1. Welcome to the #1 Gambling Community with the best minds across the entire gambling spectrum. REGISTER NOW!
  2. Join our $5,000 Cash Giveaway!

    Win Cash by Posting and Inviting New Members!
  3. Have a gambling question?

    Post it here and our gambling experts will answer it!
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Discussions in this section are assumed to be EV- as they are outside of the Advantage Play section. For EV+ discussions, please visit the Advantage Play sub-forum.
    Dismiss Notice

Roulette In the random game, all bet selections are equal

Discussion in 'Roulette Forum' started by Jerome, Jan 29, 2019.

  1. delectus

    delectus Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2018
    Likes:
    20
    Location:
    uk
    Quote Jerome: there's no such thing as a better or worse bet selection in the random
    game of roulette.

    10 20 29 32 : 20 32 10 29 20 10 10 32 32 29 20 32 10 32 10 10 29 29 10 20 29 32 10 20

    11 19 26 36 : 36 11 11 19 19 26 11 26 26 26 19 11 26 11 11 19 36 19 36 36 11 36 19 36 36

    Wikipedia: The concept of a set is one of the most fundamental in mathematics.

    I chose particularity difficult sets but very interesting. They are the leading sets from a
    a total of nine sets. Interesting because when one set went in the lead the other set
    did a catch up. As you will see this continued for some time denying a hit for much of
    the time. It would be obvious therefore to bet on the catch up set until one of them hit.

    Of course the catch up eventually came to an end and 11 19 26 36 produced a string
    of hits.

    Would anyone place bets on any of the other sets and ignore the above profitable two
    sets.

    Spins are supposedly independent of each other and yet those independent spins
    produced the above sequence easily recognisable.

    We are constantly told the wheel has no memory. Perhaps its probability or it
    could even be variance. Whatever it is the above is not a one off it happens on
    several occasions. As I have said before so called maths theory relating to
    roulette numbers does not stand up to reality.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2019
  2. Jerome

    Jerome Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Likes:
    106
    Occupation:
    Self-Employed
    Location:
    England
    Yes, it's really sophisticated "theory" that says the number of pockets on the wheel doesn't change between spins. You need a powerful scientific calculator to count them. Sorry delectus, but posts like yours just make me giggle, and I've no idea what your lists of numbers are supposed to mean.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2019
  3. Buffalowizard

    Buffalowizard Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2019
    Likes:
    10
    Location:
    UK
    Nobody does
     
  4. Mako

    Mako Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2018
    Likes:
    147
    Location:
    Irvine, CA
    I can't speak for others, but for me personally I totally agree with everything the "math" contingent states. Despite enjoying pursuing and breaking systems, it's of course absolutely true that there's an extra pocket on the wheel and the payout is wrong...which makes it impossible to win long term.

    That's not in dispute for me, nor is it for the casinos obviously as billion-dollar-properties don't build themselves for free.

    However....

    Where the disconnect between "random is unlimited" and "random has limits" occurs is in the 37 cycle result, where 24 numbers arrive, 12 are left unhit, and 12 repeated.

    I won't call it "LOTT", because then Caleb will cut and paste his story about how his friends invented it, etc.

    What I'm talking about has nothing to do with that story, so people can call this result whatever they wish.

    SO...if that result occurs 100% of the time every 37 spins (and it does), the question becomes: "Can a player take advantage of it to produce a profit over time".

    And that's where the argument has stood for years on the forums.

    With tight table limits as well as all of the other barriers to practically exploiting the 24/12/12 result in a 37 spin cycle via possible bets, so far the answer is NO.

    But there are a few people that do claim to have done exactly that each year. And they're not "selling" the system. And they're not acting in a way that previous bullshitters have acted for decades trying to fleece the naive.

    Some of them post NOTHING, while privately they've verified their earnings, for years, doing what they're doing.

    Others post hints, or help, to show how they developed their approach to it, in an effort to either aid others, or gain attention, or both.

    I know a few of these people personally, and their results are authentic.

    NOW...they can either be on the longest black swan winning event in the history of gambling, like the old lady who rolled the dice on a craps table 118 times without a 7 appearing, and thus their results would not pass a fallacy test, or, their results are legitimate and they can win indefinitely.

    And there's where we've stood for a while now. But I can say that since the forum wars between Turbo and those who feel he's incorrect first started in earnest, say 2014 or so, multiple people have been added to the have-won-consistently-for-an-extended-period list.

    Are they all just attention whores, looking for a hilariously low level of fake 'fame' on internet gambling message boards...with no revenue stream from it (again, none of the people on the list are system sellers, nor have they ever attempted to profit from the knowledge from others), or have they managed to walk between the raindrops?

    That question keeps me interested in the game, in testing theories, and participating in general. The 24/12/12 result is 'real'...can we exploit it. Some claim yes, and that's enough for me to pursue the hobby. :D
     
    trellw24, Tesla and Jerome like this.
  5. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    691
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    Yes they have. Very good post (again).
     
  6. Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone

    Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone Well-Known Member Lineage to Founders

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    Likes:
    428
    Occupation:
    Shoe Cobbler
    Location:
    Merica
    Mako,

    Binomial distribution is nothing knew. Understanding it is not going to enable you predict which number will hit next.

    The normal distribution (in roulette they like to call is the law of the third) happens because there are more ways for some numbers to hit a few times or more, some twice and some not at all than there are for all numbers to hit just once. If you check the distribution for every 36 spins it will follow a rather predictable pattern. We agree on this much.
    But each spin of the wheel is STILL AND INDEPENDENT TRIAL. This means that the normal distribution does not in any way whatsoever help you determine whether a number that has hit twice or a number that has not hit at all will occur on the next spin, on the next series of spins, or the long term. Understand?

    Furthermore, the distribution of the roulette wheel needs to happen for 36 numbers NOT 37 or 38 numbers!!! This means that each time the distribution happens all you have to do is add up the sum of hits and you'll see proof that the house edge is still short!





    I've coppied the following article to try and help you grasp the intro basics of it a little better. Start off reading about the distribution of coin flips.




    Binomial Experiment
    A binomial experiment is a statistical experiment that has the following properties:

    • The experiment consists of n repeated trials.
    • Each trial can result in just two possible outcomes. We call one of these outcomes a success and the other, a failure.
    • The probability of success, denoted by P, is the same on every trial.
    • The trials are independent; that is, the outcome on one trial does not affect the outcome on other trials.
    Consider the following statistical experiment. You flip a coin 2 times and count the number of times the coin lands on heads. This is a binomial experiment because:

    • The experiment consists of repeated trials. We flip a coin 2 times.
    • Each trial can result in just two possible outcomes - heads or tails.
    • The probability of success is constant - 0.5 on every trial.
    • The trials are independent; that is, getting heads on one trial does not affect whether we get heads on other trials.
    Notation
    The following notation is helpful, when we talk about binomial probability.

    • x: The number of successes that result from the binomial experiment.
    • n: The number of trials in the binomial experiment.
    • P: The probability of success on an individual trial.
    • Q: The probability of failure on an individual trial. (This is equal to 1 - P.)
    • n!: The factorial of n (also known as n factorial).
    • b(x; n, P): Binomial probability - the probability that an n-trial binomial experiment results in exactly x successes, when the probability of success on an individual trial is P.
    • nCr: The number of combinations of n things, taken r at a time.
    Binomial Distribution
    A binomial random variable is the number of successes x in n repeated trials of a binomial experiment. Theprobability distribution of a binomial random variable is called a binomial distribution.

    Suppose we flip a coin two times and count the number of heads (successes). The binomial random variable is the number of heads, which can take on values of 0, 1, or 2. The binomial distribution is presented below.

    Number of heads Probability
    0 0.25
    1 0.50
    2 0.25
     
  7. delectus

    delectus Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2018
    Likes:
    20
    Location:
    uk
    So you you don't know what a set of numbers means? Strange remark coming
    from a maths person. I suspect you do understand and declining to face the
    facts when they are presented to you.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2019

  8. BETJACK

    BETJACK Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Likes:
    18
    Location:
    Flath Earht
  9. BETJACK

    BETJACK Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Likes:
    18
    Location:
    Flath Earht
    :) oops double post
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2019
    delectus likes this.
  10. delectus

    delectus Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2018
    Likes:
    20
    Location:
    uk
    You deserve a 'like' for increasing your second post to 3 words;)
     
    TurboGenius likes this.
  11. Jerome

    Jerome Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Likes:
    106
    Occupation:
    Self-Employed
    Location:
    England
    Mako, you can choose to believe this, but do you really KNOW? And there are so many unanswered questions surrounding all these vague claims people make on forums that it's really not possible to come to any conclusions without more detailed data. Let's not forget that these ARE "extraordinary" claims, given what we know about roulette, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    For example, Turbo makes some pretty amazing claims, but none of the evidence he posts is statistically significant. It's not just that the sample sizes are too small, which is the usual criticism from DSAA, because the minimum sample size for many purposes needs to be only 30 or so in order to get valid results from a statistical test.

    Here's a post from Turbo (on the "Want a HG?" thread) -

    So does this actually mean anything? is the result "statistically" significant? There is a whole subfield of statistics which is about how to draw conclusions from data. Given some data and a hypothesis, there are tests which determine to what degree any hypothesis is confirmed (or refuted). So let's test those results. The hypothesis is that waiting for sleepers will give a better result than not. One test you could do on the data is the proportion test, which compares the actual proportion with a theoretical one.

    In this case the theoretical proportion is the proportion of winners, on average, in 37 spins when betting 12 numbers, which is 12/37 = 0.3243

    The actual proportion of winners was 15/37 (there were 15 wins) which is 0.4054.

    This isn't quite the same as comparing results with and without waiting for sleepers, which is what the hypothesis is (to test that you would need to run some more spins where you just pick 12 numbers randomly, and then compare the proportion of winners with the sleepers), but it will tell you whether the results are significant compared to what you would expect assuming no advantage (and there's no reason why you should expect randomly picked numbers to have any advantage, so it really amounts to the same thing).

    Excel can do this test, and many others. I don't have it but if you do you can see how to do the test here -
    https://help.xlstat.com/customer/en...e-proportion-test-in-excel-tutorial?b_id=9283

    Using my software, the results were -

    Code:
    Null hypothesis: population proportion = 0.3243
    
    Sample size: n = 37
    
    Sample proportion = 0.4054
    
    Test statistic: z = (0.4054 - 0.3243)/0.0769573 = 1.05383
    
    Two-tailed p-value = 0.292 
    
    (one-tailed = 0.146)
    The Two-tailed p-value will be less than 0.05 if the results are statistically significant (it isn't), so you can't conclude that they mean anything. There is certainly no evidence that betting on sleepers is advantageous compared to picking numbers randomly.

    But maybe it's not the NUMBER of wins which is affected when you pick sleepers, but how soon the FIRST win occurs? In that case you would have to get more data; generate 30 or more sessions and for each session record after how many spins the first win happens, then take the average. In theory, the first win when betting 12 numbers should happen after 37/12 or 3.0833 spins, so now you could do another test (for comparing means rather than proportions) which will tell you whether when betting sleepers the first win occurs more quickly than when not betting sleepers.

    It's really not that hard to learn how to do this stuff and there are loads of free courses online. Here's one

    https://eu.udacity.com/course/intro-to-inferential-statistics--ud201

    if you don't have the prerequisite knowledge you can do this one first

    https://eu.udacity.com/course/intro-to-descriptive-statistics--ud827

    They don't involve much math because all the work is done by computer, but you need to understand the concepts. Or you could learn to write code and then simulate your systems, but that's actually harder to do IMO, and the advantage of using the statistical tests is you don't need to generate a lot of data.
     
    Bago likes this.
  12. Bago

    Bago Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2017
    Likes:
    103
    Location:
    Mars
    Jerome, I'm afraid that the few Roulette HolyGrail Freaks will sink into a deep depression if you continue to post hard statistical/maths evidence. Even someone with a negative IQ realize that your level is far above the Guru who keeps spreading stupid affirmations that have no weight whatsoever (for a number to show twice, it has to show once... LOTT, Horse racing analogy to explain Roulette randomness etc...). Don't make it too obvious ;)
     
  13. Nathan Detroit

    Nathan Detroit Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2014
    Likes:
    344
    The Holy Spook went that-a-way >>>> pht .
     
  14. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    691
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    I like this analogy - the anti-system crowd should use it :

    You're in a canoe - the house (casino) is in there with you.
    Every time you scoop water out, the house scoops water in.
    Almost every system fails because the house is adding more and more
    water while the system is trying to scoop water out, stay afloat - but
    after enough time - regardless of what the player does - the house edge
    causes the boat(system) to sink.
    If you use a bigger bucket (progression) - the house uses a bigger bucket.
    Actually it's bucket is always %2.7 bigger than yours.
    So you can even scoop an entire bucket full at a time, and the canoe still
    sinks because you can't overcome what the house is adding each time you scoop.

    Now, knowing this - I post RS results.
    My chart climbs and climbs over all this time.
    A proper chart (will speak to the Roulette Extreme people about this) will show
    the house edge expected value. Every chart should show this but rarely they do.
    As my balance climbs away from the +-0 start point, the house expected balance
    drops more and more and more below the +-0 start point.
    It's a easy calculation and so important in showing results, I'm surprised it's not
    built in to a bankroll chart on simulators.
    For example - someone plays 20,000 spins and are at +-0. It doesn't mean a failure,
    they are far far ahead of where they should be. Once you leave the first spin - the
    +-0 line becomes irrelevant. Your battle is against the house expected value, not 0.
    But regardless - my bankroll climbs and climbs against the expected balance
    which drops and drops - making the gap between these two grow more and more.
    If you believe what you believe - then this is clearly impossible.
    Sure for a short session or maybe (luck.. you call it).. a few times in a row.
    Maybe a month...
    But for a year ? Starting with 0 and at 3/4 million now, no resets and not 1 losing
    session ? I can understand why it seems impossible, or doesn't fit in with what you
    believe or have been told. I'm fine with that.
    "YOU" at least are open to things, unlike others who refuse to see something because
    they simply won't accept results of anything as proof.
    That RS chart has such a greater meaning than what it appears to show.
    It's not just a climbing chart from +-0 - it's the line that you don't see.
    The house expected balance (from the math) which means my balance is literally
    skyrocketing above this value. It's there.. so it must be possible.
    Now either someone keeps posting nonsense as replies to whatever is said, or
    they work on it based on what's been said. I don't force anyone to do anything,
    I can only assume people are here to learn how to win.
    The group of misfits and trolls aren't here to do that - their goal seems to do the
    opposite. I'm not sure why, but I'm sure there's a reason.
     
    JacobBlaze, Mako, mr j and 1 other person like this.

  15. Sharptracker

    Sharptracker Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2018
    Likes:
    168
    Location:
    Belgium
    Turbo, using progressions can make you last longer but it also can make you lose quicker... This will depend on your luck/ your position on the Gauss curve that you cannot decide about, but one thing is sure! it will make you bet much more than if you were flatbetting so in very most cases (still what Gauss curve represent), you'll lose more coz the total bet where you'll have to pay 2.7% will be bigger.

    It just depend how many spins you'll play in your life and if you can be placed in the right side of the curve during that time, but be sure that you'll never beat the game itself.

    Most of the time, problems come from our interpretations.
     
    Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone likes this.
  16. Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone

    Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone Well-Known Member Lineage to Founders

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    Likes:
    428
    Occupation:
    Shoe Cobbler
    Location:
    Merica
    Good post Sharp!
     
    Sharptracker likes this.
  17. Jerome

    Jerome Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Likes:
    106
    Occupation:
    Self-Employed
    Location:
    England
    Progressions only "magnify" the variance, so the benefits of using one (ie that you will make profits when flat bets would have resulted in losses) are exactly balanced by the losses you'll incur when the variance is against you. If you want to reduce the negative variance you'll need an edge.
     
    Nathan Detroit likes this.
  18. Sharptracker

    Sharptracker Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2018
    Likes:
    168
    Location:
    Belgium
    Most of the time the problem is the non-comprehension of what variance is... A negative variance will be easily understood because they lose money but a positive variance is The Real Trap. People won't accept it as they accept a negative variance, they can accept if the issue comes quickly like at lottery but as soon as the time notion is in effect, the player automatically won't accept the fact to be "lucky", he won't accept to be under a positive variance and will automatically think that it is due to the system, to his skills etc etc When all they have to due to see it, is replace all 37 numbers by 37 systems where it would consist to observe different series of x spins to understand it. Systems n°4 for example would perform so much in this series, much more than all other numbers and could perform again in the next serie and be first again, and then it could be the last one in the next one. But of course you cannot know how variance will act

    This is why we have so many holygrailers, actually all those people are just ignorants about what variance is. And the human being/needs are not there to correct the situation. Well this is how i describe the problem...
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2019
    Nathan Detroit, eugene and Jerome like this.
  19. Jerome

    Jerome Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Likes:
    106
    Occupation:
    Self-Employed
    Location:
    England
    Sharp, you nailed it. In the wikipedia article about gambling mathematics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling_mathematics) there's a paragraph which I like and pretty much sums it up, especially the last sentence.

     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2019
    eugene likes this.
  20. eugene

    eugene Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2016
    Likes:
    212
    Location:
    united kingdom
    Yep, I agree with the above 2 posts. You can run Z-Score tests and look at the COR (chance of randomness) results, but unless it's over a significant amount of decisions, then the results are pretty much meaningless and can give you a real sense of false hope that you discovered something good. What can also happen and no doubt has happened to loads of people is that the complete opposite occurs in favour of the house short term and then they think something dodgy is going on! ie: The games are rigged.
     
    Nathan Detroit likes this.

Share This Page