Roulette A Challenge 2 - for Turbo M

Ghost,

Do you honestly believe that money management can turn a losing system into a winning one in the long run?

 

A system doesn't win

Being smart, having a stop loss, being in control is what wins

 

Ghost,

Lesson one:

Money management can not turn a losing system into a winning system in the long run.

 

TG,

It's simply how random worked in the specific sample you posted. It's a much greater leap to conclude that that's how random works across many different samples, and especially where the sample sizes are larger. And even for this sample the results apply to the GROUP, which isn't very useful for you or me or any particular player whose concern isn't for the group but for his or her own results. But maybe you're coming to that.

By the way, Bayes won't be posting under my name here. What you see is what you get.

 

At this point, you have no idea what I'm doing.
This sounds a bit like you opening a book - reading the first page and then saying "The butler did it !".
..."and I know this because statistically the butler in the story does the crime 86% of the time".


Here I what I did in this thread (so far). (and remember - I asked that the person who took on the challenge post if what I posted was truth or a lie - possible or impossible, etc. with their opinions if needed).
Post 1 Dealt with showing how all players combined make up the house edge and it was displayed.
Post 2 Dealt with players using a method/system where they begin betting after there number shows.
It showed the end result as the house edge being 0% - the winning player from Post 1 still won.
The losing player from Post 1 lost nothing.
This is either the truth or not - there could be 100 posts after this lol. But after the first page of the book
you are convinced. Is what I said in Post 1 and Post 2 accurate ? Yes. Or do you not agree with that Sir Anyone ?

 

Good. So what I posted was accurate.

This is a little ahead of where I want to be but lets cover this now since you brought it up.
I'll consider this Post 3 in the thread on my part.

Player A flat bets one number every spin (that's his/her system for whatever reason) lets say #1
Player B flat bets 3 numbers every spin (according to "their" method/system) lets say #3,#4,#5
Player C flat bets A and B's numbers every spin (#1,#3,#4,#5)
There is no difference between the "group" of A and B's results vs the results of C.
Player C is basically where we're going here - and in the next post I can close the "loop" of these 3 posts.

 

TG,

I'd like to back up and examine this statement of yours:

Which implies you believe that the difference in the final result can be attributed to the selection process (a number randomly and IMMEDIATELY assigned to each player in your first example, but only played once it hits, in the second).

However, it's more likely that the better result in the second case is a result of the group as a whole making fewer bets (which they do, because each number is not played from the first spin, but only after it appears). More numbers covered and more bets means that the house edge bites harder.

 

Well, I believe it because it is what happened.
Here are the differences in part 1 where every number is played every spin :
Total bets placed : 4,332 ending result as -228 units for all players combined. House edge 5.26%
part 2 where a player begins betting only once their number appears :
Total bets placed : 2,808 ending result as +-0 units (even) for all players combined. House edge 0.00%
The "expected" house edge (where the balance "should" be or is expected to be for all players combined) :
part 1 : -$228.00 (spot on)
part 2 : -$147.79 - but no.. It's not -$147.79 for the group as a whole - the group lost nothing.
So to be specific - it's not my belief in something here, it's purely the bet selection process that made the difference between the two results. Nothing else.

So to be clear here - because this backs up what I'm saying...
Player #10 didn't contribute to the house edge really since he never placed a bet. (correct ?)
Since the qualification in this case was to bet once their number appears, and #10 never appears - therefore
player #10 never placed a bet and therefore could never have lost anything. (and could never have contributed to the group losing anything either since he never bet)
Player #4 ended positive - the only exception was that he didn't gain or lose anything from the number 4 showing the first time... he did however go on to win 6 more times in the 3 cycles of spins.

So then it's safe to say (as fact) that the bet selection of playing after a number shows is the only reason there were 1) less bets placed and 2) the house edge ended up being 0% because the "losing" players never wagered a bet to contribute to it ending at it's expected 5.26%

 

I agree with all of that but the point I was trying to make is that expectation is a function of the total amount "invested". Because in part 1 players invested a total of 4,332 but in part 2 only invested 2,808, it's hardly a fair comparison is it?

If you want to show that the discrepancy between results is due to the "improved" bet selection, you should set up the test so that everything else is equal (i.e., that the number of bets made is the same in part 1 & part 2). Only then would you be entitled to claim (assuming the results for part 2 were superior) that the superior result was down to the bet selection, since this was the only thing which changed from part 1 to part 2.

 

But it is.
We already know what happens when each player equally bets all spins equally for the same number of spins.
It ends at the house edge perfectly as it should. The group loses at the house edge (exactly)
The means of using a system or method which states x,y or z means that each player isn't betting equally anymore. So for the house - it gained nothing - the losing player #10 lost nothing. The winners still won (aside from the first potential win they missed out on).
So we know that this equality among all players produces exactly what is expected. And we know that this group playing a "repeater" style method for these 3 cycles managed to end even and not where the math says they should.

We could add spins - or make each player bet the same number of spins overall.. or maybe stop when they have all bet the same amount ? There are lots of ways to force the group to bet equally (but we already know what happens - they end as a group at the house edge as expected). And betting equally isn't what a system is all about in the first place. It's about doing something specific in an effort to change the end result from negative to positive.
When we implement this "repeater" style method/system though - now we have players that begin betting for some specific reason and the results have changed.

It would be a good analogy to compare this to any experiment where you have a control group (the first post) which shows what "doing nothing" results in - vs the experiment where things are changed that affect the outcome. If we force both groups to do things equally - then there's no point in the experiment and the results will be the same.

 

Very good. Here's what Wikipedia says about scientific control (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control):

You've conducted an "experiment". What are the variables? The number of bets you make (N), the amount bet on each number (A), the process of selection (S), and the final bankroll (B). The point of the experiment is to discover something about B when any combination of N, A, and S are varied.

You could think of the bet selection S as the "treatment", and part 1 as the control group. I know it isn't really possible to have "no bet selection" because you have to have some bet selection otherwise no bets would be made, but you could say that randomly assigning each player a number is "no treatment" for the purposes of this "experiment". You're correct that if you force both groups to do things equally there would be no point in the experiment, but N isn't the variable of interest, S is (you want to vary S to see whether it affects B). So in order to find out whether S makes a difference, the other variables N and A should be kept the same in both groups. Since N varied in your experiments, you haven't used scientific control and the results are misleading.

An example from Wiki:

 

Well, I did say that it was a good "analogy".
Analogy : a correspondence or partial similarity
Not that what I'm saying can be exactly compared to a scientific test with a control group and a test group -
but that in the first case nothing is done - each player bets equally, all numbers are played, same number of spins, etc.
A method or system can change one or all of these factors and then the final results can be compared to the control group.
I accept that having more things in the second test equal the first test would be more accurate - but the closer and closer we get to using "no system/method" - then the closer we get to the control group and those results are already known. I have the exact same number of total spins for both tests and the same unit size for both tests (haven't even gotten to the progression yet) and the same number of players (if they bet or not is certainly part of why one works and one doesn't). So I've compared them fair enough - the only difference being when a player begins to bet.

 

But you haven't.

So, just to be clear about this TG, the take away message is that waiting for "virtual" wins is a superior selection compared to picking numbers randomly? If the answer is yes, then what would convince you that it isn't?

Anything?

 

I haven't ?
Test 1 consisted of 114 spins.
Test 2 consisted of 114 spins.

Test 1 - 38 players were in the group
Test 2 - 38 players were in the group

Test 1 - any bet was a flat bet by any player of 1 unit each time they bet
Test 2 - ditto.
I have.

I'm also not talking about "virtual wins" in any of this - It probably appears that way because players aren't betting until their number appears - so I can give you that much, however the "point" is that you can sit down and begin betting without waiting for any "virtual wins" by doing the exact same thing. I'm pretty sure that's a few posts ahead though. Past spins mean nothing - I covered that "to death" in other threads. Past spins mean nothing here either. Virtual bets are a waste of time - (also covered), and they are not used here.

This "challenge" was for the results in the example(s) I posted to be either true or false and the other person (in this case - you) to tell me if what I'm typing is the truth or not. Surely I gave plenty of detail on test 1 and 2 to show the difference between both and what changed in test 2 to make it defeat the house edge (in that case).
It's certainly not a argument thread - either what I posted in test 1 and 2 happened or not in the example given.
I made no false claims, no twisting of data or reverse engineering to give my example.

 

TG,

For a true test of your hypothesis that numbers which are "warmed up" will perform better than numbers picked randomly, I suggest the following.

Firstly, do away with test 1. It's pointless because if all players are betting on all numbers from spin one then of course the final results will be right on the house edge, guaranteed.

Test 2 remains the same, but for test 1, do as for test 2 but instead of betting on the number which showed, bet the next number. E.g. suppose #13 hits first. Test 2 assigns player #1 the number 13 but test 1 assigns her #14. Since there is no connection between #13 and #14 test 1 effectively gives a random assignment but in this case each test makes exactly the same number of bets and invests the same amount. The only difference is the bet selection.

If your hypothesis is correct, test 2 results should be superior to test 1.

 

I'm not sure that I'm following your test requirements.
In test 1 - player #1 bets on #1 and so on for all 38 players for all spins.
In test 2 - player #1 bets on #1 but only once it appears for the first time and then bets it from then on.
The same bet amount, same number of spins for the test and same number of players for both tests seems enough to show the difference between "no system/method" in test 1 vs a "repeater" style system/method.
I posted the next part at the other forum (it's a pain to do both in both places but.... to carry on....)
===========================================

Part 1 all players bet every spin for 3 cycles of spins and ended at the house edge (as expected).
Part 2 all players bet only when their number showed for the first time - they ended even and the house edge was 0.00%. Same number of spins and same bet amount per spin.
So this was to show that using a method based on repeaters changed the outcome.
There is of course debate that the comparison isn't fair because all variables were not equal (which would make no sense really - and it would not be a system/method anymore and the results would have been the same for both tests).
So then I attempted to explain that a "group" or players or a single player betting the same numbers as the group would make no difference (true.)
That past spins mean nothing (because they don't). That single player can play from the first spin and the history board isn't used. This also avoids virtual bets or "triggers" so to speak - they are simply betting the numbers as they appear.
Part 2 (test results) showed that the player who lost because their number never showed has been eliminated since now they haven't bet (or lost anything). The player who won the most only missed out on one win because he wasn't playing that number until it appeared (which of course could have been spin #1 when you consider the big picture).
So to continue (since I'm pretty sure no one disagrees with this so far ?) I will get into how the math of the game changes due to what happened in Part 2.
===========================================

 

Hi Turbo,just reading through your post,may i ask a simple question.............after a number hits do u think it changes the odds? i covered this years ago and stormer kindly did a code called after a hit .i havent been on these boards for years,but there still a lot of fun ,cheers rev.

 

It doesn't change the odds of that number appearing again or not appearing (it could show back to back, in 50 spins or 200 spins - there's nothing that changes how random works.) It can however give the player a important key to how to change the game into their favor and also affect the house edge into their edge. Seems strange - but it's actually true.

 

@Turbo;
When will come TEST #3???
- players start to bet on numbers once it appears for the first time with 1 unit and then add 1 unit on numbers when they appear again= update of TEST 2

 

I always look for the "trick question" in this.

Ken

(9 hours today, damn tough but a win)