Roulette Van De Waerden Theorem of Mathematics (VDW)

Hey Nick,

I appreciate your time spent on this. I'm still having a hard time seeing anything than just plain ol' random.

For comparison's sake, I made a quick E/C sheet with 7922 wagers. I then looked at the gap (max-min) to get an absolute gap. In your example it was a high of 58 - (-54) = 112 units.

Well I ran it 30 times to get 30 absolutes to compare. The average from my sheet of 30 samples (so we can say significant), but 9 times out of 30 or 30% the random EC had a lower gap.

1 104
2 186
3 99
4 114
5 143
6 120
7 114
8 100
9 165
10 177
11 241
12 126
13 135
14 134
15 85
16 120
17 137
18 90
19 102
20 107
21 162
22 203
23 223
24 132
25 170
26 144
27 161
28 187
29 159
30 98

141.2666667

With that said, I don't see how the possibility of a very slightly lower variance (which I still don't see in the testing) can beat a huge house advantage or even a lower advantage in Bac.

Also, I share your frustration. Admin needs to make XLSX files allowed in the upload. Not allowing Excel sheets in a gambling forum is a bit ridiculous.

Cheers,
Bobby

 

I also wanted to add that the mean was 141 and the Stdev is 40 so your result falls within 1 Stdev.

 

Nick,
thank you for your inputs.
I am REALLY curious to see VDW at work under your setup.
...and hope we'll get the opportunity to get results similar to yours.

 

Hi Bobby,

Yes your results show that random will be random. Sometimes it will be higher, sometimes lower and sometimes the same. Random is “like a box of chocolate, you never know what you are going to get”.

But the VDW is constant. Random does not effect it.

That was the point of the previous thread. It was not to show how it can beat the house advantage.

Perhaps the next thread will shed more light

Cheers

Nick

 

Some of you may think that the results shown in the previous threads may be due to luck. But there is a way of measuring luck.

Back in 2009 Tangram posted on the old VLS forum the following:

There is a simple calculation you can do on your results which can help tell you if your profits are due to luck or something more, and can indicate that more testing is needed, whether a method is "showing promise" or should be binned, and also gives a standard way of comparing the merits of methods which may be betting on different outcomes (for example, a single number system and a dozens system). Note that this is covered briefly in Kon-Fu-Sed's excellent probability tutorial, but it's so important that it deserves more emphasis and a fuller explanation.

Introducing the "z-score"

The calculation generates a number called the "z-score", which tells you how far away your actual results are from what you would expect to get (on average) if you were simply betting randomly for the same number of decisions. The higher the score is, the lower the chance that your results are due to random variability, or "luck".

In the statistical literature, there are 3 z-score values which are commonly quoted. For our purposes they can be expressed as the following:



z-score of 1.0 - there is a 16% chance that your results are due to luck.
z-score of 2.0 - there is a 2.3% chance that your results are due to luck.
z-score of 3.0 - there is a 0.13% chance that your results are due to luck.

For those interested in the actual math here is the link

https://www.vlsroulette.com/index.php?topic=13193.0

The graphs shown in the previous threads were simply to show that Random has little effect on a VDW system thereby making it a very stable bet selection.

Attached is a graph of one of my “souped up” VDW systems.

You will note the Largest Bet = 1, meaning it is Flat Betting.

Note the bets placed = 20,298

And note the Z-core = 5.92

To sum it up:

Random (Variance) does not affect those who play a biased wheel because of the Laws of Physics.

Random(Variance) does not affect those who play VDW because of the Laws of Math.

Random(Variance) affects all other systems.

Contrary to conventional random systems, in VDW:

1. Past Spins are necessary
   
   
2. A group of 9 spins are dependent
   
   
3. Variance has no effect on your bet selection
   

Ladies and Gentlemen, there is a new Sheriff in town and his name is VDW.

Good Luck

Nick

 

Wow, you really suck at math and are completely delusional.

Each spin is independent and has no connection to the previous spins. The VDW is an utter waste of time for roulette.

 

It's the "flavor of the month", they come and go.

 

I'm pretty sure that Nick is one of the flat earthers from roulette cc.

 

Never waste time tryin to explain stuff or things to the mathite and ap-wiseguy, hey hey.

 

"Exposed" how? You never did answer me. I asked an HONEST question......still waiting. May 27th, fast approaching.

Ken

 

Tut tut, this was first posted on another web-site well over a year ago. I did run some analysis against a set of truth tables, no advantage whatsoever, in fact the exercise highlighted it's shortcomings, which weren't minor (can't recall what it was, it's all available elsewhere).

 

And again, in the last graph, is 0 included?

 

Not in this case, if it was any good you simply take it to the Baccarat tables, alas it isn't.

 

Hi Celescliff, thanks for asking a question which I am happy to answer.

No, the Zero is not included.

The test was to see if we can beat a 50/50 system just betting Black with no progression which we did.

Our intention is to play this for baccarat which has a much lower house advantage.

Cheers

Nick

 

Then why is it in the roulette section if there's no consideration for the 0 or 0 / 00 ?
Please move the post then - these are two different games and what works on one won't work on the other.
https://www.gamblingforums.com/forums/baccarat-forum.12/

 

Hi Turbo,

In your own Thread on Roulette, Mr Anyone posted:

"Nickmsi
Prove it. Show us the math that supports your absurd claims. Demonstrate how past spins reach forward in time to influemce the future probability. Provide us with some examples"

So I responded I would start a new topic so I would not hijack your thread.

VDW can still be played at several No Zero Roulette Casinos.

We can add zero as another bet selection and play Single Zero tables.

VDW can be played in craps as well.

Any binary event can be played with VDW.

Cheers

Nick

 

My comment was due to what you said above.
If it's not intended for roulette - then there is a section here for baccarat where it could be discussed.
If you can add a 0 or add a 0 / 00 to the mix and still prove that it works - then that's great.
Unfortunately - the 0 and 0/00 completely change the math from no longer being a 50/50 game.
This is what destroys methods and systems based on things being 50/50

 

It's amusing when we people that really suck at math quote and attempt to use math theorems that they don't even remotely comprehend as a way to prove that their latest roulette system works..all while throwing logic and common sense out the window! Lol!!!

 

When the thread opened, I admit I was lost - I looked up and read :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waerden's_theorem

and then came to realize that it had absolutely nothing to do with roulette, or red/black
combinations that could be somehow "predicted" ahead of time to increase the player's chances.
I'll just stay out of it though - people have a learning process to go through before they see the
"way" vs the complicated path that doesn't lead to the answers.

 

Nickmsi wrote:
""In other words, a Non-Random system like a biased wheel totallyignores what random is doing.

A Non-Random system of bet selection does not care what the Standard Deviation is.

A Non-Random system of bet selection says FORGET ABOUT RANDOM"""
A biased wheel obeys to its own random volatility. You cannot know each of its numbers frequencies before a large study. But, huge positive and negative fluctuations are present at biased wheels too.
Standard deviations measure how it is from random. Biased wheel numbers have their own frequencies and can be gauge with sd too.
It is the same caotic system where some people can take advantage