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

nice example about peoples. Unfortunally casino patterns are little bit more harder to detect successfully . Humans are quite easy actually to see their compulsive behaviours

 

Well, I guess we could also say that a Roulette wheel acts with a compulsive behaviour.

 

I have a set goal for the month and only win one unit per session.

 

Losing gamblers love an argument, and that's a fact. I have done the maths Ha Ha Ha.

 

Randomess will contain all patterns given enough trials taking the infinity view.

Information theory says that a set of random values cannot be compressed, by representing in a more efficient way because there is no redundancy to get rid of. A single unit of information is called a 'bit'.

Redundancy is by definition is wasted bits and carries no additional information. Where there is redundancy you can replace those patterns that have a non uniform frequency with a symbol and compress the data and the symbol definition to pure information bits and reduce the size doing so.

Now it is possible to look at a small set of data retrospectively and identify particular patterns that occured in that dataset and replace those with symbols such as 'A' ={1,2} 'B' = {23,7} and make it smaller. But you can't compress away the definitions of the symbols and you can't communicate that information any more efficiently without also giving the symbol table to the reciever. The number of possible symbol tables is just as large as the information you are trying to compress away.

If you have ever used a file compression like zip or pkzip or winzip you can't keep making the file smaller compressing it multiple times on maximum compression settings. This is because if you could compress repeatedly you could represent all information in the universe in a single bit.

So sure patterns exist HTHH is pattern and it will appear according to its probabilty with a fair coin toss. Is the pattern predicable, no. But randomess does have characteristics that are predictable.

An example such as the longest run in a series of coin tosses can be predicted to within 1 or 2 coin tosses be it a session of 50 or 50 trillion coin tosses. Pretty amazing to have that kind of prediction on random where the variance in the prediction is not even dependent on the number of coin tosses.

I will also note that in general random has no choice but to clump results. Rarely will any number come out on cue like a Swiss watch as that would not be random. So you can't cut a long tape with numbers 1 to 37 in cycles and start to move numbers around without resulting in clumping. Mathematically this is known as Poisson Clumping. From Wikipedia:

Poisson clumping is used to explain marked increases or decreases in the frequency of an event, such as shark attacks, "coincidences", birthdays, heads or tails from coin tosses, and e-mail correspondence.​

Some other characteristics are reversion to mean which should not be confused with gamblers fallacy.

People are more predictable than a wheel, politicians bank on this.

 

Great information. Regarding politicians banking on people being predictable, it's begining to surprise them on a daily basis how people are becoming less and less predictable these days and that's a good thing.

Let's do this and see if it holds up under math, I have determined there are only 4 possibel patterns that form in a series of play.

1. Streaks, XXX. 3 or more of the same.
2. Double, XX
3. Double Doubles XXOO
4. Alternating, XOX

The only thing that changes is the length of the 4 Patterns.
XXXXXX OOOOOO XOXOXO XXOOXXOO OXXOOOXXOOO

The interesting thing about #2 Double, it has to always be followed by a Streak of 3 or more to stand alone as a Double.
OXXOOO. If it is not followed by a Streak but only 2 opposite outcomes it is a Double Double.
OXXOOX

I have based my Strategy development on the fact there are only 4 possible patterns that can form. If you pay real close attention during a session, you will also notice which of the 4 patterns repeat the most, which they consistantly do. The reason I use the Martingale (although it is worthy of being stoned to death) is because it gives me a reasonable number chances to guess which pattern is being formed. I think the biggest problem with using the Martingale is not having a winning goal that recoups a 6-7 step failure. You cannot use the Martingale just to win a handfull of units then quit. A handfull of units here and a handful of units there will never recoup a 6-7 step loss. Money management and bankroll along with a fairly good bet selection can do pretty good. It is working for me thus far.

Question: It has been stated on this forum you cannot test a strategy on an unbiased simulator. It has to be tested in real play, for real money in a casino or online live to prove whether it works or not. Do you agree?

 

David,

The patterns are worthless. The payout on a win is always short of the probability of winning with the pattern.

 

Because the source is random the patterns you think you see only exist in your head. The human brain seeks patterns it's how we make sense of the world. So we pretend the patterns in roulette are real and we exploit them if we can. A real pattern is usually predictable and can be repeated. Nothing in roulette is predictable in the extreme short-term where we have to bet. It would be great if we could bet on the next 500 spins then you could predict all kinds of things that will happen. But not spin to spin. I can only make a guess at very certain times I can never predict. A meteorologist can predict the weather because he has actual facts on what's happening with the weather thats moving his way. He's a weather predictor not a weather guesser. You would not get very far in a career of guessing the weather.

 

Patterns are very worthwhile if you know how to exploit them. If you do not know how to read them you are correct, they're worthless. A y-shaped stick is worthless to me but I know someone who can find water with one. To him it's not worthless at all. But I totally see how patterns would be worthless to you.

 

Not yet by a long shot!

 

Pay no attention to Caleb, he has a very low opinion of things he cannot do. He assumes because he can't do it nobody can do it. Which is weird because I can't do VB but that doesn't mean I think he can't do it.

 

David,

Why should one pattern of length X be any more likely to happen than any other pattern of length X?

 

It doesn't matter, I get 7 shots to guess it correctly. Not only that, patterns of black and red continualy repeat each other until thy alternate. RRBBRRRRBB BRBRB BRR. That's all you have to know.

 

Who is Caleb?

 

He's not just Anyone, he's Snowman

 

Because other factors are involved then just that pattern. You are taking it out of context and you can't do that

 

Sputnik has a similar concept of looking at the probability of seeing singles, doubles and triples.

First, you need to cluster the outcomes into three different categories or events with the odds 1 in 3 or one third.

1) One single is one event/outcome by itself.
2) Series of two is one event/outcome by itself.
3) Series of three or higher is one event/outcome by itself.

Note that series of three or higher is treated as one and same outcome/event.

Now the bias can only come in three different waves.

a) Singles and series of two
b) Singles and series of three or higher
c) Series of two and series of three or higher

Now if you treat each sequence or wave as one section and separate them from the others you will get two events/outcomes strike from three to five to ten two twenty times in a row.
If not you will get a triplet and that is one single and one series of two and one series of three or higher in any combination​

I believe his conclusion was that it reduced variance. You could cover quite a number of winning combinations vs 1 losing one with just 2 bets.

You may want to look into Penneys Game of transitive probabilities. It is a bit like rock paper scissors. One player chooses a sequence and the second player can always select a sequence that wins before the other players sequence. Pretty interesting for analysing your bet selection pattern and what beats it vs what it beats.

I test using my own methods and reliable entropy source. I don't use PRNG due to the statistical flaws (Google diehard tests and dieharder tests).

RNGs (known as psuedo random number generators PRNGs) simply don't have sufficient internal state to shuffle a single deck of cards in an equiprobable manner. They can only achieve first order equiprobability but it is faked as they can't both do that and pass collision tests and they fail on second order equiprobability, like pairs of outcomes, as well as other flaws like binary rank tests, parity (even vs odd) and suffer from internal zero state where output quality tanks for thousands of outputs.

 

I meant to say non-transitive probability because there is no best choice, just like rock paper scissors.

Consider a sequence of 3 even chance events where 1 and 0 could be heads/tails, red/black, odd/even, high/low, Player/Banker, lose/win/lose.

The intransitive victory graph looks like this.



Some patterns are better than others but every pattern has a nemises which is more likely to occur before it does.

Penneys Game is one of those surprising things that seems paradoxical for a random outcome that is supposed to be fair.

 

https://www.gamblingforums.com/threads/how-to-visually-detect-biased-roulette-wheels.5884/