1. Welcome to the #1 Gambling Community with the best minds across the entire gambling spectrum. REGISTER NOW!
  2. Have a gambling question?

    Post it here and our gambling experts will answer it!
    Dismiss Notice
  3. 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 section.
    Dismiss Notice

Roulette Mako

Discussion in 'Roulette Forum' started by Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone, Jan 31, 2019.

  1. Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone

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

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    Likes:
    935
    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 there!


    The forumtards just picked up on the pattern showing the normal distribution and see it's pattern as something that's exploitable, when there's nothing there that can be exploited, or at least in a way that they'd comprehend. Where it can be utilized is as a crude goodness of fit test like chi square. Meaning you could collect much larger spin samples and use it to test wheel fitness (deviation from the normal distribution) to try and find bias instead of using chi square testing.





    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.

    Source - https://stattrek.com/probability-distributions/binomial.aspx





    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
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2019
    Mako likes this.
  2. Mako

    Mako Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2018
    Likes:
    429
    Location:
    Irvine, CA
    No information is "bad" in my mind per se, regardless of the person posting it or their intentions, especially when it's factual.

    My feeling though is that when you see thousands of spins arrive from bi-directional wheels, binomial distribution does seem to illustrate trends in a big way, particularly as they relate to numbers that are in transition from hot to cold or back again.

    Gordon's recent example comes to mind, where you have 37 spin results, with say 12 unhits left remaining. Of those 12 unhits, 3 or more absolutely will land within the next 20 spins. Every time I've simulated this using actual wheel results, it occurs, no matter how many cycles I perform.

    Now it doesn't mean that there aren't outlier results with high variance, so far the lowest I've ever seen is one hit. But I've also seen 10 hits arrive out of those 12 unhits over the 20 spins as well, so there's balance even at that level of extreme.

    That's why it's tough to just give in and go with what high level mathematicians explain time after time about roulette. The wheel is limited, it doesn't have 50 or 100 or 200 numbers on it. At "just" 37, you'd think we'd be able to find holes...and I believe some people have. And they've been focused, correctly, on the 24/12/12 outcome as a foundation.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2019
    trellw24 and TurboGenius like this.
  3. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,794
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    I won't hijack your bold print thread to preach to another member (yet again) how no one can win.
    But I DO want to point something out you continue to "miss" and never seem to understand.
    Random rarely rarely ever means equality.
    (all numbers appearing once for example)
    (all 12 streets appearing once for example).

    What you fail to see, understand (along with Jerome) is that
    for one thing to happen, another thing has happen. This is how it works.
    I always told/tell people to separate on paper what's possible, what isn't.

    When someone thinks about it with common sense -
    If X happens, Y can't happen.
    or If X doesn't happen, Y has to happen.
    or If Z happens, Y has to happen
    This is common sense - you can use this as a tool to YES predict future
    outcome based on past/present ones.
    You can call nonsense all day but even you are smart enough to know this.
    If all numbers don't show once - there has to be repeaters.
    Just "predicting" a repeat to happen is nonsense to you, even though
    you'll agree that all numbers won't appear without repeating.
    You continuously argue both sides of the situation instead of just
    taking the logical path.
    "YES" a repeat will happen. (simple right ?)
    Now if you know things won't happen, and you know things will happen -
    you can make predictions based on what's happened ! (see... it's common sense).
    You can even predict if X happened, X can't happen again. Easy.
    Whatever numbers don't appear in a cycle won't be the same numbers to not appear
    in the next cycle for example. Another example you won't grasp because you are
    stuck contained in 1 spin. And the next spin is 1 spin. and the next spin is 1 spin.
    It's impossible for you to understand how a series of spins works because you
    just don't see it - you see 1 spin, 1 spin and never compare it to anything because
    "It's independent".

    Oh let me run off some rng spins...... this won't sink in will it ?
    206 spins - #0 didn't appear.
    in those 206 spins, #23 appeared 10 times (amazing right ?)
    Because Z happened - the 206 spin sleeper, Y has to happen (other number(s) HAVE TO
    make up for this and they always do..it's what makes the math correct) And the opposite...
    #23 appearing 10 times means other numbers didn't appear or didn't appear at
    the expected value.
    This is common sense, and you agree if you can use a calculator.
    Your "time machine" jokes are absurd - who needs one ?
    I can tell you right now before a session starts...
    There's going to be a sleeper that doesn't appear for a long time....
    so.. there's going to be a number or numbers that will appear more than
    expected - even better than the house payout.
    Surely you agree with this - your argument will be "There's no way to know
    which numbers will do this !!!"
    Why not ? Why is it so impossible for your brain to fill in the blanks as a session
    plays out ?

    37 spins in we're talking.
    You have a much better idea of what the long term sleeper is going to be -
    you can probably predict it and be pretty accurate because you only have
    12 potential numbers to choose from.
    Now you agree we have to predict outcomes better than the house payout..
    so we have to win better than 1 in 35.
    What if you had never bet on any of these 12 numbers to appear (smart right ?)
    Did you need a time machine ? No, you just never bet on a number that didn't appear
    yet - you lost $0.00 on these 12 numbers over 37 spins. You didn't give the casino 444 units.
    (you're welcome)
    Somehow though even if you agree with this - you don't understand that in order for
    there to be those 12 sleepers... there HAD to be repeats. It's a known thing you could
    have predicted from spin #1 right ? Of course.
    Your same argument will be "There's no way to know what numbers will repeat !!!!"
    See how silly this sounds ??
    Any number that showed once is where you would bet - how else could it repeat ???
    How could you win on a number that shows twice unless you knew what numbers
    appeared once ??
    It's all such common sense - I wonder why you argue with it ?
    You can post quoted information and preach what I said directly above is wrong -
    and it's all 1 spin and 1 spin, not enough pockets or fallacy nonsense... but your
    going to tell me and others who know better that you can't narrow down what
    number(s) will repeat ??? That you can't narrow down what number(s) won't appear.
    That's you're not smart enough to NOT bet on a number that doesn't appear and lose
    nothing on it ?
    That you can't understand how repeaters we ALL know are going to happen make a
    profit ??
    I really find it hard to believe that you believe what you preach - or it's clear that you
    have no idea whatsoever how the game works outside of the bias world that isn't random.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2019
  4. Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone

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

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    Likes:
    935
    Occupation:
    Shoe Cobbler
    Location:
    Merica
    Turbo,

    The lengths that you go to in order to avoid discussing and posting anything resembling basic probability or math always amuses me. LOL!!!

    On a rolling horizon of play, sometimes numbers that have hit three times stop hitting all together.

    And sometimes a number that's never hit starts hitting.

    In real world, you have no way of knowing.
    To believe otherwise is just the gambler's fallacy. This is why you're still playing in the world of pretend where you can look forward in the data to see what you should go back and bet, and where you have an infinite number of bankroll resets with bonus money. :)

    upload_2019-1-31_22-58-58.png

    The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the mistaken belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during a given period, it will happen less frequently in the future (or vice versa). In situations where the outcome being observed is truly random and consists of independenttrials of a random process, this belief is false. The fallacy can arise in many situations, but is most strongly associated with gambling, where it is common among players.

    The term "Monte Carlo fallacy" originates from the best known example of the phenomenon, which occurred in the Monte Carlo Casino in 1913.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2019
  5. Jerome

    Jerome Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Likes:
    172
    Occupation:
    Self-Employed
    Location:
    England
    Turbo, you're right. There is a certain kind of dependency in roulette even though it's a game of independent trials. But you seem to be confusing independence between SUCCESSIVE SPINS with independence when referring to the SAME event (not considering previous events in time).

    As you rightly point out, if all numbers don't show once it means there MUST be repeaters - that's a matter of pure logic and no rational person can argue with it. Another very simple example is that if I know that red has just hit then it must be the case that black hasn't. Another example which isn't quite so obvious is that if I know that column 2-35 has just hit then it also must be the case that the probability that red has also hit is 1/3, because there are 4 reds in this column.

    You can deduce certain "events" knowing that other events have occurred, and this is called "conditional probability". This is denoted by the vertical bar "|", so
    P(A | B ) means the probability of event A given that event B has occurred.

    So referring to my example of the column bet above, a shorthand for writing the probability that red hits, given that column 2-35 hits, is

    P(A | B ) = 1/3, where A = "the probability that red hits and B = "the probability that column 2-35 hits. So there is dependence between events A and B.

    But you might remember in another thread that I said the definition of independence is that P(A | B) = P(A), which says that the probability of A does NOT depend on the probability of B, so aren't I contradicting myself? From the above, we know that the probability of A (red hits) is 18/37, but this certainly isn't the same as P(A | B), which I've already said is 1/3.

    But in that example, I was NOT talking about a dependence between events separated "in time"; in other words, events A and B are just different ways or of looking at the SAME outcome. Events A and B don't occur on different spins but the same spin, so there can be a dependence. This dependence can't exist when you're talking about events on successive spins, or events separated by any number of spins, for the simple reason that on every new spin, ANY event can occur.

    That being the case, how can you possibly DEDUCE (as a matter of certainty) that any event will occur on the next spin (or over the next series of spins) given that some other event has occurred in the past? Not only is there no certainty, there is no connection at all. And don't confuse this with the law of large numbers or the reliability of certain patterns occurring over a large number of spins.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2019
  6. Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone

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

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    Likes:
    935
    Occupation:
    Shoe Cobbler
    Location:
    Merica
    Jerome,

    Turbo really sucks at math. What you're trying to explain to him is way over his head.
    my-brain-is-full.jpg

    Turbo,

    You're excused. ;)
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2019
  7. Jerome

    Jerome Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Likes:
    172
    Occupation:
    Self-Employed
    Location:
    England
    Dr Sir,

    Maybe it is over his head the way I put it but I do kinda sympathise with him, he's a smart guy but GF is a really strong cognitive bias and although the more math-savvy of us know that it's a fallacy in the context of roulette, we probably commit the same fallacy in other contexts without realizing it.

    https://bigthink.com/praxis/how-the-gamblers-fallacy-wreaks-havoc-in-everyday-life

    I think the only way for him and others to see that outcomes are independent is to use empirical data and test systems using a random selection together with the selection based on past spins. Eventually they'll see that there's no difference in results. We can make mistakes in logic but numbers don't lie.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2019

  8. Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone

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

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    Likes:
    935
    Occupation:
    Shoe Cobbler
    Location:
    Merica
    Common sense should tell him to just look down and count the number pockets on the wheel each spin.
     
  9. Jerome

    Jerome Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Likes:
    172
    Occupation:
    Self-Employed
    Location:
    England
    If only they would study probability and stats, there are a ton of free courses online. If they understood that the binomial distribution ASSUMES that outcomes are independent they wouldn't make the mistake of using to try and predict future outcomes based on past outcomes! :confused:
     
  10. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,794
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    Jerome - you're argument seems valid until you stop to think about it.

    Yes, on any SINGLE spin - any event can occur.
    On a series of spins, X will happen which means Y won't happen. You seem to agree
    with this also.
    But you can't seem to connect where a prediction on future spins can be made based
    on what happened or what just happened now.
    It's strange.

    Like going to movie - only watching the ending first.
    Then you have this data (24 numbers appeared in 36 spins for example and 12 didn't show for
    example). This is known data from the future because this is what happens thanks to random.
    Now you can't seem to understand that watching the movie now from the beginning
    and predicting the ending is so easily possible.
    I've explained it enough times.
    Specific things need to happen in order to get to that end result that we all seem to
    agree on... but you don't understand how to put the puzzle together to get that
    result ? Why is this ?
    You seem to agree - then you drop back to seeing just 1 spin by itself as not being predictable
    and ignore everything before it and ahead of it - as if this one spin right now is the game.
    Sir No One thinks this way too, he'll never understand it - it's all just 1 independent spin.

    For us "system people" - It's not a mystery.
    Like I said - we can sit here at the start with NO data on the outcome at the end.
    I can predict 12 no shows in a cycle of spins, you'll agree that's probably how it will end.
    That means logically at least 12 times in this upcoming cycle repeats are going to happen.
    You seem to agree with this too.
    Then #3 shows. (Think to the end of the movie....)
    #3 can't be one of the 12 no shows - logic.. simple.. easy to understand...
    #3 can potentially be a repeater.. there will be 12 of them... You're confused
    how #3 is a potential repeater when so far it's the only one that fits this possibility
    based on what we know the outcome is ???
    #5 shows - then #9 - then #11 - we have 4 possible repeaters now, and 4 that
    won't be sleepers because they are crossed off of that list of "known results".
    Still you'll say #0 might be a repeater... but why ? We already have the info we need
    and #0 is still in the "likely to be a sleeper" column.
    See how the puzzle is formed putting the pieces together ? No ??
    #3 shows again and someone wins playing repeaters. To you I guess this was magic
    or luck or voodoo - but it's just common sense.

    I think the best analogy for this is one based on a board puzzle.
    Let's say I show you the box so you can see the final picture.
    I give you the pieces, they are all randomly shaped but fit together of course.
    You have them all "picture side down" - there's no way you could piece it together
    could you ? I agree, it's impossible.
    Now flip them over so the images are on the pieces.
    You can surely assemble them now can't you ?
    You know the final image (random gives us this with predictable patterns that you seem
    to agree with me are there)
    You know each individual piece and it's picture displayed on it and you can
    easily piece it together.
    But you'll continue to argue there's no way to make this puzzle and complete it.
    You'll hold up one single puzzle piece and say "This isn't connected to the other pieces
    so I don't know where it goes in the end picture". True !
    Now take the pieces, knowing what they are - take the box, knowing what the final
    photo looks like - and put it together.
    Is each piece still random ? Yes. Did you need a time machine ? No.
    Did Sir Anyone understand this ? Yes, but will pretend not to...
    Will Jerome post more calculations on how each piece is independent from the next
    piece and therefore the puzzle is doomed to never be completed ? Probably.
    What else is there to say.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2019
    trellw24 and Mako like this.
  11. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,794
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    I know how many pieces the puzzle has - you don't seem to understand the picture on the box.
    Maybe it's for "Age 3 and up" and you're not there yet.

    Strange, I can get it right almost every time. It must be magic.
     
    trellw24 likes this.
  12. Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone

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

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    Likes:
    935
    Occupation:
    Shoe Cobbler
    Location:
    Merica
    Turbo,

    Why don't just show how the probability has changed based on the previous hits? Can't huh?

    Here, let meet help you get started.
    Step 1. Look down and count the pockets. ;)
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2019
    eugene likes this.
  13. Bago

    Bago Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2017
    Likes:
    326
    Location:
    Mars
    Zero can appear at the end of the 37 spins session and repeat 4 times in a row while #3 #5 #9 #11 appeared at the beginning of the 37 spins session and never repeat. You seem to claim with this example that the first numbers appearing in a session of 37 spins have more chance to repeat than the numbers that come after which is completely false.
    Continue with your bullshit Turbo, you are amusing us.
     
    eugene likes this.
  14. Benas

    Benas Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2018
    Likes:
    159
    Occupation:
    Looking for peoples who play better...
    Location:
    Ania,PL
    Only nobody sees that :)
    Why for you not start talk how good you fly ? It also will look magic :)
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2019

  15. eugene

    eugene Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2016
    Likes:
    415
    Location:
    united kingdom
    If after 24 numbers, there an average of 18/24 numbers and you get the expected 24/25 out of 37 appear, that means after 24 spins, you are going to get 13 more numbers with an average of 6.5 of non hits and 6.5 of repeats. As the non hits come out and add to the number tally, then obviously it's less chance for the earlier hits to repeat and would just cost more and more using any kind of progression unless you magically knew what the repeats were going to be. :D
     
    Bago likes this.
  16. Jerome

    Jerome Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Likes:
    172
    Occupation:
    Self-Employed
    Location:
    England
    Well yes but X and Y here still occur within that ONE event, even though it may be a series of spins. There may be a dependence between X and Y in that event (such as, "if all numbers cannot be different in the series, there must be some repeats), but think of TWO series of spins; in that case no such dependence is necessary. You cannot say "if all numbers cannot be different in the first series, there must be some repeats in the second series". In that case there's no necessary connection between X and Y.

    I don't think it's a great analogy because in roulette we don't have the final picture to refer to, at least not a clear one. It's hazy and blurred, not a very good guide to where the pieces should go. LOTT means that on AVERAGE there will be 12 numbers remaining, but by definition averages refer to long term results which don't apply over such a short number of spins. The system will work great provided you get a lot of repeats fairly early on, but not otherwise.

    I agree with Mako; we can argue all day about who is right in theory but results are the final arbiter. I don't know why you post charts with so few spins. Why not simulate your systems in RX?
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2019
    Bago likes this.
  17. Bago

    Bago Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2017
    Likes:
    326
    Location:
    Mars
    proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.postimg.cc%2F6pTtYvhZ%2FParx.png

    Well said Eugene, and you can see through Turbo's bullshiter graph that the new HolyGrail begins to bet the numbers that came early in the session (small flat lines before betting=2-3 numbers).
     
  18. jekhb1976

    jekhb1976 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2019
    Likes:
    333
    Location:
    Holland
     
  19. Mako

    Mako Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2018
    Likes:
    429
    Location:
    Irvine, CA
    Since we all know that RX results can be manipulated, and he assumed no matter what large-scale charts he produced they would be discarded by critics for that reason, he chose instead to demonstrate his philosophy on Parx where the leaderboards could validate his performance.

    The critiques that came back from that effort centered on how Parx gives bonus credits out for free, how the bet limits are typically beyond the spread of B&M limits, etc., which are valid critiques if accurate.

    However, none of the most vocal people who doubted the accuracy of those efforts were able to perform at a similarly high level, despite a few trying extremely hard to do so to "disprove" Turbo's results (hi Bago).

    Steve and Caleb often repeat the mantra "why can't you beat MPR then" whenever these arguments come up, and that's fine. But I would counter that a bit by saying why haven't the people who really do feel Turbo is just bullshitting the world for whatever reason, and are dedicated to exposing him for the rest of our benefit, just go and beat Turbo's rankings on RX Simulator and Parx? They're both easily manipulated according to those who are discounting them, so it should be relatively easy to put some time into it and "prove" their hypothesis.

    If anyone feels Turbo's results on those platforms is fraudulent or the result of bonus credits or extreme bet limits, that's perfectly ok...hell, the cynical mind should be lauded in today's con-artist society where the strong routinely prey on the weak. But show the rest of us that you're the one who's right by exploiting those loopholes, and perform on those specific leaderboards.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2019
    trellw24 and Armitage Shanks like this.
  20. BETJACK

    BETJACK Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Likes:
    39
    Location:
    Flath Earht

Share This Page