Author Topic: Why Can Roulette Be Beaten?  (Read 6804 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Reyth

Why Can Roulette Be Beaten?
« on: November 11, 2016, 07:04:30 AM »

If you wish to see specifically why, watch the 8 minute clip from minutes 12:15-20:50.

This shows that if we can put enough spins through our system, the results will conform to predictable results (win).

The reason why our overly-antagonistic AP "friends" don't wish to advocate ideas such as this, is because they live in a world where their day to day survival is based on knowing with 100% certainty that roulette cannot be beaten; this allows them to take greater comfort in their difficult and dangerous AP methods.

Why do they attack us?  Simply to exalt their own ego and/or promote their AP systems.

This video (the marble example in the first 12 minutes) also shows why it is so difficult to beat roulette.  If only roulette would conform to basic probability in our short sessions we would easily surpass the HE every time.  The problem, as shown by the marble example, is that the random flow is only certain to conform to probability in the long term (millions of spins) but in the short term (our sessions) a very great potential for variance exists which is why we get hit so ubelievably hard and it seems that all probability and statistics no longer even apply.

This variance CAN be tamed as proven by the indicated clip in this video.

This video also proves (through all the examples) that there IS a governing force in roulette; the Law of Large Numbers must still apply in our sessions otherwise the law would not exist; this means there IS a limit to the variance that we are allowed to experience.

Our AP friends will of course cry, "Impossible!" but that is because their very survival depends on being negative about anything except AP.  Those of us with unjaded and broad enough minds to grasp this potential will continue to work undaunted by our naysayers.

Code: [Select]
`0:13yeah0:17and order random event is number effect indeed can that large be overall of0:31events are very event no out predictable of which such the occurred with yet very0:41unpredictably dr. you just told you what this film is about he wrote a sentence0:50to explain what we want to show you and then he cut the sentence up into0:53individual words put the slips of paper into a half and threw them out in a0:58random order and read them to you in this random order1:02here's the sentence before it was scrambled random events are events which1:10occur with no order that is unpredictably and yet the overall effect1:15of a very large number of such events can be very predictable indeed who's1:22going to start well let's use a random event to the side as the tail tail head1:31you lose you start here are random events occurring naturally see the1:42needle hear the click this is a Geiger counter and this contains a radioactive1:49material polonium every time the Geiger counter clicks it means that i'm adam of1:56polonium change into an atom of LED accept that there are some extra flex2:01because of cosmic rays2:04I said that the flex our random events2:07what does that mean it means that there's no order to them2:11I can't predict when the next one will occur even if i measure the time between2:17place very accurately for a large number of clicks I will still not be able to2:22predict when the next one will occur2:25that's what i mean by a random event2:28here's a picture from your textbook a grasp of the activity of a sample of2:37polonium plotted against time in days you can see that the activity that is2:43the number of radioactive disintegrations in the sample decreases2:47as time goes on the activity at the start is 100-percent it's only one half2:58as much at the end of 138 days at the end of another 138 days it's half of3:09what it was at the end of the first 138 days it's down to one quarter of its3:15original activity and this goes on every 138 days sees the activity cut in half3:23this length of time is called the half-life of polonium all radioactive3:30substances behave in the same way3:33some have very short half-lives here's helium six a radioactive isotope of3:42helium has a half-life of eight tips of the second some have very long3:49half-lives here's uranium 2383:56half-life is four and one-half been in years4:03as you can see if a graph of activity is spotted in terms of half-life times it4:09is identical for all radioactive substances this is a law a law of4:17radioactive disintegration a description which fits the behavior of a great4:23variety of substances and allows us to predict their activity at any time in4:29the future4:31how can that's predictable behavior emerged from the random unpredictable4:36behavior the doctor IV showed you4:38well we'll come back to radioactivity later but first we're going to4:44investigate some other examples of random behavior would you care to4:58predict where the next marble go the same place5:06no I'll try a few more unpredictable than that there are 100 marbles in here5:22I'll got them all6:02yeah6:15most in here maybe that's the slot that the marbles are most likely to go into6:22I'll mark the way that the marbles are distributed here6:37I'll put the marbles back in the tube6:51ok6:53now I'll do it again7:32you can see that the distribution is not going to be the same7:43this time there are most marbles in this slot7:46perhaps now i might guess that the marbles are more likely to go into the7:50slot here but that's all it would be a guess I still haven't made enough7:55observations of the behavior of this apparatus to make reasonable predictions7:59about what will happen so I'm going to take some statistics on the apparatus8:03that is i'm going to observe what the behavior is in a systematic way I'm8:10going to drop a hundred Marbles many times and each time draw a graph like8:15this of the distribution and dr. Hume will help8:19well let's get to work8:46here are the 10 distributions we found in ten tries you can see that they're8:58all different8:59I'll put three of them together so you can compare them9:13yeah9:15yeah9:18now you can see the sort of fluctuations that there are between them9:23this graph shows the next thing we did we added together these ten distribution9:33and we / 10 to make this graph the same size as these graphs this is now the9:41average distribution for the ten tribes one way of looking at this is that this9:46is the distribution we would have found if we dropped a thousand Marbles all at9:50once the apparatus except that we couldn't because the apparatus won't9:54hold a thousand Marbles all at once then we did this again drop a hundred Marbles9:5910 * got another marble distribution and once more there it10:12these three are hundred marble distribution and these three are10:19thousand marble distribution you can see that the fluctuations here are much10:25smaller than the fluctuations here if we dropped a million marbles at a time in10:32the apparatus then we probably wouldn't be able to see any fluctuations call10:36each of these graphs is a frequency distribution and the point of taking a10:42lot of statistics for the apparatus is to get the best approximation that we10:47can to the true frequency distribution for the apparatus the average of these10:54three will be reasonably close to the truth frequency distribution here it is11:01average11:05now that I have this i can make predictions statistical predictions11:13about the behavior of this apparatus you can see that the frequency here is about11:23twice that of the frequency here11:27this means that the probability of a marble going in this lot is about twice11:34that of a marble going in this lot11:46it didn't go in either one you must realize that a single marble still11:51behave unpredictably this is the probability of a marble going in here is11:57twice that of a marble going in here just means that if I drop a very large12:01number of marbles twice as many of them will go in here as go in here and as12:08you've seen very large number means just that you've seen how to find the12:15frequency distribution for a simple pinball machine12:18what about this machine it has 16 squares of cardboard mounted so that12:26they can spin around one face is white and the other face flat and the light12:33scattered from these squares can be read on a light meter over there and the12:38results projected on the screen right now half of the squares are white and12:44half of them are black and the reading is eight now dr. IV is going to turn the12:50squared around so that they are all right side of now yes no12:55we've made the scale on the meter so that reads directly the number of white13:04square facing out the reading now is 16 now we better check up on the all-black13:13reading13:28the reading is zero no white square facing out13:31dr. IV is going to start the square spinning now with a fan13:38he has to help some of them along by hand13:43I want them to end up facing out so he's sliding screen across the back13:53the reading is eight now we're going to do this again several times and just13:59show you the results14:231114:29yeah14:35796 and damn you might expect that the most probable result with the eighth15:14corresponding to have black and half white but we get considerable15:18fluctuation from them six but we'll have to do that the large number of times in15:26order to get proper frequency distribution I don't think I have the15:31strength15:33well don't worry about that because for this machine I can calculate the15:37frequency distribution of so you when I spin one of these cards around it comes15:43out either black or white and I can't predict which I can't see any reason why15:49I should come up white instead of black so first of all I assumed that these two15:55alternatives are equally probable now these squares been quite independently16:01of each other so the final result is the overall effect of 16 independent random16:08events how do I calculate the probabilities of the 17 different16:14possible results there's only one way to get all black or all white16:21so these two meter readings are equally probable and they're certainly not very16:28probable but look at the arrangement of square16:31earth right now the probability of this particular arrangement is exactly the16:37same as that for all black or all white but the meter reads the overall effect16:43and can't tell the difference between this arrangement and any other with 1016:48white and six black so the probability of a particular meter reading depends on16:54the number of different ways the reading can be produced there are 16 different17:01ways of getting one white or one black so these two meter readings are equally17:07probable and 16 times more probable than this you may be able to go on now and17:17calculate how many different ways there are getting two white or two black there17:23are 120 different ways now i'm already off scale here when I plotted this17:30frequency distribution before and here it is too much reduced scale you can see17:38that the ones that I was calculating before hardly show here at all and that17:45the eight is the most probable perhaps you can try working this out for17:50yourself but you must remember that when you do make a calculation of this sort17:56that you should do experiments to check it now over here i have a similar18:02machine with spinning squares here there are 256 cards in the same area18:12the overall effect of this one is made up of a much larger number of18:18independent random events18:21what about a frequency distribution for18:26416 cards are reading of eight is more probable than the other for 256 cards18:36are reading out eight is very much more probable than any other reading in fact18:42it is so much so that i can almost say with certainty what the result will be18:46when I spend the cards i predict a reading of eight18:50let's draw19:05ok19:18ok19:22text my prediction19:28let's do it again19:42eight19:56yeah20:00eight20:08eight again20:24the fluctuations are very much smaller here this reading is predictable20:35that's why we said in the beginning that the overall effect of a large number of20:40random events is very predictable20:45now at last we are in a better position to talk about this law of radioactive20:51decay that we started with first of all what does it mean to talk about activity20:57it should mean that the sample of radioactive materials has a definite21:03predictable number of disintegration in a certain length of time often dr. Hume21:10speak of a predictable number of disintegration in a certain length of21:14time when the disintegration are random i'll show you with this21:20it's a Geiger counter which displays the number of columns here i'll start 1234521:32as you can see the time between count is not predictable when there are 10 counts21:38then a one comes up in the tens column and the unit column starts over now i'm21:43going to move the radioactive polonium here closer to the detector this will21:50increase the number of cum the unit com is still random but much faster than21:57before the tens column is pretty random but what's the hundreds column 600 70022:03800 900 these are quite regular there is some fluctuation the structure ation22:11would be even smaller if I took a thousand count at a time22:16this is just the law of large numbers i can never say what the time interval22:21between single counts will be but i can say fairly accurately what the time22:27interval for a large number of22:29out will be well that's how we get the activity two plus from this graph now22:36why does the activity decrease in this particular way for all radioactive22:42substances this too22:46it's the idea that disintegrations are random events perhaps I can simulate22:51this behavior with a sort of game here are 60 dice think of them as Adams a23:03rather small sample compared to the vast numbers of atoms in any piece of23:07radioactive material23:12suppose that the five represent atoms that have just disintegrated23:20I'll pile them up here the test of the five turning up it's just the same as23:32any other number it happens at random and is independent of what comes up on23:37any of the other dice23:47these represent the activity in the time interval of the first throw23:54there are no longer the same atoms they were before they disintegrated so that23:57they are eliminated from now on23:59now i'll throw again the chance of any one of these dates coming out five is24:19exactly the same as it was on the last row i'm calling these up besides the24:30first row this time there are fewer Adams disintegrating is one more24:43now i'm going to go on doing this thro after throw and you'll see what I get25:01throw25:15yeah25:26I still have a few days left that i'm trying to get five West but i'll stop25:45here this is a an activity time graph for this dice game and I want you to25:52compare it with the activity graph for a radioactive substance the dice graph26:04isn't smooth there are sizable fluctuations which are bound to occur26:09because i had only a small number of dice but the general trend is exactly26:14the same for both so it looks this the law of radioactive this integration is26:20the same as the law of chance for these dice i mentioned the log test for the26:25dice but I better say it again the chance of any one of the dice turning26:31out five is exactly the same on every throw this means that the chance of an26:37atom exploding in any one time interval is the same as in any other it doesn't26:43change whatever as time goes on Adams unlike people do not have a greater test26:49of disintegrating as they get older the chance always stays the same26:56perhaps you can calculate yourself what's the half-life of these dice27:00should be from this experiment looks as though it is about four throws27:09so far we've used one particular natural phenomenon radioactivity to illustrate27:15random events that's because the random nature of the individuals disintegration27:21is apparent orderly behavior is observed for a radioactive substance only at the27:28time for a large number of counts is used as a measure of activity now you27:34observe order behavior in the measurements that you make for instance27:39you measure light intensity with a light meter the needles doesn't jump around in27:46an unpredictable way does the orderly behavior that you observe always arise27:53because of random events this question can only be answered by doing27:57experiments many experiments show that sometimes the order that we observe does28:05have at the roots randomness which is not apparent but this isn't always true28:11sometimes experimental results indicate some sort of order at the roots28:18how can we tell when randomness underlies orderly behavior here is order28:24the behavior every time these squares fun around the reading with eight it's28:30clear that the order here comes from randomness but i could not tell by28:35watching the meteor alone but this was true28:39now suppose that I masked off all of the squares here except 16 the light going28:46to the meter will decrease and I have to use the more sensitive meter but the28:51point of this is that i could then tell by watching the meter alone that there28:56was randomness it would be just like the machine with 16 squares there would be29:01observable fluctuations you know that's very large numbers of photons arriving29:08at a light meter produce the reading29:13is the arrival of a photon a random event to tell us it would be necessary29:18to cut the number of photons arriving at the meter down to a much smaller number29:24and of course use a much more sensitive detective experiments like this have29:30been done this film shows an oscilloscope which is connected to a29:35very sensitive light detector you can see the pips caused by the arrival of29:42individual photons and you can see from the intervals between them that there is29:47evidence of randomness we see border in the world around us order that enables29:55us to make measurements for instance measurement of light intensity with a30:00light meter often this order arises from random events such large numbers of30:08random events that the most probable thing is the thing we always observe30:16yeah30:21yeahPublished on Oct 6, 2015`
« Last Edit: March 03, 2017, 10:33:04 PM by kav »

The following users thanked this post: Harryj, ianpbh

Bebediktus

Re: Why Can Roulette Be Beaten?
« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2016, 09:29:58 AM »

Our AP friends will of course cry, "Impossible!" but that is because their very survival depends on being negative about anything except AP.  Those of us with unjaded and broad enough minds to grasp this potential will continue to work undaunted by our naysayers.

Problem is that you not understand that theese AP friends do ,exactly like theese professors in that video - they find what is  most expected numbers - and bet ONLY on them.
But you bet on random  numbers - you not collect data  and not bet on these numbers which have bigger probability to fall.

Here is your problem and that video  show that.

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Reyth

Re: Why Can Roulette Be Beaten?
« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2016, 12:48:37 PM »
I have given up attempting to rely upon choosing NUMBERS that have a greater probability of falling and instead I just rely upon probability itself.

I have come to realize that we cannot try and "trick" roulette into giving us better odds, we just have to flow with the odds that roulette itself is governed by.

Just like the guys in the video, I am trying to collect enough "little squares" to make the overall results conform to their probability.

A major point is that, they didn't need millions of little squares; they were able to construct the number of squares they needed by hand.  In the same way, we need to construct our systems to flow with random and achieve the predictable results; essentially turning probability into practical certainty, just like in the video.

The problem is our AP "friends" deny that it is possible to construct the device in the first place!!

Now that we have realized and proven they are pulling the wool over our eyes, we simply need to construct the device.  It costs money (bankroll) and it needs a framework (system).
« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 06:58:58 PM by Reyth »

dobbelsteen

Re: Why Can Roulette Be Beaten?
« Reply #3 on: November 11, 2016, 02:14:48 PM »
The problem with the AP players is ,that they have no possibility to demonstrate their skill. We must belief what they write. I distrust their results as long as  i can not see a proof. No ap player has published  reporst of sessions.

The law of the large nummers is not valid for short run sessions. This is the reason why a short run session never ends with loss of 2,7%  The result of a short sesion is always between + and -. A long run session of a system shall end with a -.

The following users thanked this post: Harryj, Reyth

Bebediktus

Re: Why Can Roulette Be Beaten?
« Reply #4 on: November 11, 2016, 02:49:55 PM »
The problem with the AP players is ,that they have no possibility to demonstrate their skill. We must belief what they write. I distrust their results as long as  i can not see a proof. No ap player has published  reporst of sessions.
In Youtube are plenty of such demonstrations. I talk about VB play. Not need to have knowledges in math to calculate, that they predict better, than random - therefore have some advantage. The same is in casino.

For bias play not need demonstrattions at all - every can do that demonstrattion and see that some numbers in some periods of times fall more than other - and you think that this is disperssion - sometimes yes , but not always . Some part of that more often fall are fall with some reason.

So difference between you and these AP friends is that you that reasons not know and even not want to know , but they many work that understand reasons and that to apply them in their play...
« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 02:51:26 PM by Bebediktus »

The following users thanked this post: Harryj, Reyth

Reyth

Re: Why Can Roulette Be Beaten?
« Reply #5 on: November 11, 2016, 02:56:21 PM »
Probability is a bias.  There is nothing wrong with playing that.  Because as the video shows, if you get enough small squares, the results will become predictable.  Mr. Perfect I think accepts this.

Bebediktus

Re: Why Can Roulette Be Beaten?
« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2016, 02:57:26 PM »

A major point is that, they didn't need millions of little squares; they were able to construct the number of squares they needed by hand.  In the same way, we need to construct our systems to flow with random and achieve the predictable results; essentially turning probability into practical certainty, just like in the video.

Major point is that you himself not believe in what you talk , because you not win even with using your systems.
And all what you want is to get some magic system , which imidiatelly will make you winner
But if for that you must do some job - you imidiately give up .....

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Reyth

Re: Why Can Roulette Be Beaten?
« Reply #7 on: November 11, 2016, 02:59:19 PM »
So "me" is the average player?  Ok, I don't mind bearing that burden.  You of course are right that I am lazy as well, otherwise I would have already come up with the solution.  I DO believe what I say however and am working to prove it.  Like with bias AP, this work requires many thousands of spins and of course this involves real money too.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 03:08:20 PM by Reyth »

scepticus

Re: Why Can Roulette Be Beaten?
« Reply #8 on: November 11, 2016, 03:21:44 PM »
Bebediktus
What evidence have you for claiming that no Method player profits from playing roulette ?

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Sputnik

Re: Why Can Roulette Be Beaten?
« Reply #9 on: November 11, 2016, 03:46:49 PM »

No one has to prove anything or make claims - who cares what other Think ...
More fun to discuss what gamblers do with there winnings!

When i am up 1K i buy 20 gram or 1 oz gold bar.
I don't trust banks and never forgot what happen in Greace.

Cach is king and gold is the best against inflation.
Gold don't lose value and is the best existing currency if you look back in history.

Cheers

The following users thanked this post: kav, Reyth

Bebediktus

Re: Why Can Roulette Be Beaten?
« Reply #10 on: November 11, 2016, 05:18:50 PM »
Bebediktus
What evidence have you for claiming that no Method player profits from playing roulette ?
What evidence you have for claiming that 2+2=4 ?
You understand how stupid question you give ?
If i claim that i can win I at least can say why i can. And that WHY I CAN - is logical thing.  I simply are trained  to feel distance till end. I specially write FEEL not CALCULATE , because that what i do is more feeling than calculating.

But you cant write about your method nothing - why it can win ? How it can overcome house edge ?.....

Reyth

Re: Why Can Roulette Be Beaten?
« Reply #11 on: November 11, 2016, 05:44:41 PM »

12:26they can spin around one face is white and the other face flat and the light
12:33scattered from these squares can be read on a light meter over there and the
12:38results projected on the screen right now half of the squares are white and
12:44half of them are black and the reading is eight

14:35796 and damn you might expect that the most probable result with the eighth
15:14corresponding to have black and half white but we get considerable
15:18fluctuation from them six but we'll have to do that the large number of times in
15:26order to get proper frequency distribution

15:33well don't worry about that because for this machine I can calculate the
15:37frequency distribution of so you when I spin one of these cards around it comes
15:43out either black or white and I can't predict which I can't see any reason why
15:49I should come up white instead of black so first of all I assumed that these two
15:55alternatives are equally probable now these squares been quite independently
16:01of each other so the final result is the overall effect of 16 independent random
16:08events how do I calculate the probabilities of the 17 different
16:14possible results there's only one way to get all black or all white
16:21so these two meter readings are equally probable and they're certainly not very
16:28probable but look at the arrangement of square
16:31earth right now the probability of this particular arrangement is exactly the
16:37same as that for all black or all white but the meter reads the overall effect
16:43and can't tell the difference between this arrangement and any other with 10
16:48white and six black so the probability of a particular meter reading depends on
16:54the number of different ways the reading can be produced there are 16 different
17:01ways of getting one white or one black so these two meter readings are equally
17:07probable and 16 times more probable than this you may be able to go on now and
17:17calculate how many different ways there are getting two white or two black there
17:23are 120 different ways now i'm already off scale here when I plotted this
17:30frequency distribution before and here it is too much reduced scale you can see
17:38that the ones that I was calculating before hardly show here at all and that
17:45the eight is the most probable perhaps you can try working this out for
17:50yourself but you must remember that when you do make a calculation of this sort
17:56that you should do experiments to check it

now over here i have a similar
18:02machine with spinning squares here there are 256 cards in the same area
18:12the overall effect of this one is made up of a much larger number of
18:18independent random events
18:21what about a frequency distribution for
18:26 for 16 cards are reading of eight is more probable than the other for 256 cards
18:36are reading out eight is very much more probable than any other reading in fact
18:42it is so much so that i can almost say with certainty what the result will be
18:46when I spend the cards i predict a reading of eight
18:50let's draw
19:05ok
19:18ok
19:22text my prediction
19:28let's do it again
19:42eight
19:56yeah
20:00eight
20:08eight again
20:24the fluctuations are very much smaller here this reading is predictable

20:35that's why we said in the beginning that the overall effect of a large number of
20:40random events is very predictable

scepticus

Re: Why Can Roulette Be Beaten?
« Reply #12 on: November 11, 2016, 06:08:51 PM »
Bebediktus
What evidence have you for claiming that no Method player profits from playing roulette ?
What evidence you have for claiming that 2+2=4 ?
You understand how stupid question you give ?
If i claim that i can win I at least can say why i can. And that WHY I CAN - is logical thing.  I simply are trained  to feel distance till end. I specially write FEEL not CALCULATE , because that what i do is more feeling than calculating.

But you cant write about your method nothing - why it can win ? How it can overcome house edge ?.....

I have said that I use a derivative of the Nine Block but if you think that I will tell you what I actually bet you are being silly.
I have not claimed that I beat the HE - only that I win more than I lose when I use a particular method .
I have also said that you AP guys claim Extra Sensory Perception and you have just  proved it with your "feelings " idea .
I also said that I didn't think you were a roulette professional and I think that some will now agree with me.

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Bebediktus

Re: Why Can Roulette Be Beaten?
« Reply #13 on: November 11, 2016, 06:15:17 PM »

I also said that I didn't think you were a roulette professional and I think that some will now agree with me.
I will wish that all casino peoples will think so  . Why they not lissen you  ?

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Reyth

Re: Why Can Roulette Be Beaten?
« Reply #14 on: November 11, 2016, 07:49:50 PM »
But you bet on random  numbers - you not collect data  and not bet on these numbers which have bigger probability to fall.

Actually, I am discovering that the best way to get the best odds is NOT TO TRY AND DO SO.  To literally not care what numbers have fallen.  I only make one exception:

I will not play a number that has fallen last spin.

That is the worst bet in roulette.

I think as soon as we TRY and determine what numbers are more likely, we create a statistical footprint and we will receive worse odds because of it.

So if we are not actively trying to determine the best numbers, what ARE we trying to do?  Well, trying to set up our betting schema to flow with random (preparing for the worst) while keeping the odds as much in our favor as possible; I say "the odds" and I mean the general odds, not specific numbers i.e. any numbers -- ALL THE NUMBERS (except the last one), all while maintaining our payout to always be the highest possible.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 07:56:51 PM by Reyth »