Roulette The horse race analogy proven

So the turkey is in the oven (It's Thanksgiving Day in the US) so I had some time.
I'd love to argue on and on about this but I started this new thread to not clog the others,
and to show the actual results.
"Not enough spins" does not apply here.
Any statistician will agree with the reasoning, but the misfits will not.
You can chart a method of play and keep track of wins and losses - you can also track
averages.
In the beginning of any data collection, the "averages" line will jump around until enough
data is collected. At that point it will level out.
A terrible session or a great session for example won't move the needle much at all.
Eventually it will create a flat line.

When they say "Pick any random numbers and it will give the same results"
That means - you will win on average 1 time in 37 tries (for the euro wheel).
Is this true ? Of course.
That's why the casino pays 35 to 1 on a bet that on average long term will appear
1 time in 37 tries. It's simple.

To prove something otherwise, you need to show that your way of playing has an advantage -
you chart the averages when you win or lose - and the misfits say it won't matter.
If it does outperform the expected - then it wasn't enough spins.
The leveling out of the "average" statistic is where this is proven wrong.
If you play and "on average" win 1 time in 34 for example - and this average line
levels out - then you obviously are winning.

I ran the Horse Race analogy through a great many spins - enough so that the "average"
statistic levels out.
I also did this by hand one spin at a time to avoid any mistakes.
I also made a chart so that the "average" statistic can be easily seen.
(I asked RX to include this in their charts but so far it hasn't happened)

Here is the result of 80 sessions of play (more than enough to get the actual "average")



The red line is the math expected result - or "Play any number at random" result.
This represents 1 win on average every 37 tries.
The green line is the minimum required to produce a profit. That means if your
"average" line is above this line, you are losing - you are getting worse than 1 in 35
results and can't possibly be in profit.
If your "average" line is below this line, you are winning - you wins are coming in at
better than 1 in 35 thus a profit.
As time goes on (spins...sessions....) the "average" line would hover around the red line.
That means you are winning and losing right around where you should "on any random numbers".

The blue line represents the exact value of this style of play - as anyone can clearly see,
it begins jagged and levels out at 32. That means over this long term play - 80 wins -
we are winning better than the math expected and better than the required 1 in 35.
This line CANNOT go off in some drastic up or down direction at this point.
Even if the next session took 200 spins to win - the line would barely move.
It did wander early on above the green line but (aside from the very beginning) never came
close to the 1 in 37 math expected. We are far from that.

You can look at this chart this way - if at any time the blue line is above the green line - it was
a loss. If at any time the blue line is below the green line - it's a win.
Now I'm not going to preach about how this chart is almost entirely producing the blue line
below the green one, and obviously well below the red one.

This chart doesn't take into account any progressions used - it only represents wins/losses and
the averages that it takes to happen. Clearly flat betting is fine as the blue line is now planted
below the green and red, and it won't go wandering up or down.

Here is the chart from flat betting :



Misfits will say "Look at the draw down !!!"
A) A draw down isn't relevant when you look at the blue "average" data in the first chart.
B) A draw down isn't relevant when you look at the red "average bankroll" line in this RX chart.
C) Draw downs are irrelevant - unless of course you are betting at a larger unit size than you
should be and deplete your bankroll. That's the gambler's problem (money management) and not
the system failing.

Here is the relevant data as it was collected :







Was there "bad" sessions - You bet.
172, 156, 149 spins until a win ?
Was there "good" sessions - of course.

The average is that it won 1 time every 32.3 spins.

NOT 1 win every 35 spins as required to profit
NOT 1 win every 37 spins as the math expects.

So this should clear things up (bad attempt at humor, if I posted results
then it's never cleared up).

 

Oh! Happy thanks giving to all of you over the pond! You get to have turkey twice then?! Again at Xmas?

 

Well, in this house it's usually ham at Christmas - I can only take so much turkey.
(no offense to the turkeys who post on forums - we can never get enough of that)

 

Enjoying a lovely Thanksgiving abroad this year in the Tuscany region of Italy but still appreciate all that you do Turbo to motivate others, including myself, to research this game more. Grazie mille!

 

Enjoy your well deserved vacation

 

Very interesting Turbo, must have taken you a long time to post, so thanks for that!
Can I just ask, this analysis, is it using random sets for your horse race, or some special selection?
And, the way its being played, a session keeps running until a win. I wouldn't want to bet for +200 spins.
Would this work if we placed a limit on spins per session?

Happy thanksgiving!

 

The graphs look like another Martingale.

 

It's flat betting (of course).
Now just post the down arrow picture and get on with the rest of your existence.

 

Turbo se refiere a esto!

 

AGAIN TURBO

You've played 80 sessions roughly 150 spins each session I assume so 12.000 spins.

In the other thread (which you still haven't answered to, you always don't answer the difficult questions)

I tested the playing 1 number system following your clues... the data was as follows...

267 spins 8 wins 1:33.4
362 spins 11 wins 1:32.9
355 spins 13 wins 1:27.3
445 spins 13 wins 1:34.2
597 spins 17 wins 1:35.1
102 spins 5 wins 1:20.4
351 spins 14 wins 1:25.1
512 spins 11 wins 1:46.5
etc etc etc
424 25
416 38
390 33
427 53
394 23
371 22
510 46
405 31
410 41
432 54
418 35
423 42
417 83

This goes on for a while... in the end I played a total of

11006 spins, I won 322 times 1:34.2

SO FOR ALMOST THE SAME AMOUNT OF SPINS AS YOU, I GOT THE SAME LINE AS YOU!!!

30.000 spins later, I was back at 1:37!!!

Heck even Steve had a system that stayed under that red line for 40.000 SPINS!!! Until it went back to 1:37 that is...

 

I've just misread, you just played 2584 spins. Mine was 11006 spins . Both were beneath the red line ... until it went up again 30000 spins later. Yes random can show these results!

 

This is exactly what i mean, by random can make you believe you have a winning bet. But just like the fact that cold numbers will turn hot in the future, random will make a (at first sight) winning system, lose at the end. A method can win for 1000 sessions in a row, or it can brake at the very first try. This is Random, unbeatable.

 

Eddy, what you have to be clear about is that the game is balancing for a while and then unbalanced, it is where you are going to take advantage and win, but it can be 5 balls like more than 100, but be sure that a flat game must to always win in about 200 balls.
Progression is not necessary, just patience!

 

Darn, it's always that things fail after 30,000-100,000 spins.
Especially at a million spins.
And certainly it fails at 20 million spins.

lol

I had a funny thought of someone playing 29,500 spins over their lifetime and someone
will point and scream "You were soooo close to losing !!!!"
"It could happen from spin #1"
and
"I never looked at why it failed and used measures to avoid that situation from happening".

Meanwhile "I tested your idea and it failed exactly at spin #344,883 and that's that."
Strange how that works.

 

Be deliberately thick... You DO get the point though? If you dont I hope others will!