TurboGenius Turbo, do you remember the discussion on how to select the repeat?

There's one common strategy used by accountants and actuaries. You get to learn this at masters degree and higher.

I don't expect to see this solution on gambling forums.

 

Ever notice that accountants and actuaries are terrible gamblers. They think because they're good at math they will be good at gambling. Nope.

 

I always avoided calling Birthday Problem "Birthday Paradox", because it's not a paradox, mathematically saying, it just seems like a paradox. But, hey, seriously, it IS a fucking paradox, lol.

 

By the definition of the Birthday Paradox, the probability of at least 1 repeat within 8 spins is 55.68%. Playing 8 spins for a repeat results in (1+2+3+4+5+6+7) played numbers = 28 numbers. Sometimes you get a hit sooner than the end of 8 spins, but to acquire an edge you need to play a total number of fewer than 20 numbers (20/37 = 54%). How is that possible? Idk.

I think what @Luckyfella is trying to say is jumping on the game when the total remaining number of numbers is less than 20. For example, if you have 4 uniques (4 spins), you start to play the rest of the spins up to 8. In this way, you have played 5 + 6 + 7 numbers for a total of 18 numbers (EC = 48.64%), but based on Birthday Paradox there is a probability of 55.68% to get a hit by the end of the 8th spin. This is a better probability than the odds.

But, I believe that 55.68% probability is made of "all the spins from the beginning to the end". It's a cumulative probability. When you jump in on the 5th spin, this probability is not the same as starting from spin #1. However, when you count 8-spin cycles, you see that 55.68% of them contain at least one repeat, no matter on which spin the repeat has happened. This is where it gets paradoxical.

By the way, don't try the above. It doesn't work. If it's exploitable, a few pieces are missing.

 

That's why people playing Vaddi's strategy always lose. Seeking a 55.68% probability of winning by playing up to 28 numbers. It's clearly -EV. Those guys don't know why it doesn't work yet.

 

Shank, write a pm to CHT on the other forum pls.

I wrote an explanation which I want you to read first before I post it on forum.

 

Correct, the 55.68% applies only to the sequence as a whole. You can't wait for some uniques and then assume the probability is the same. Of course it can't be and you have to recalculate using the number of spins left in the sequence. It's like saying that there is a 96% chance of getting at least one red in 5 spins, therefore if you see 4 black spins there must be a 96% chance that the next spin will be red, which is absurd. This mistake happens over and over in the forums, and, as usual, it comes from not understanding independence.

 

To you the probability means everything. To me it is useless information. If it were so good I would use it for bet selections. It sucks at bet selections. But I'm so happy that it keeps you superior in your own mind. That's like saying your shit don't stink though. And as far as the importance of changing the odds goes. That doesn't matter either. It only matters to you and your sycophants. I love losing more bets than I win. It tells me that everything is still right with the world. I just am skilled at knowing how to cheat the losing bets by only betting the minimum allowed. On the opposite of this I know when to bet big. Math and probability can't tell me when a win streak will start, how long it will last, and when it will end. I wish it would. But it can't.

 

Does independence cause win streaks? You select red as the only possible thing to bet on. Does independence cause win streaks and losing streaks in that scenario? Is independence so powerful that you can't see wins streaks? Is it so powerful that it makes it so that you can't see losing streaks? I'm just trying to see the magical powers of independence. It looks like you are saying that it has magical powers.

 

The problem with win and lose streaks is that there is no guarantee when you hop on them! You see a win streak on Red, you decide to bet on it for the next 5 spins, you might get 5 back to back hits or 5 middle fingers. It's like Schrodinger's cat, it might or might not be there when you get there.

 

Gizmo, if you claim you are skilled at predicting start and end of trend, you should be trading Forex price action.

Predicting start and end of trends for random roulette spins don't make sense because random means prediction of max or min is not possible.

However, with Forex you have sr levels and sd zones together with daily release of red news that give hints of the market sentiment.

Your reading randomness thread is more suitable as price action thread in Forex forum.

 

Gizmo, since you increase your bets may I suggest you plot 3 bollinger bands sd2, sd2. 5 and sd3 to show you the possible extreme turning points as a visual tool. The formula is a sma plus/minus the atr*ratio.

If your strategy is to fade the extreme, then baccarat is more suitable because each shoe has a smaller max range compared to roulette.

 

[QUOTE="Math and probability can't tell me when a win streak will start, how long it will last, and when it will end. I wish it would. But it can't.[/QUOTE]
A big fucking Amen! That quote alone ends the whole argument! Please give this man a reward.

 

Preach on my brotha!

 

You are right! Just like any other system isn’t a fail-safe system. Everything has their limit.

People here really do believe there’s a system out there that wins 100% of the time, all the time.

 

The system that wins sometimes is just a positive variance. Once in a test, I chose a random number of random numbers each round for 4000 spins, and my hit rate was 2.85% per number played (around 28,000 numbers played!). That's a 5.5% edge, flatbet.

Unpopular opinion: All of those bet selection methods ever posted in the past 15 years, all of them, work! They worked for the poster, once or a number of times, otherwise, he wouldn't have posted it in the first place. All of the bet selection methods (patterns, trends, weird voodoos, etc.) work until they don't.

 

My comment earlier was no attempt at a shot at you and my bad if you took it that way.

I understand, and see where you’re getting at. But the issue with a lot of gamblers these days is that they want a 100% win rate system all day, everyday.

If you’re system isn’t a 100% win proof then your system is what you say

. My system is just as good as anyone else’s.

 

Nah it's cool. I love to discuss the game with like-minded people. Have fun.

Actually, it makes sense. A system that loses over time is not a system, it's "playing roulette". When you play roulette, you win sometimes, and you lose sometimes, or most of the time, TBH. The winner system might even not exist, but it has a clear definition. It has to be a winner, not almost a winner. Almost a winner (or sometimes a winner) is just positive variance, IMO.

 

i already explained along time ago on the the other forum...a system wins only when it its in sync at that point...many years ago...

any system can win if it hits in sync....the question is why is it in sync...why does it come out of sync....not rocket science