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

At first I was only doing 55 to 60% rate which really stinks because you lose a lot. You win in the end but that might not be that day it might be your next Casino visit or the visit after that. I just kept practicing and playing and after a couple years I got my hit rate up to over 70% and that still is not bulletproof for short sessions. It wasn't until I got to 80% that I'm guaranteed a win in every short session. I have said many times I am not a gambler and was not a gambler before I discovered roulette. I detest casinos I want to spend as little time in them as possible. Now I play only online and I want to spend as little time doing that as possible. To say it was a lot of work is an understatement but it was worth it. If you're on the right track you only get better and better.

 

It must be catching because I somehow have deluded the casino into thinking that I win every session and they pay me for every session. LOL

 

It doesn't annoy me, I just think it's odd that you would want something so gay as your avatar. I have my cats as my avatar cuz everybody loves cats.

 

^ 5

 

This is some analysis of reversion to mean..

After any outlier say a streak of 4iar+ the expectation is that a return to normal mixed results is most probable. That is what reversion to mean is about.

Don't confuse this with doing the opposite to make up for the streak which would be gamblers fallacy. Streaks on streaks would still be an outlier and back to back outliers are always less probable than a mixed bag.

Below is 1000 coin flips with the streaks of 4iar+ highlighted. The mixed results in the next 4 outcomes that follow after a streak of 4 or more is around 80-90% certain as back to back outliers don't occur as frequently.

There are about 63 streaks of 4iar+ and only 5 are back to back. So 5/63 is 8% which means 92% of the next 4 results after a streak is mixed.



If you want to test for yourself checkout this:

https://tantaman.com/2021-01-26-regression-mean-vs-gambler/
​

A great explanatuon and you can refresh the page as many times as you like to generate new results.

 

We got them coming or going. The experience of confusion agents at its best.

 

TwoUp, do you understand what I have attached. If you do, could you explain it in simple 6th grade language?

 

I tried to sign up but the registration is broken and doesn't send out confirmation emails.

So no correspondence is possible.

It's a shame this forum treats everyone like a child with no personal message rights unless you post hundreds of messages, and spruik the website and get others to signup.

 

I have seen the Van Der warden stuff before, but I didn't see anything of practical use there as it was always 50/50.

VDW is based on arithmetic progressions that a maximum of 9 outcomes/spins on an EC the results will always form an arithmetic progression (same gap between the results) with 3 outcomes being the same.

Arithmetic progressions that are possible for up to 9 spins:

Spin 3 = 123 (XXX or OOO)
Spin 4 = 234 (*XXX or *OOO)
Spin 5 = 345, 135 (**XXX or **OOO, X*X*X or O*O*O)
Spin 6 = 456, 246 (***XXX or ***OOO, *X*X*X or *O*O*O)
Spin 7 = 567, 357, 147 (etc...)
Spin 8 = 678, 468, 258
Spin 9 = 789, 579, 369, 159

Of course you can get to spin 9 and still miss.

 

I believe the reversion to mean probabilities is why my strategy does well. What you presented here makes more sense then the other theories I have looked at. The probabilities work in the same way my bet selection takes place. After a streak of 3 or more, the probability of mixed results takeing place is high. I bet accordingly after a streak, it's either going to do Doubles or it's going to Alternate. Back to back streaks, I am always betting on the right side. After two of the same XX, I bet X. If the streak continues longer, I am still betting X. XXXXXX. If a back to back streak takes place XXXXXXO, I bet O. XXXXXXOOOOO. Once the streak ceases, it's going to create either Doubles or it's going to Alternate in keeping with the reversion to mean probabilities.

The chart you presented above, I bet my strategy with it. It didn't matter that I could see the next results, I kept to my rules because I was interested in the true results. I won 67 units in 92 outcomes. The highest Marty step I doubled to was 5. There is absolutely something to the way the reversion to mean probabilities work in my favor.

 

Thanks for your input. Reversion to Mean probabilities, now that's what I have been searching for.

 

There's an enormous void. It's the utter lack of comprehension of what is really taking place with regression to the mean and basic probability among most forum members. Most forum members are simply confined and trapped by the gambler's fallacy.

Regression to the mean is NOT something that can be exploited. Numbers are never due to catch back up if they've underperformed, they're merely expected to hit near expectation on future spins.

 

Just don't fall into the trap of thinking outliers predict compensatory behaviour.

The expection is that we should always expect the average, the outlier never changes that expectation.

Imagine we want to toss a coin 200 times, we expect roughly 100 heads and 100 tails.

Let's say the first 100 tosses all came up heads, a significant outlier. So 100% heads and 0 % tails.

So what do we expect for the next 100 tosses?

The extreme outlier doesn't mean anything for the next 100 coin tosses. We would again expect the average of 50 heads and 50 tails and a final distribution of 150 heads and 50 tails.

When expressed as a percentage the final ratio is 75% heads and 25% tails. As we see the ratio has regressed closer to the mean without expecting anything other than the average 50/50 expectation.

What is interesting is that the law of large numbers is often understood as a fallacy

What happens is not even results over time.

The absolute counts of events DIVERGES over time, it is the average/ratio that converges not the actual counts. The larger the number of events the "errors" and "indescretions" in the results gets washed out as fractions of a decimal point.

 

Thanks for this TwoUp, it will be interesting to take a look at it.

 

Wrong. Whatever your guess is, the probability of it being right or wrong can be calculated.

 

But no higher than when the prior results are NOT a streak. That's what TwoUp and the Doc are warning against. This is a very stubborn and common cognitive bias which we all succumb to at times (thinking that there is a connection between independent events). We notice that long streaks are uncommon, so by definition they are mostly followed by mixed results. It seems almost natural to infer that by waiting for long streaks and betting against them we will have gained an advantage. As TwoUp says, the expectation in constant, and mixed results are always more likely than a streak. Mixed results occur just as often after mixed results as after streaks, but you don't notice that because the streaks stand out, so you make the unwarranted connection. As long as you understand this, there's no harm in waiting for streaks before betting, but there's no point in it either, and the danger is that you might be tempted to bet heavily, believing that the odds of a win have increased. They haven't.

 

@TwoUp how would Conway apply to ds district?

One thing that is for sure is that in the first two spins of the 'repeat cycle' type, betting on its defining element poses a small, but not winning statistical advantage.

Although to my current comprehension, Conway's methodology works with having initial values already ready .. outcomes out ..... & would be potentially applied to that in a complemental way, or completely without by tracing a few more outcomes back applied.

So, to the question on the top ..

 

I know you don't give shit & rightly so..

.

.. but since you play online casinos, its available -- just screenshot & post your deposit/withdrawals
.. or even better, in some casinos is available a bet by bet list (wL registry basically, with units)

& post that .. that will shut somes' mouths right on the get-go,
as the scientific mind tends to go by the evidence.

 

I need clarification but better to put the topic in a new thread, I think.

 

Yeah, but don't you get it ..

when going by boat, especially sailing .. there's the weather that you supposedly can't influence, a factor out of control -- but sure as hell you are able to conceive the fact .. that there are days that 'are playing your game' & others with too strong windy & stormy days & conditions 'that do not'.

But for that to perceive ., you gotta intimately know 'your game' .. all its ins & outs .. to know firstly, what the weather in this case is ., & secondly, what the weather IS -- & very important !! .. not what's gonna be -- as that's what you are betting for .. the continuation of what is, what's happening, not ..

Plus, with the experience amassed, you can have 'a few games' as the cards in your hand --
givong you variety, to interject the 'waiting time'.

.

I am siding neither with the so-called RR bunch nor the math bunch, I am beyond that --
but sure as hell, I can see the value in both ..
& having mastered emotions .. the synthesis as wel

.. the useful elements, irregardless of their origin, in my favor.