Author Topic: Playing with Quotes and Concepts  (Read 2082 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

vitorwally

Re: Playing with Quotes and Concepts
« Reply #30 on: April 16, 2019, 05:21:10 PM »
@Third

So in reality, you are looking for the lowest coefficient?
Why exactly again does a lower coefficient work better?


Before, I wrote that regarding the coefficient "the lower usually the better". If there is a good composure between the units spent and numbers played, what is gonna be represented is the probability of failure. Of course we want that one to be low, and so the coefficient. You can check my first attachment to see what I'm trying to express. The closer it is of 1 unit per spin the better the coefficient. It might sound stupid to do this calculation for 2 or 3 betting sequences, but I had dozens of sequences to compare, so it helped when sorting them.

Did I sniff something about how you can calculate which is better between lower numbers bet but a greater number of spins AND higher numbers bet but a lesser number of spins?

For now, the coefficient kind of lacks the expression of the length of the betting sequence. That's why on the 2nd attachment you can get a coefficient near the earlier one, yet, it stretches over the double of 1st sequence. Longer sequences -> lower probability of failure. Even if you get a factor of 2 or 3 between the investment per numbers played, the coefficient will be pushed down because of the consequent probability. That's why I advised on my last post to be alert when using the coefficient, as it may demand an actual human eye fetching what's happening behind the scenes. I wrote that the coefficient "is a way I got to compare balanced bet selections", but I may have chosen the wrong word. It's not the worst semantic choice I've done, still, similar bet selections is a better way of put it into words. Similar, as balanced between themselves. You got me thinking on how to incorporate the length of a sequence into the coefficient, so I can make a comparison between sequences of different lengths. I may try do a redraft of the coefficient so it suits that set of needs too.

A word of appreciation and acknowledgment for Sputnik who has contributed here at the forum to spread the word about parachute betting, in which both attachments I'm posting are based.

Link to one of his topics about this subject: https://www.roulettelife.com/index.php/topic,1259.0.html
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, Mako, Third

Mako

Re: Playing with Quotes and Concepts
« Reply #31 on: April 16, 2019, 05:57:36 PM »
Very nice VW, well explained.  Sputnik has done some good ground work in this area, and you've expanded on it nicely.  Well done.
 
The following users thanked this post: Third

Third

Re: Playing with Quotes and Concepts
« Reply #32 on: April 16, 2019, 07:21:52 PM »
(Percentage of a hit) (cost) (spins) (percentage:cost)
A hit with 26 units on chances (48.64%) (26) (1) (1.9%)
13 units on a dozen or column (32.44%) (13) (1) (2.5%)
6 units on a double street (16.22%) (6) (1) (2.7%)
3 units on a street (8.11%) (3) (1) (2.7%)
2 units on a split, for 54 spins (19.92%) [8] (4) = 2:1 (2.0%)
1 unit on a Straight for 109 consecutives spins (21.86%) (9) (9) = 1:1 (2.2%)

Is my correction on the splits accurate?  Shouldn't it be 4 spins because 8+26=34, which equals 17*2?  And the same for SU.

WOW.  I think its bizarre that the DS & Street both equal 2.7% (per unit spent) and the bet amount exactly equals the total numbers bet...

There is a more enigmatic parameter in VARIANCE but it looks like VW has a handle on analyzing this?
« Last Edit: April 16, 2019, 08:18:55 PM by Third »
 

Mako

Re: Playing with Quotes and Concepts
« Reply #33 on: April 16, 2019, 08:35:03 PM »
Did a quick run on the longer version, used $5 units. Spins came from a single table/wheel at Duisburg from 9/15/2018, consecutive order, as if you sat down at that table and played it through.  Bet selection was simply taking the last repeat number, usually within the previous 10 spins and using it as the target.

The big draw down was a hit on the first split of the parachute (spin 26).

I wouldn't test any parachute manually as they tend to take a while to show you the true picture of wins v. losses.  In this case you can expect a full loss of the parachute every 271 attempts, and since the loss for a full attempt is -407 units, you can see that you'll need an accurate bet selection prior to using it if you want to have it recover for you as it's intended to.

Like it though, easy to memorize as parachutes go, well thought out.
 

kav

Re: Playing with Quotes and Concepts
« Reply #34 on: April 16, 2019, 09:32:59 PM »
Quality discussion - keep up the good work!
 
The following users thanked this post: Third

vitorwally

Re: Playing with Quotes and Concepts
« Reply #35 on: April 16, 2019, 11:24:23 PM »
@DrTalos

Concerning the pair coverage/wagering you say that we have multiple ways to choose regarding a given target debt. As a person who have read quite a lot about your key concepts, I think there's no straight answer to the question which is the preferable path. So we stay, if the question is asked in these terms. However, if we add some context to the question, some choices start to seem better than others. Let me quote you and express my beliefs.

The difference between a system and a recovery is that the system needs a single hit to end a session, while recovery implies several hits to go back to normal expectations, and so to get a profit.
For the recovery to have a chance of a success, it must have few units to recover, and rely on a situation that "must" occur.
The recovery and the system should be, in my opinion, a different way to grab the same target. As you can see, my first 4 spins cover the 1/60 ratio. The rest of the system push a little bit forward to a worst ratio than that. If I do not hit, the recovery kicks in, and in the recovery I need to reach that ratio (or close).

Recovery must rely on bigger picture than the system, or it will not work. When you bet, you are changing your statistics, your probability, your chances. You all have to understand this.

For me, there's a clear distinction between the system and the recovery. I'll give my point of view.

First things first, the system.
As outlined above, to have a realistic chance of pursuing success, the system itself cannot "sink" exaggeratedly because the recovery may not have enough "breath" to restore the bankroll in its fullness. Still, it kind of is our "close range shot in the woods". We want to hit more usually than we miss. To achieve this there has to be a commitment between the numbers played (odds of success) and the debt we accept to develop (if needed).
I don't know to which extend your system goes, but I can say that the first attachment of my prior post was a trial of doing a sort of introduction to the recovery. You mentioned that, when you played 1/60, the first 4 spins covered the ratio and the rest of the system pushed the ratio a little forward. That's exactly what that small parachute does. The first 4 spins go for 1/66 and at the end of the sequence it closes at 1/144.
At this point, odds matter, and matter because we want to hit as soon as possible to avoid recovery. Knowing that, even if we cannot manage to hit, we need to at least try to turn the tables at our favor.  The odds of a number coming out are (in a perfect wheel) always the same. It doesn't matter we played a, b, c or x, y, z. The wheel has no memory. Anyhow, let's imagine a coin toss. Respecting the fact that, at each toss, we either guess correctly or wrong, after 10 losing tosses, at the 11th, are we more likely to guess correctly or wrong? Independently of our choice. It doesn't matter if we're always choosing heads or if we're crossing between heads and tails intermittently. I know what you're thinking and therefore you don't need to reply to this.
Do you want another case where you have binomial behavior? We already know that the situation that "must" occur you repeatedly talk about is the wheel very rarely producing a cycle of 37 different outcomes (or 38 depending of the wheel). We either get a set of 37 different numbers or we don't. Ladies and gentleman, binomial probability. Again, I bow once more towards Sputnik for the fascinating shares here.
Conclusion: at the system phase, we need to bet the most numbers we can leaving the less trace possible; small coverage options are not desirable because we want to hit, betting with good to acceptable odds of success.

At the tail of the system it's where we start to show what we're really going after. And the recovery has to know well our target. Being a financial one, the debt, or game-derived, the situation that "must" occur. Ideally, both.
What I managed to achieve, inspired by your lead, is something that goes "side by side" with the system but with as many bullets as the session determines. The coverage we have available at this point depends of how far are we willing to go with the wagering. And even that might vary. After a hit, are our bankroll, total numbers played, spins played, hits achieved (just to name a few) equal to what they were before? I think the posts where I presented this problem translated into a system of equations help to understand how mutable and prone to change this counterbalancing is. The bottom line is that now we have access to multiple hits to restore our balance and at each n numbers (n=60, n=66, ...) we have one more shot.
For all that, I hold that even in the recovery we should try our best to bet as many numbers as possible. A sure thing is that as the recovery gets longer and longer we start to do some "long range shooting". Why does that happen? What limits how wide our coverage can go it's our current session state (debt being the most important variable) and the caps we might have to our wagering. I can mention numerous restraints but there are two that ring a bell:
- at max 1 unit per number (to some extent reminds me of flat betting);
- at max 1% of the original bankroll (or the variant, 1% of the current bankroll).
The main way I got to define how high the "ceiling" is it's neither one or the other. I'll keep it for me for a little longer. I want the members here to get their heads develop things by/for themselves.
As referred previously the recovery has to be alert of the situation that "must" occur. This is a tricky part to explain. Honestly, I think each and everyone here can intrinsically understand what the sentence I have been repeating here a few times symbolizes. I'll give an example though. Let's imagine we are playing with 1/66 only with DSs. After 11 spins there were played 66 numbers. In the carpet there are 11 DSs. What do you think it's more probable? All 11 coming out or a couple of them repeating? Do you think it's a coincidence I've chose that ratio? Just a few questions for the ones with insomnias. Another shout-out to Mr. Dobbelsteen and his remarkable SSB.
Conclusion: at the recovery phase, we kind of are on the same boat as the system when sizing the coverage of our bets, what changes is that now we have multiple steps till profit; we might have a special way though of weighing the price of each bet, since now the game is not static as in the system; who remembers the jellyfish analogy?

A recovery means you need more than one hit to end the session, otherwise is just your system streching out. My suggestion is to keep numbers as low as possible. The total bankroll needed must be low.

I did a quick refurbish on the last quote just to present the ideas in good order for later discussion. The core original idea remains.
I'm quoting this because although I have my certainties, your latest words gave me a question. I hope you haven't become sleepy with all the reading DrTalos.

In this last quote you say "keep numbers as low as possible". Do you mean units or coverage? They both make sense if not explicitly stated. I'm asking because it's an idea you reinforced in your post here. Not to mention that you gave emphasis to the split and solo number bets. You even set a question old fashion Talos' style. I'm looking forward to your reply if you take the time to do it.
 
The following users thanked this post: kav

vitorwally

Re: Playing with Quotes and Concepts
« Reply #36 on: April 16, 2019, 11:46:11 PM »
@Mako

I'll agree with you that for a DrTalos' approach, as I perceive it, the parachute you tested is not recommendable. I think it sets the bar a little bit too high getting over the 400 units. But money aside, imagine we're using it as our main system, the phase before recovery. Would you mind know that you expect a full loss of the parachute every 271 attempts? Entering recovery after that number of attempts doesn't sound bad to me. You would have to be afraid of your recovery to be dissatisfied with this number of expected successful attempts.
 

DrTalos

Re: Playing with Quotes and Concepts
« Reply #37 on: April 17, 2019, 12:53:15 AM »
Vitorwally, I am happy to answer because I think your work needs to be rewarded. You put yourself on the search instead of blames or easy complaints, like so many did. You and Third (and back in the days Reyth) took my breadcrumbs and tried to find your way to the treasure chest.
  A treasure chest I did not buried. Casinos, or better the game itself, gave us the opportunity to get the chest unlocked and used. What is there is what is there, and DrTalos or anybody can't get any pride of that.
  I always said that you must solve the riddle in a philosophical way and not mathematical. If you do not understand that play 1 number for 36 spins is different than play 1 EC for 2 spins, you have no hope.

Third, your calculations are wrong.
  If I am at -25, if I play 5 splits (1 for 5 spins) my total balance at the end of the spins will be -35, so if I hit I will win at least 1 unit.
  In that sense, a bet of 6 units on double street will bring my balance to -31, and a hit will give me +5 on the book, that can seems good, but it is conceptually wrong (if you win more than 1 unit you are wasting money). This last concept is terribly important. I know it can be confusing.

VW, I am talking about balance. We are facing a game with negative expectation, so we need to keep our negative numbers the lowest possible. We know that sooner or later we will hit. We need to make this hit the most profitable we can get without breaking the bank.
  Concepts first. You can cover 18 numbers with 1 unit, or 3 (using double streets) or 9 (splits) or 18. Or you can cover 18 numbers through various spins, like a split plaied for 9 spins. What is better?
  One can say, for example, that play a dozen gives you a 33% chance to hit (forget the 0 for a second, just to get the metaphor), and if you play a second unit on another dozen that has 50 % of chance to hit if the first choice is a wrong one. I would love to master English better to make this  sound less dumb than how it does now.
  So many things to think through.
 
The following users thanked this post: Badger, Third

scepticus

Re: Playing with Quotes and Concepts
« Reply #38 on: April 17, 2019, 12:08:05 PM »
Dr Talos
You say that the " ridddle " must be solved in a philosophical way , not  mathematical ,  yet you always talk about maths and not philosophy .  Why ?
 

DrTalos

Re: Playing with Quotes and Concepts
« Reply #39 on: April 17, 2019, 02:34:29 PM »
Au contraire, I did speak so many times in Philosophical terms, and I get a lot of complaints about it. I also open a thread in gambling philosophy section, about the weapons we have against our enemy.
  Because roulette is an enemy to defeat, and in order to do that you must know its weakness and flaws, likewise its strength.
  Roulette can do few things, and must do those all the time. A ball spun then fell in a pocket, and the payback goes following certain rules that never changes. It is a fierce and powerful opponent, but cannot do only those things.
  The player, weaker by all means, can move, change strategy, bet size, can avoid the fight for a while, and then go back at it with renewed power. Thanks to a fast run at an atm...
  What I mean is that we are not beaten by math, but by our misunderstanding of the whole thing. As I said many times, mathematically roulette is unbeatable, so we have to choose another way. I will never fight Mike Tyson in a ring. Probably I will try with chess.
  We have to decide what is more profitable: more spins or more coverage? This is a very short blanket, covers feet but not head, or vice versa. An important question though. If I put it in another way, that helps you? Something like "it is better to cover 35 numbers or one for 35 spins"?
  There is no a right answer, there is a consequence after you choose. If you pick the first, your strategy must develope consistently with that in mind. The same if you pick the latter. Those two strategies are completely different.
  Many times I see strategies that are not well fitted, moving from one idea to the other, and those cannot win.

 
The following users thanked this post: Badger, Third

vitorwally

Re: Playing with Quotes and Concepts
« Reply #40 on: April 17, 2019, 04:13:15 PM »
@DrTalos

I'm gonna write about 3 topics and if you want to respond, as before, you will be more than welcome.

I understand where you trying to get with the Monty Hall problem once again. It isn't the worst procedure. But we have two ways of look at it.

We might have a gameplay designed to work against a "weakness", like the SSB.
Example: we are playing against a specific pattern of outcomes of dozens; in this context it's where I think we can try to fit the 50% chance (approximately) of the second unit played. Even here we are at the mercy of raising controversy.

Otherwise the Monty Hall problem is a vague way of expressing chances, it doesn't change what is gonna come out neither define a strategy clearly better than other.
Again, if we think about playing a dozen, we can play straight, with two double streets, with four streets and so on. Let's assume all chips were placed in a way that if we manage to get a hit we profit 1 unit.
Are any of these selections more likely to show just because we split the coverage? I honestly don't think so.
Let's say we had 4 streets covered, from 1 to 12, is it valid to say this: "if 3 of our streets miss we have better chances of hitting than just playing the remaining street alone"?
Is it worth the hassle of not betting straight at the dozen?
But what if we were just starting, first bet, and we want to cover once more from 1 to 12?

I found that betting one dozen or two double streets is not the same, and not because you use an extra coin. And 4 streets are also different. If you work hard enough you can find a little wrinkle that can be used.

I'm gonna be as frankly as possible. This is where I start to feel puzzled. Better payouts? Getting a slight push (bigger than the regular unit) in our recovery/bankroll?

If your system win big, it will lose big. If your system wins one unit, you just have to figure out a way to recover from a very small amount in the bad streak. This is important.

I fully agree. Hands down one of the best things, with few words, that I have read here.

Average profit?
Each and every game ends with a profit from 1 to 9 units. The average profit, because games can last 1 spin while other 30 or so, is around .30

Jerome you are right. I changed a little bit the recovery part, to make it more fast to play and a little shorter, that brought me to some games that could finish with a 0 (it is a very unusual combination of hits) and to a maximum profit of 17 (even this one is a very unusual situation).
Most of the time my profit is from 1 to 11.

Yet, April 2019, you repeat your early-self with the following: "if you win more than 1 unit you are wasting money". This is a crucial idea I have in mind since I read it, written by you, 3 years ago.

You may be thinking why would I gather these 3 quotes. Everything has its reason. At the Monty Hall side of things, I feel puzzled but convicted of my own opinion. Not blind. Convicted. I cannot say the same about those earning margins you posted now and then. I have no convictions about those. I agree with the unitary profit rule. What happens is that I feel unsettled when you don't appear to follow it strictly. As you can tell, this issue entangles itself with the final questions I left at the end of the Monty Hall adaptation review.

Two topics covered, I'll proceed with the third, a question, with which I finish this post.

For this I propose a scenario. We have a debt of 146, let's use the end of the shorter parachute I left before. Imagining we are playing with 1/66, at this stage we need 3 hits and we want them to be spread as:
- first hit: double street;
- second hit: dozen;
- third hit: EC (high or low).
This in a "here is my target debt that I wish to resolve in X spins" model.
Which one of the coming options, with your experience and judgment at work, is the best?
- 11 units then 24 ending with 44;
- 17 units then 20 ending with 22;
- 19 units then 18 ending with 16;
- 28 units then 3 ending with 1.
The choices given are all built around the purpose of making the better payouts cutting the most of the debt (with the goal of 1 unit).
« Last Edit: April 17, 2019, 04:36:36 PM by vitorwally »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav

scepticus

Re: Playing with Quotes and Concepts
« Reply #41 on: April 17, 2019, 04:34:15 PM »
I don't agrre  Dr Talos, that we cannot use maths . to profit from roulette . We need to also use logic to " invent " a hypothesis. If our hypothesis is valid then the odds can be turned into the Bettor's favour .

It is the acceptance that we cannot use maths to beat roulette that leads to all sorts of   scenarios   which are unlikely to produce profits - except in the originators imagination.
 

DrTalos

Re: Playing with Quotes and Concepts
« Reply #42 on: April 17, 2019, 05:47:07 PM »
I will try to answer the best I can to 2 of your questions(third one needs time and attention I do not have now but I promise I will be back to you ASAP).

I don't always talk about Bertrand. More often I write about concept (something I think would be more useful) and you shouldn't confuse the two. My leading guide building Bertrand is not to be disclosed apart from some very basic ideas (the "revolutionary" one is only in my mind). What left is to be intended as general reasoning about strategies.

Your first topic is about coverage. What I mean is that despite the same payout, there are differences in playing one dozen or four streets, or 12 SU. And other differences if played a dozen or one street for 4 spins. The most evident is the numbers of units needed, other differences are there, and those needs to be found.

In the second topic I need to pint out that any system or strategy force you, sometimes, to part ways with your guidelines. It is the nature of the game that ask so.vif you play EC you have to ignore the 0, for example. In the example I used in previous post, if I need to recover from -25, and my strategy ask for the minimum amount of units placed, I will put a SU number that, if hits, brings me a profit of 10. If my strategy ask for most coverage, I will put 26 units on EC. if hits, my win will be 1 unit.consequences for a no hit are easy to decipher.

Scepticus, what I mean is that you don't start with math. You start with an idea. When they built the pyramids, they did not collected thousand of tons-heavy squared rocks near the Nile and they asked "What we do now with those?".

 

scepticus

Re: Playing with Quotes and Concepts
« Reply #43 on: April 17, 2019, 07:26:32 PM »
Dr Talos
We cannot avoid maths when betting roulette . Ideas are paramount ? Agreed. I have said so before.My " ideas " are derived FROM the maths -roulette is only the vehicle  and I use only FLAT BETS.
I think you focus too much on " recovery " . I think our main focus shpuld be in our Bet Selection. 
 

DrTalos

Re: Playing with Quotes and Concepts
« Reply #44 on: April 17, 2019, 07:54:48 PM »
You are 100% right, scepticus. I focus on recovery because I think every system sooner or later will get out of control, and in that case you have 2 options: accept the loss and move on, hoping for a profit in the long run (so many experienced players thinks that the way to win, and it is a respectable opinion for sure). Others, like me, cannot sustain psychologically a loss, so we aim for a win at every session, or at least a even.

So a system is, for me, a way of playing that brings you to two possible outcomes: a win, so you can start over a new game or, second, an outstanding balance with a mathematical situation that can be used as edge against the game.
  My math is statistics. What I care about is how balanced are results, so my Mike Tyson is Variance. I have all the patience in the world to fight that. Its weakness, my strength.
  It is the only way? Sure is not. If three people from this forum start to work together, they will find a better way, I am sure. But people usually wants to fight by themselves, so not to share the treasure chest.
  Human beings.

 
The following users thanked this post: Third