the next 37 spins are more likely to contain 12 repeats than 0 repeats. But once we predict a sequence of numbers, it is just as likely to occur as any other.

 

No it's not about predicting future spins it is about probability distributions (counting outcomes), they form a bell curve, with very very long tails on the left and right. The binomial ("bi" meaning two possibilities) distribution calculation tells you how confident you can be to see a certain number of events in an overall set of outcomes based on the probability of that particular event.

So how it works is the larger the number of trials the more certain you can be that you will see what the inherent probability predicts. Take a coin flip, it's 50/50 even chance. If you flip it five times how certain can you be that you always see at least one tail? I can tell you it's not hard to flip a coin five times and get all heads so the certainty of ALWAYS seeing at least 1 tail showing is relatively low. What if you flip it a hundred times, what about a million? Well it's LESS LIKELY for heads to keep winning every toss and we expect to see some tails in 100 events with a degree of certainty, and for a million events the variance will be narrower and much closer to probability expectations of 50/50. But how many and how certain can you be for just 100 events in seeing at least five tails? That's what a binomial distribution calculation can provide an answer for.

So based on the probability of a European roulette wheel I can say with 999,999,999 to 1 confidence that I will witness AT LEAST 60 even chance outcomes (reds/blacks, odds/evens or high/low) in 210 spins and only be wrong 1 in a billion times. I'm not "predicting" anything, it's inherent in the probability of the event that it cannot exceed that 60 in 210 event range except in a rare 1 in a billion event. There is no fallacy here.

So whilst 1 in a billion is not a 100% guarantee it is close enough to one, as very few things in life have that level of confidence. As I've said before the death rate in western countries is 1 in 120-150 or just 2 9's of confidence which puts the above "nine 9's guarantee" in perspective. Nuclear power plants and helicopters whilst engineered to high standards have much less guarantees.

 

Nope. Applying statistical facts (= a known distribution) isn't predicting because something *might* happen with a high probability. Or not at all. And I agree with you - nobody can predict numbers. Or even colors as in ECs. Except for Mr. Turbo maybe but predicting something for sometime (what he does) is like stating that it will rain sometime in the next month. It won't tell me whether to take an umbrella tomorrow. Or on Sunday.

Whether mathematics can help you to win? I do not know. I haven't found a way yet. And I think nobody did. There would be a scientific publication somewhere. I found just one which deals very vaguely with Markov Chains but without a clear answer.

 

The question is how to take advantage of this statistical limit in the game.
Thanks.

 

Well as per one of my previous replies you can try to design a staking plan around those limits as the worst case. You can tune the certainty vs bankroll requirements based on whatever staking plan you use.

You could play 3 EC's looking to exploit situations that arise given the worst case limits,

Perhaps one could calculate a chart of the expected number of EC outcomes vs certainty for 20 events, 30 events, 40 events 50, 60 .. 210 events. Similarly a chart could be done for dozens. Look to exploit imbalance within the limits of confidence the math provides.

At the very least, understanding the worst case expectations with mathematical precision for a staking plan whether flat or progression is never a bad thing. It's actually quite sobering as you will see that most methods are very fragile, have extreme bankroll requirements or are doomed to fail quite easily. Very soon you will start to develop the means for evaluating the merits of different methods.

 

In the long run, try as you might, you can NOT win more or lose more than the house edge. The longer you play, the closer you will get to this realized percentage. I'm not talking about a short session where swings of (variance) luck briefly rule. In the long term, the double edge sword that is variance (luck) evens out and the house edge dominates.-FACT

Money management can NOT even make dent in the house edge. It's silly and foolish to suggest otherwise.

Everyone should have learned money management back when they were a teenager. Everything that needs to be said about it can be put into a paragraph or less. Money management is what hucksters sell in foolish gambling books, and forex trading systems since they don't know how to actually get the edge.

 

Never say "die." Snowman is recruiting again.

 

You're the one saying that. What I eat for breakfast doesn't effect the house edge either.

I'm suggesting it's prudent to manage risk to variance in a session. But you say that's foolish. I guess you don't have reserve bankrolls so this never occurred to you.

Do you risk your entire bankroll as modest as yours must be every session? Why not just bet it all on the next decision, again it's not like your bankroll would exceed the table limit. You can reduce the house edge you're obsessing over that way to it's mathematical minimum on an even chance bet because house edge is the only thing that matters right?

Risk management makes no difference you say, you simply take everything that you have managed to scratch together for your next casino visit and risk it all on one decision. The one true way risk and money management free zone.

Seriously you act like no one knows how to win. We understand the effect of house edge, some understand it more than others. Is this a new concept to you that you feel you have to preach after your lifetime of grinding away losing before finding "your one true way"?

I'm not selling anything, I don't need to. I don't read gambling books so I can't comment on their content or what they may preach. I have traded, stocks options and futures but never in an unregulated Forex casino exchange. Not everyone is foolish but you're showing the hallmarks of a fool so I could be forgiven for thinking you may be one.

So what you selling huh? "Your one true way"?

 

That's absurd. More of the gambler's fallacy. Money management can't turn a negative expectation game into a positive one in the long run.

-Sorry, just the facts.

 

Random betselection with no edge has a negative expectation. That's what you're harping from post #1.

What you chose to ignore due to ignorance is whether there are systems betselection played flatbet that has positive edge. The answer is yes. And there are plenty of ways to do this, some better than others.