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

It's where you take your money and you put it on the table. Absolutely anything can happen in the extreme short-term and usually does. That's why testing with RNG for the long-term is worthless. You will see this for yourself as soon as you start playing for real money with your wonderful Martingale in a real casino. You will see that the extreme short-term is nothing like the long-term on your kitchen table. Every experienced gambler here knows this that's why we're all laughing at you.

.

 

Now you're talking. Thank you. Giving up is the smartest move you have made yet. Now that makes sence.

 

Nobody has ever explained exactly what short-term and long-term mean. I have asked Nathan Detroit this question numerous times but he has never even achnowledged the question. I'll explain it exactly. There is no exact definition for either. It is just a term with millions of varibles. Short-term could be a day to a year. Here's what short-term to long-term actaually is: From the time you start gambling to the time you lose, That covers everybodys term of playing from short to long. There is absolutely no way to define a time-lines for either. If your winning, you are in the short-term, keep playing and you will enter the long-term.

 

Many of those posters are well off no doubt about it. But their wives with their inheritance are in control ..

 

You your random number generation to be supplied from real entropy sources. Random.org provides a source of entropy, better systems will use many sources.

I anchor to Fortuna which was developed by some cryptographic researchers that I trust:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortuna_(PRNG)​

Those and others drew the conclusion that the Intel hardware random number generator was compromised and then set about using more robust approaches, first an RNG called Yarrow then an improved approach called Fortuna. I have mentioned Fortuna previously on here.

https://arstechnica.com/information...ias-chip-based-crypto-freebsd-developers-say/

RNGs are one of the most important ingredients in any secure cryptographic system. They are akin to the dice shakers used in board games that ensure the full range of randomness is contained in each roll. If adversaries can reduce the amount of entropy an RNG produces or devise a way to predict some of its output, they can frequently devise ways to crack the keys needed to decrypt an otherwise unreadable message.​

Do you might argue you don't need strong encryption for testing, but understand your RNG will not be giving you the full range of possible outcomes and is far worse than what a real wheel or dice or shuffled deck of cards produces.

Why waste your time?

 

Historical data is useful as part of validating testing but also not the only thing one should do.

What happens when you want to test properly and need billions of spins? Of course you don't do that, as you know very little on the subject.

You are not qualified to even discuss math, so have no value to add in respect of understanding RNGs of which there are many types and approaches.

There are pseudo RNGs called PRNGs and there are also entropy based RNGs.

There is nothing special about rolling a real ball on a balanced wheel, throwing dice or shuffling cards. They are all mechanisms to provide an UNPREDICTABLE and EQUIPROBABLE outcome.

The fact that people say RNG is rubbish is because they don't get those two properties from most of the RNGs in use.

My point is when an RNG has insufficient internal degrees of freedom to shuffle a single deck of cards in an equiprobable manner, you will get results that do not have the same characteristics as the physical process.

So use an RNG that does and also use historical data. Don't use one or the other as that is far too limiting. The past results that have been recorded in history will never happen again.

 

People think the long term looks like this (the casino viewpoint):



Their actual journeys are this (player viewpoint):

 

You really are a moron.

The definition of pseudo is pretend or sham so saying pseudo-random is saying "pretend-random" "sham-random".

Would you say a pretend-Ferrari is a Ferrari?

Is pretend-pregnant really pregnant?

Does pretend-no mean no?

 

@SPIKE is a psuedo-pro-gambler

 

Okay, so here's the part I need explained. If I test a strategy only on PRNG's, the results will not be the same as actual play. Are these generators producing worse or better outcomes than live play? In other words, If my strategy is constantly showing favorable results with a PRNG are we to surmise it.s because the generator is only capable of producing favorable results? On the other hand, do these generators sometimes only produce unfavorable results? Is it possible to get better results playing live than testing on PRNG's? I think it is not possible to distinguish the patterns a live wheel produces from the patterns a PSNG produces. For instance BBRBRRRBRBRRRRBBBBRBRBBRRBBRRBRB would you or the most renowned mathematician bet you life on guessing what produced that pattern?

 

Use a good generator like Fortuna with real entropy sources. Fortuna is available on macOS and also in python libraries if you are using data analysia tools. I tend to use python notebooks these days for all my analysis and testing, be it casino or pricing models for sports wagering.

Use random.org for testing and historical data for some validation.

It will take a long time to get sufficient data from random.org if you are automating your testing.

 

I dare to say that Gizmotron is with his EC bets within the HPB class .

 

Just a reminder never wise up a chump . Great quote .

 

And history shows that casinos have been bust by positive progressions.

You assume testing as a moron would do.

Proper testing will factor in bankroll management, bankroll growth, adjustment of session unit size and risk. Very rarely do you ever see any kind of realistic structuring and risk management in the way fools test.

If you tested stock market strategies the same mindless way you would also lose.

 

Here's a question, how come the father of modern card counting Edward Thorp did not become fabulously rich in the casinos. His reason is the same as my reason. He could have kept it to himself for five years you could have made millions of dollars worldwide. But he did not do that, instead he wrote a book off of which he made almost nothing by comparison. There were other card counters at the time but they weren't very good and there weren't very many of them. He would have had it all to himself but the reason he didn't do it is the same reason I didn't do it. If you read his book you know what the reason is.

 

Gobbledygook nonsense. For us the players there is only short-term, you cannot live long enough to play in the long term. You will not live long enough or play enough to be in the long-term so you're always in the extreme short-term. The long-term only applies to the math it does not apply to actually playing. This is a huge mistake everybody makes. You walk into a casino and make a bet you're always in the extreme short-term and anything could happen.

 

What happens is you pointy-headed mathboyz test and test and test and take it to the casino and lose your rear ends. Because the casino doesn't care what the long-term results of billions of spins is, the casino only cares about the next spin and where you placed your bet.

 

Wow you're not even close.

Definition of pseudorandom
:involving numbers that are selected by a definite computational process that satisfy one or more standard tests for statistical randomness

Pseudo-random outcomes are definitely random, they aren't fake, they aren't make believe. They're just another source of randomness that has its uses. Like I said, there's random and then there's random. There are all different kinds of shades of random. And if you can't tell them apart and you think they're all the same, you're screwed.

 

Neither worse or better, just different. You will see things happen with the RNG that you never see in a casino. And you will see things in a casino that you'll never see on an RNG. You are testing oranges by using apples. Just because the final outcome way down the road is the same does not mean the journey to get to that outcome is the same

 

What it never factors in is real play on a bet to bet basis where anything can happen.