Roulette Ask Me Anything About Betting the EC's (Even Chances)

Well, at least he is half way there. Now if he would just accept yes as the answer.

My experience is that his illusion must be supported by his belief in a claim of predictability. He will not be able to get past his own blinders.

This is a perfect example of the mathBoyz to the mathZombies and the past 20 years. It's always the very same claim.

 

He is a naive harmless cat . No code breaker .

 

So you're saying it's not random. Don't call it random then.

 

Of course it's random, it's just that there are different grades of random. Computers are so bad at it they can only produce pseudo-random. If you want true random go to random.org where they get their results from analyzing radio noise in the outer atmosphere. If I choose numbers 1 through 38 on random.org the outcomes look remarkably different than they do from a roulette wheel. I'm sure you could not tell the difference because you don't know how to read random. But for me the differences are glaring. For one thing certain things last longer in random from a roulette wheel then they do with true random. There's a lot more to exploit.

 

Never wise up a chump.

 

No random means unpredictable and has no patterns or redundancy. Anything else is by definition not random.

If I kept calling a Prius a Ferrari, you might start to understand how stupid it sounds, but even a Prius is much closer to a Ferrari in form and function than non-random is to random.

We have things called psuedo-random as a particular definition for something that looks random and can pass some statistical tests but is generated from a definite mathematical procedure such as a PRNG.

If you want say there is a discernable signal in the noise, then say that, but don't keep calling it "random" and misusing the term that has a well established meaning.

I still don't support the claim that there is a discernable signal in the noise of the roulette results that can be extracted and exploited and used to predict outcomes within a session. But if you're not calling it random then might understand better what you're actually trying to do which extract a signal from noise. Again I don't believe that is fact what you're doing, it's more reading tea-leaves and patterns in clouds.

I do however believe that statistical characteristics of probability distributions themselves that offer some avenues to explore and provide practical limits for developing systems that can improve ones chances of winning, by how, when and what we bet.

 

Whilst it's ok for many things there are applications of random where that is insufficient to avoid systemic bias.

 

Next: Lessons in bull shipping and bull droppings . LOL

 

That's how I would characterise your pithy little remarks. Have you ever added value here?

I've not seen a single post that provides a single bit of information. You may need to refer to Shannon to understand what a bit of information is.

 

Do your own research instead of looking for free information and keeping you entertained .


No to you system vultures . YOI seem to know ALL the answers .

 

Roulette is random, it's just a lower grade of random. And I don't predict anything, I read the random outcomes and decide what would be the thing to bet on. I make an educated guess I do not make a prediction. A prediction would mean I can somehow foretell the future and I cannot do that. And I agree there are no patterns, I make up the patterns then I exploit the patterns I make up. The human brain evolved to see patterns in everything, whether a pattern is really there or not. It's what makes us different from the animals, pattern recognition. I learned over a long period and it was confirmed here by others, there are people who can't see patterns at all. I see BBRBBRBBRBBR as a pattern and I've met people who can't see it even when I point it out to them and explain it. Some people are just better at pattern recognition than others. That's true for so many things. Look at Annie Oakley, she was a natural shootist. Her brain was wired just right for extending her arm with a gun in it and hitting anything she aimed at. Just because I can't do it doesn't mean I can accuse her of not doing it. Just because you can't read random doesn't mean it's not possible

 

In that you would be in full agreement with what is excepted as the actual truth about the nature of randomness from the standpoint of what is known in the mathematics world. You believe it and I believe it. There is no way to predict the future outcomes from any imagined or unreal and non existing signal in the noise of any Roulette outcomes. To be clear as a bell there is no way to predict what will happen. Got it yet? I agree with your assumption that nobody can predict the future based on past spin results.

But that is not what reading randomness is about. It never has been. I like you ignorant. You are like a monkey on a chain that collects coins for an organ grinder. That makes you an over fed and annoying flee bag. Now that's not mathematical but figuratively it projects purpose.

You don't need to read it because you don't have to in order to know what it is. That did not work very well for you now did it?

 

I do however believe that statistical characteristics of probability distributions themselves that offer some avenues to explore and provide practical limits for developing systems that can improve ones chances of winning, by how, when and what we bet.-TwoUp

Trying to find those characteristics could take a lifetime.

 

If you believe random has hidden secrets that you can exploit you should be applying your magical method to cracking cryptography and every cryptocurrency in existence and mint your own money out of thin air. It's all based on cold hard random.

The biggest puzzle is why are not published yet with your theories, proofs and experimental evidence? You would shock the scientific world and open doors to better understanding the quantum nature of reality and uncertainty with your insights into reading the randomness, diviner of the hidden messages.

As your flea bitten monkey, dancing tirelessly for tips I beg you to publish oh master organ grinder, for rivers of gold await!

 

Yes true, many lifetimes. Thats why I stand on the shoulders of giants and read the published works of those who have advanced the collective knowledge of humanity.

I don't pay attention to jizzatrons.

 

I know you say you don't predict anything, but your guessing is making a prediction.

It is not predicting if you have decided you want to capture or filter certain patterns a-priori and bet on that, FLD, OLD, DBL, your birthday whatever. When you decide to change the pattern or filter after some losses or triggers and pick another filter or pattern to bet on that is a form of prediction as you're expecting a different result by changing.

Understanding why you're doing something and that you have an expectation by doing it is actually making a prediction.

It then is a matter of what you're basing the prediction/decision/choice/guess on. Does it have a mathematical basis of truth such as statistical characteristics or is it based on fallacy or reading tea leaves?

There are many on here who would say reversion to the mean is fallacy, when it is not, but many misunderstand what mean reversion actually is, so in some cases it will be misapplied in a fallaciois way and in other applications it is most definitely not. One is teas leaves and one is mathematical truth.

 

No secrets it's right there in front of you in full view if you know how to look for it. 99.9% of people won't bother to even look. Publish what, learn how to read the outcomes and make educated guesses as to what comes next. And no, a guess is not a prediction. Predictions use evidence, there is no evidence in the outcomes of roulette pointing to the next outcome. Each outcome is an independent event it has nothing to do with the last event it has nothing to do with the next event. All you can do is guess based on experience and observation.

 

Nope. For instance when a meteorologist predicts the weather he uses evidence that he's gathered and compares that to evidence gathered in the past and outcomes that happened in the past. He doesn't use that information to make a guess, he makes a prediction based on evidence. There is no evidence in roulette. If you see 5 reds in a row and bet black every time you will be wrong half the time. You have to look at everything as a whole, and this takes a lot of time and experience. You have to be aware of what it's done in the recent past and make an educated guess as to will it continue to do that. Random outcomes are very fluid and as soon as you try to slap rules on them you will lose. There is always something going on in every group of past outcomes you just have to figure out what that is. I have a very specific game I play and if these outcomes are not playing my game I don't bet.

 

Agree that random outcomes cannot be predicted.

Statistical characteristics however, are very predictable and some have extremely low variance that is independent of the sample size. This is what looking at things as a whole actually means.

Ok so as per my last comment it sounds like you have an a-priori patterns/filters/triggers and betting plan based on some statistical analysis/observations that you believe/validated provides more wins than losses.

That said I am still seeing some wavering about educated guessing in your approach, using the recent past which is another way of saying prediction. However it is not necessarily fallacious depending on how you're actually doing it.

Mean reversion is very reasonable to expect average or mixed results after an outlier (note that I AM NOT saying an opposite outcome to 'even it up') and this is 80-90% predicable after say any four in a row event.

1000 EC events:


Another 1000 events


Streaks of 4 or more are highlighted and 80-90% of results immediately after a 4iar are mixed. This is an example of reversion to the mean as it is simply more probable that a set of mixed results within 1 standard deviation will follow an outlier than to witness another outlier.

 

LOL Don't you just love watching a mathZombie guess. Someone tells him right to his face and it goes right by him.