Author Topic: Roulette Randomnes and Previous outcomes  (Read 3272 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

kav

  • https://www.youtube.com/c/rouletteman
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2336
  • Thanked: 1315 times
  • Gender: Male
Roulette Randomnes and Previous outcomes
« on: March 02, 2017, 04:14:06 AM »
« Last Edit: March 02, 2017, 01:20:41 PM by kav »
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Reyth

Re: Roulette Randomnes and Previous outcomes
« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2017, 10:24:10 AM »
« Last Edit: March 02, 2017, 10:29:07 AM by Reyth »
 

Bayes

Re: Roulette Randomnes and Previous outcomes
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2017, 11:56:45 AM »
"There is much more to it than a few probability equations..."

Agreed! there are an infinite number of probability equations, when you think of
how many possible systems there are.

The trouble is (and please don't interpret this as me just being a naysayer),
the basic equation of negative expectation (which I think is the formula you're
objecting to as the one which is a "substitute for thinking") subsumes all
others, at least in terms of the expectation.

Unfortunately no matter how creative you are or how clever the system is, if
you work through the maths and find all the probabilities of a system the
expectation will aways come out negative. This must be so if all the constituent
probabilities are themselves short of the payout odds, because no matter how
you manipulate the formulas you won't get out more than you put in.

Regarding the "steel is heavier than air" analogy, the problem the Wright
brothers eventually solved was more of an engineering problem than a physics
problem, so does that mean that finding a system which works is an engineering
problem? maybe, but a system can only come out positive if you make certain
assumptions about the parameters (the contituent probabilities) which don't
strictly obey the "long term equally likely independent outcomes" scenario,
which is the starting point of the AP (that is, the AP looks for situations where those assumptions don't hold)
That's where creativity comes in.
Once the assumptions are in place, working through the maths is largely
mechanical.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2017, 11:59:36 AM by Bayes »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, MrPerfect.

kav

  • https://www.youtube.com/c/rouletteman
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2336
  • Thanked: 1315 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Roulette Randomnes and Previous outcomes
« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2017, 01:19:20 PM »
Bayes,
Thanks for your always thoughtful  comments. This video however touches on some aspects not often mentioned in such debates.
The difference between the description of the problem and the solution.
The difference between mediation and calculation.
The difference between maths and problem solving.

It is the same like asking a coach "how can we defeat a superior opponent?" and him answering "well, you can't". Someone taking the conditions of the problem as the answer to it. Like I said mathematics used as an excuse to NOT think.

Ps: I'm not talking about AP.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2017, 07:43:52 PM by kav »
 

Reyth

Re: Roulette Randomnes and Previous outcomes
« Reply #4 on: March 02, 2017, 02:57:35 PM »
Design a progression that functions like a jet engine. 

No matter how much negative expectation math is thrown at roulette, the POSSIBILITY always exists for a player to win with a progression.  Its when people ignore that possibility and try to discourage others from pursuing a solution, that I become offended.
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, scepticus

scepticus

Re: Roulette Randomnes and Previous outcomes
« Reply #5 on: March 02, 2017, 03:03:02 PM »
I have said before that we need to make an assumption before we can make a calculation - so I agree with Bayes here .
I agree with kav that if we want to play roulette we should THINK about the problem and not be deterred from trying to solve it, If you think that it cannot be solved then you should not play roulette.
I disagree  with both of them that it cannot be solved  by the  use of maths but I have stopped arguing about the validity of my “ Three Pillars“  ( nobody believes me )  and accept that the  general consensus is that the odds cannot be beaten  unless, as Bayes  says, we use assumptions.

As to the  problem of gambling addiction I think that a first step should be tighter regulation. Since deregulation   both gambling  and gambling addiction have soared . The US  (and the UK ) has  become a nation of gamblers. Today Big Business rules  . O.K.?
« Last Edit: March 02, 2017, 03:04:37 PM by scepticus »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav

kav

  • https://www.youtube.com/c/rouletteman
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2336
  • Thanked: 1315 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Roulette Randomnes and Previous outcomes
« Reply #6 on: March 02, 2017, 11:10:39 PM »
The secrets of the European roulette wheel.
 

scepticus

Re: Roulette Randomnes and Previous outcomes
« Reply #7 on: March 03, 2017, 01:02:26 AM »
So far as I am concerned kav, the wheel is only a device for spewing out random numbers. A " fair" RNG serves the same purpose so we don't need to know the position of the numbers  on the wheel . Unless you are an AP  - or novice looking for a number next to his/ her birthday.
Roulette is a numbers game . Maths deals with numbers so maths need to be considered but so also does the randomness of winning numbers .Together -  or separately - these  give  the Bettor a chance of winning. " 
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth, juice

Reyth

Re: Roulette Randomnes and Previous outcomes
« Reply #8 on: March 03, 2017, 03:36:17 AM »
Even though I agree with you Scep, there is something to be said for having the sectors (of all possible sizes) memorized as they represent things like Wheel Dozens & even Wheel High/Low; so even though the wheel is a pure random number generator, it is more felt for us?

For example, the sequence:

17 2 15 4 32 6

may look innocent enough, but actually it represents the same "wheel dozen" repeating 6 times in a row and is no less valid than the sequence:

3 11 7 12 2 10

Which obviously is the 1st Dozen on the felt.

If the second sequence is of value to any player, both sequences could easily be part of a system they are applying.

I thing I find really amazing is how this could easily fit into an inside system using your  9 blocks as the engine.  You are obviously more creative than I am in all of the ways you come up with your systems and so I just think its more fuel for your fire! :D

You have done work with "intersections" of numbers, right?  What if we used the wheel as a "third witness"?

LOL dang now I am getting all into it lol.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2017, 04:20:43 AM by Reyth »
 

scepticus

Re: Roulette Randomnes and Previous outcomes
« Reply #9 on: March 03, 2017, 03:53:20 AM »
Even though I agree with you Scep, there is something to be said for having the sectors (of all possible sizes) memorized as they represent things like Wheel Dozens & even Wheel High/Low; so even though the wheel is a pure random number generator, it is more felt for us?

Depends on your Perspective Reyth.
Where does the wheel give an advantage ?
The winning number MUST be in a dozen or column - if not the zero  must  it not ?
 

jerome26b

Re: Roulette Randomnes and Previous outcomes
« Reply #10 on: March 03, 2017, 06:43:46 PM »
hello guys,

if you study the répartition of numbers on physical wheels you will see clearly that the last ones don't give completely random results as fair RNG can produce. The american one is even less unbalanced. i read an article on a book about that fact and it's proven mathematically so european roulette, american roulettes and RNG have to be studied as different games in my opinion.

jerome.
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Reyth

Re: Roulette Randomnes and Previous outcomes
« Reply #11 on: March 03, 2017, 06:55:38 PM »
Even though I agree with you Scep, there is something to be said for having the sectors (of all possible sizes) memorized as they represent things like Wheel Dozens & even Wheel High/Low; so even though the wheel is a pure random number generator, it is more felt for us?

Depends on your Perspective Reyth.
Where does the wheel give an advantage ?
The winning number MUST be in a dozen or column - if not the zero  must  it not ?

The wheel can give us 3 more "contact points" of 12 numbers, yes, leaving out the pesky 0 and they would have to be bet from the inside in some form but your block system could still apply -- I think the strongest point of analysis will be overlapping results where the wheel recommends certain numbers with ITS dozens and the felt recommends certain numbers with ITS dozens and wouldn't that be stronger?  I dunno I am just trying to be creative about it.

I mean, there is so much freedom about the whole thing, we can even create our own wheel and order the numbers any way we wish; make a whole new wheel and put the numbers in their own sectors!
 

Reyth

Re: Roulette Randomnes and Previous outcomes
« Reply #12 on: March 03, 2017, 06:58:54 PM »
hello guys,

if you study the répartition of numbers on physical wheels you will see clearly that the last ones don't give completely random results as fair RNG can produce. The american one is even less unbalanced. i read an article on a book about that fact and it's proven mathematically so european roulette, american roulettes and RNG have to be studied as different games in my opinion.

jerome.

I certainly have never heard of this.  "repartition"?  So you are saying the pockets are not of equal width?
 

jerome26b

Re: Roulette Randomnes and Previous outcomes
« Reply #13 on: March 03, 2017, 07:26:05 PM »
Reyth,

I mean the way the pockets are placed are not random to fit a perfect equilibrium of a random game so in some ways the physical wheels can lead to more ecart than a fair RNG.

Jerome
 

Reyth

Re: Roulette Randomnes and Previous outcomes
« Reply #14 on: March 03, 2017, 07:44:08 PM »
I believe that wheels cannot be perfect and that RNG is the closest we can come to truly random.  It seems like many people believe that differences are not readily discernable but Real has said they are; I believe he has said that the Chi Square test will show the difference over a large enough trial.
 
The following users thanked this post: jerome26b