Roulette Forum

Roulette Forum => Roulette Strategy Discussion => Roulette probabilities and more by Bayes => Topic started by: Bayes on August 17, 2016, 12:25:32 PM

Title: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: Bayes on August 17, 2016, 12:25:32 PM

This is a "fork" of another thread, in which I made the following statement regarding virtual losses:

The reality is that no matter how many virtual losses you use (and it would seem that more is better, for "safety"), outcomes behave like a receding horizon. It seems to be there in the distance, but never gets any closer. This is because being selective about what you "take" from a continuous random stream of numbers doesn't change the fact that you will end up with another continuous stream of random numbers which are indistinguishable from the original stream. "Removing" some elements doesn't leave any less.

I appreciate that this is very counter-intuitive and hard to get your head around, but sooner or later you have to come to this conclusion.

Here is part of Kav's reply:

Quote
Imagine this scenario. Someone is observing a number repeat 8 times (or whatever the realistic upper limit) then another player comes to the table and for the next 8 spins he sees the same number repeats itself 8 more times (the repeats limit for the second observer). Then a third person comes to the table and it is perfectly possible that he will observe the same number repeat another 8 times because he has not reached his limit. The problem is that the first person who sits on the table all this time has now seen the same number repeat 24 times!

This apparent objection to my proposed "model" of a receding horizon is that it must break down at the limits, because no one will ever see 24 consecutive hits on the same number (or 100 reds in a row, or whatever). So if it isn't true "at the limits", then that calls into question its accuracy as model, so perhaps, just being a "theory", it shouldn't be taken too seriously.

palestis seems to agree with this:

Quote
That's basically what it comes down to.
Let's take a more realistic event rather then the almost impossible 8 repeats of the same number.
A streak of 5,6,8,10 or whatever black in a row. As you walk around among many active roulette tables you will find that it's not that rare to observe a situation like this. Whether it is red or black or odd or even or 3 same DS's. If this situation is a virtual loss for me, I count on the fact that there will be at least one streak break in the next few spins.
But if my virtual losses don't count and the distant horizon becomes even more distant, simply because of my arrival at this table, ( and the roulette read my mind), then all players that happen to be playing  what I plan to bet on,  will be forced to see a new record. Or be PUNISHED, simply because  of my way of thinking as I came up to that table. Then if someone else thinking like me came up to the table, I will be forced to lose because A NEW STATISTIC has to be constructed specifically for the new player to push the horizon even further in a greater distance.  Ignoring every player that has been there earlier.
If that was the case then we would be witnessing "horror streaks" a lot more often. But we don't. Fortunately.
Virtual losses count and count heavily. And there are a lot of players using them without realizing that they use them. In fact most players moving around from table to table that's exactly what they do. Some follow the streak, the others go against it. if those who go against it are doomed, then we would be seeing streaks that we never saw before. But we don't. Something, some higher power makes sure that things remain normal, most of the time.

As I see it, there are several things wrong with this assessment. In the first place, there's no need to invoke any mysticism of a "higher power", or the idea that the roulette table knows what you're thinking and changes the outcomes accordingly. The idea of a limit to randomness is connected with the fact that we're usually interested in one particular sequence of outcomes selected from a staggering large number of possible outcomes.

In fact, each sequence of 24 spins has a probability of 1/37 x 1/37 x 1/37 ... up to 24 times, which gives a probability of 1 in 4.33 x 1037, a vanishingly small number. This is why we are never likely to see such an event, but each one of these possibilities is equally likely, so in choosing any one of them and testing for its "limit", the actual limit is not inherent in the outcomes themselves, but in the computing power at our disposal.

Thus, in testing for worst case scenarios, I've discovered that there seems to be a "limit" of about 5 standard deviations, no matter what the bet is. But is this really a limit? is there really some "higher power" which constrains the outcomes to conform to these apparent limits? I think it's an illusion, and that there really aren't any limits to randomness (which, by the way, is confirmed by the bell curve).

If palestis is correct, and that "virtual losses count and count heavily", then why do all simulations show that they don't count at all?

If outcomes (streaks, or whatever) tend towards a limit, then waiting for 4 virtual losses should give slightly better results than waiting for 3 virtual losses, waiting for 5 virtual losses should be better than waiting for 4, etc, but we don't see this. The actual results conform to the "infinite horizon" model which I suggested.

Here's another way of looking at it. Many are familiar with the technique of betting the opposite of the last X decisions (in fact I think this is dobblesteen's primary system on the even chances). So the idea is that you bet the opposite of the last 10 outcomes, and (so the logic goes) this is preferable to betting randomly because it would be a rare event for the last 10 outcomes to repeat exactly in the next 10 spins.

It also seems sensible to bet on the opposite of a longer sequence rather than a shorter one; betting against the last two outcomes is better than betting against the last 1, betting against the last 3 is better than betting on the last 2, and so on. Although this technique doesn't need to wait for losses, it's still a virtual losses type system because you're in effect taking those previous outcomes as your imagined bet selection, which has just lost X times in a row, and so some losses have been "removed" from the outcomes, thus giving a better than average chance that subsequent outcomes will give a win (or so the thinking goes).

I don't have the inconvenience of having to wait for streaks of 10, 15, or 20 in a row and then betting against them to continue, I can just bet the opposite of the last 10, 15 or 20 outcomes. But why stop there? I should be able to make success even more certain by just betting the opposite of the last 30, 50 or even 100 spins. In that case, I've found a bet selection which has lost 100 bets in a row - surely success in the next spin or two is guaranteed, right?

Sadly, no. I've tested this and similar ideas and the results are no better than just betting randomly, or on red. And it turned up some losses the like of which I'd never seen, like 30 losses in a row.

And the reason why it doesn't work is that there are no limits to randomness. The illusion that there are comes from not understanding that our choice of bet selection is only one of an infinite number each of which is equally like, and so it seems that events tend to a limit. It's not that there actually is a limit, but there are limitations in confirming what the theory predicts. It's not that probability theory breaks down or becomes invalid after a certain point.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: kav on August 17, 2016, 01:24:35 PM

Maybe we should split the discussion to more specific sub-subjects. This is a very fundamental concept we are talking about and as you showed in your post it has many implications. I think that talking about its implications (triggers, progressions, winning etc.) is very interesting from a practical angle, but it is also more open to debate. So I would like to focus only on the main question about limits and extreme conditions. Do limits exist? But instead of your question "Do limits exist in randomness?" my own question is "Do limits exists in reality?"

Someone has recorded 75 continuous spins of a specific, unbiased roulette wheel. He plays the video and shows you the first 25 spins: they are all Black numbers. Then he stops the video and tells you that in the rest of the video the following 50 spins are either:
B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B
or
R B R R R B R R B B B B R B R R R B B B B B R R B R B B R R B R B B B B B R B R R R B B R R B R R B

We know that both sequences have the same probability. Which one would you choose to bet your money on, as the most probable continuation of a 25 all Black sequence? I believe that limits exist in reality and therefore I'd choose the second sequence. What would be your answer? Why?

Another example. The first 5 spins in the video are 5 repeats of the number 7. Then he stops the video and tells you that in the next 10 spins one of the following sequences is correct:
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
6 5 19 18 17 5 7 0 1 32
On which sequence will you bet your money on?

Would seriously claim that in reality, a "75 Blacks" or a "15 repeats of 7" sequence is equally probable as any other sequence of the same length? No, I don't want your theoretical answer, I want the your-life-depends-on-it answer. I know that theoretically they are equally probable. But imagine that you had to risk everything you own on this bet. The 75 Black spin sequence or the other one?  I want to know if you would bet your fortune on a 75 Blacks  or a 15 repeats streak. Believe me there is a big difference between theoretical risk assessment and risking your own money. N.N. Taleb (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassim_Nicholas_Taleb) has written extensively about it and has described it as the "skin in the game" factor. You can read my opinion about the difference between theory and reality and theoretical use of statistics vs risking your own money (https://www.roulette30.com/win/betting-triggers-probability-mysteries)

I believe that in the constrains of reality and given that I don't want to pass a math exam but I risk my own money, for all practical purposes there ARE limits to roulette extreme events.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: Reyth on August 17, 2016, 01:33:45 PM
I don't have the time to digest everything in this thread but one thing has stood out and its the concept that limits in randomness actually exist.  I guess I have worked really hard at programming myself to always be conscious of and admit the POSSIBILITY of any result taking place that even though I have seen the proof repeatedly of these limits and without a single instance of failure, I still consider them "virtual" limits that I expect to possibly be surpassed on some dark day during a singularly isolated unexpected moment -- it seems like the stuff for poetry:

Quote
“Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore,
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
Tis some visitor," I muttered, "tapping at my chamber door —
Only this, and nothing more."

Ah, distinctly I remember it was in the bleak December,
And each separate dying ember wrought its ghost upon the floor.
Eagerly I wished the morrow; — vainly I had sought to borrow
From my books surcease of sorrow — sorrow for the lost Lenore —
For the rare and radiant maiden whom the angels name Lenore —
Nameless here for evermore.

And the silken sad uncertain rustling of each purple curtain
Thrilled me — filled me with fantastic terrors never felt before;
So that now, to still the beating of my heart, I stood repeating,
Tis some visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door —
Some late visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door; —
This it is, and nothing more."

Presently my soul grew stronger; hesitating then no longer,
But the fact is I was napping, and so gently you came rapping,
And so faintly you came tapping, tapping at my chamber door,
That I scarce was sure I heard you"— here I opened wide the door; —
Darkness there, and nothing more.

Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there wondering, fearing,
Doubting, dreaming dreams no mortals ever dared to dream before;
But the silence was unbroken, and the stillness gave no token,
And the only word there spoken was the whispered word, "Lenore?"
This I whispered, and an echo murmured back the word, "Lenore!" —
Merely this, and nothing more.

Back into the chamber turning, all my soul within me burning,
Soon again I heard a tapping somewhat louder than before.
Surely," said I, "surely that is something at my window lattice:
Let me see, then, what thereat is, and this mystery explore —
Let my heart be still a moment and this mystery explore; —
'Tis the wind and nothing more."

Open here I flung the shutter, when, with many a flirt and flutter,
In there stepped a stately raven of the saintly days of yore;
Not the least obeisance made he; not a minute stopped or stayed he;
But, with mien of lord or lady, perched above my chamber door —
Perched upon a bust of Pallas just above my chamber door —
Perched, and sat, and nothing more.

Then this ebony bird beguiling my sad fancy into smiling,
By the grave and stern decorum of the countenance it wore.
Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou," I said, "art sure no craven,
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the Nightly shore —
Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!"
Quoth the Raven, "Nevermore."

Much I marveled this ungainly fowl to hear discourse so plainly,
Though its answer little meaning— little relevancy bore;
For we cannot help agreeing that no living human being
Ever yet was blest with seeing bird above his chamber door —
Bird or beast upon the sculptured bust above his chamber door,
With such name as "Nevermore.”

Although, I will ask Bayes, you used to think "like I do" which to me sounds quite agreeable, but what exactly was/is it that made you give up this admirable mode of thought?
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: scepticus on August 17, 2016, 02:23:54 PM
Interesting discussion.
I think that if randomness means that we cannot know what the following winning numbers will be then there can be no limit to randomness.
Leaving aside the zero then any one of the first 3  possibilities  of an EC recurr on each and every 3 subsequent spins. But which one on the NEXT  3 spins ? Or any subsequent 3 spins.? I think we need to make an ASSUMPTION here.
Not only that I think no matter which Method you choose -even AP- you need  to make an Assumption  in  ALL  cases and I think we all need to be aware of that.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: palestis on August 17, 2016, 09:50:42 PM

Someone has recorded 75 continuous spins of a specific, unbiased roulette wheel. He plays the video and shows you the first 25 spins: they are all Black numbers. Then he stops the video and tells you that in the rest of the video the following 50 spins are either:
B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B
or
R B R R R B R R B B B B R B R R R B B B B B R R B R B B R R B R B B B B B R B R R R B B R R B R R B

We know that both sequences have the same probability. Which one would you choose to bet your money on, as the most probable continuation of a 25 all Black sequence? I believe that limits exist in reality and therefore I'd choose the second sequence. What would be your answer? Why?

Another example. The first 5 spins in the video are 5 repeats of the number 7. Then he stops the video and tells you that in the next 10 spins one of the following sequences is correct:
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
6 5 19 18 17 5 7 0 1 32
On which sequence will you bet your money on?

Again that's an extreme case, but the good news is that the same logic can be applied on a more realistic scenario. Something we see every time we go to the casino and we can take advantage of it to win. It doesn't have to be 75 B in a row because this is never gonna happen. It can be 8 or 10 B in a row, or whatever sequence beyond 10 that we happen to come across as we go around observing score boards. With the stipulation that we are only going to bet 5 spins, or stop anytime there is a hit, It doesn't have to be 5 bets. The goal is at least one hit.
If my money is on the line I would certainly bet Red. Aside theory, the main reason is that I rarely see 15 B in a row. I may be in the casino all day and I never see it. But seeing a red after 10B  in one of  the next 5 spins, I see all day long.
Y would I choose the rare and risk my money and not chose the most likely?
One can say that you can bet either B or R for the next 5 spins and still have the same chances.
But the rarity of an image developing into 15 B on the score board, compels  me to bet red.  Just to be on the safe side.
One can also claim that I don't have to wait for 10 B to bet R. I'll get the same results if I start betting R without looking at the board for the past results.
But doesn't that lead to betting every spin?
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: kav on August 17, 2016, 10:06:12 PM
Palestis,

Your approach is of a much more practical value, and you may very well be correct, but there can be much more debate about your everyday example. One could dismiss your observation as confirmation bias and gambler's fallacy.

The reason I'm focusing on extreme events and limits is that they are harder to dispute.
Therefore I would kindly ask Bayes or anyone else to give a specific separate answer about the extreme limit cases I gave as examples.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: palestis on August 17, 2016, 10:50:01 PM

This is "fork" of another thread, in which I made the following statement regarding virtual losses:

I don't have the inconvenience of having to wait for streaks of 10, 15, or 20 in a row and then betting against them to continue, I can just bet the opposite of the last 10, 15 or 20 outcomes. But why stop there? I should be able to make success even more certain by just betting the opposite of the last 30, 50 or even 100 spins. In that case, I've found a bet selection which has lost 100 bets in a row - surely success in the next spin or two is guaranteed, right?
Bayes this was a long post, though a very important one.
But I will only comment on the betting against a long streak to discontinue in the next long stretch.
Sure betting against a long streak like 20-30 numbers not to repeat itself, most likely will succeed.
The problems is that it is only practical if you succeed in the first spins, not the latest. Betting against a 30 numbers sequence and doubling each time (even starting with just one penny), will require more money than 10 Bill Gates's  combined. Do the math. If the starting chip is \$5 you might need more money than the entire US population put together.
You can't possibly be serious recommending a system like this.
The second comment is on the value of virtual losses.
You said you have done simulations that prove that virtual losses have no value.
I'd like to know what "command wording" did you use to code a simulation like this.
If you tested  millions of spins thru simulation, and saw 30 or more consecutive losses it doesn't count for this particular issue. It may prove that long losing streaks can happen but it has nothing to do with the use of virtual losses.
You may have seen another 20 red after an already streak of 10 occurred ( to make it 30), but this is not how virtual losses is used.
Most likely the command instruction should be only 5 bets on B after 10 R, with the stipulation that the bets stop as early as when a hit occurs.  Did you program the simulation with those conditions?
Secondly does your simulation involve randomly varying \$ amounts on those bets?
Also does it take into account that after a streak of successful triggers, the player can change at will the starting chip to the lowest value, to protect his profits? (Believe it or not, after a few consecutive successful attempts, the next attempts will have a little bit harder time winning regardless of system. And that's from my own experience and other who have been playing for a  long time).
I doubt very much that you used those and other constrains to program the simulation.
Because simulation is impossible if it involves "spur of the moment" decisions, and also money values that change randomly according to the player's will.
However your idea of 10,20,30 numbers streaks not to repeat, gave me an idea that is based on that, but with a unique  twist.
Pattern breakers involve betting too many numbers.
EC pattern breaker require 18 numbers bet.
Dozen pattern breaker require 2 dozens bet (24 numbers).
Single DS pattern breaker requires 5 DS's bet (30 numbers).
However the opposite (PATTERN REPEATER) requires the same bet as the group you anticipate to see repeated. I will come back on that as soon as I have some test results.

Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: palestis on August 17, 2016, 11:05:59 PM
Palestis,

Your approach is of a much more practical value, and you may very well be correct, but there can be much more debate about your everyday example. One could dismiss your observation as confirmation bias and gambler's fallacy.

The reason I'm focusing on extreme events and limits is that they are harder to dispute.
Therefore I would kindly ask Bayes or anyone else to give a specific separate answer about the extreme limit cases I gave as examples.
I see. I am curious too. You got my answer anyway.
If the gambler's fallacy applies in every day ordinary sequences, and not is extreme cases like you mentioned, then the gambler's fallacy is a myth.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: Reyth on August 18, 2016, 01:21:39 AM
If you program your range technique:

1) wait for trigger
2) bet range
3) repeat 1 & 2 if no hit in range until hit is established in the range

You will find that the max loss (say on a EC) will drop significantly from its normal level.  It doesn't matter how many spins you try, the max loss is always less which means you have a genuine edge.

The reason for this is exactly as you explain:

Rare events will not repeat themselves successively very often or for very long.

This "successive frequency rarity" is not achieved when betting an EC in one long stretch because that is only one event (not frequent nor successive); the stacked ranges subsequent to the trigger act as a statistical sieve to improve results.

It is interesting to note that the rarer the intial event, the less likely it is for it to repeat; i.e. the longer the triggers & the bigger the ranges, the greater the max loss reduction.

This is a statistical breakthrough in roulette that I don't think has been fully explored...
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: Reyth on August 18, 2016, 01:55:15 AM
Believe me there is a big difference between theoretical risk assessment and risking your own money. N.N. Taleb (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassim_Nicholas_Taleb) has written extensively about it and has described it as the "skin in the game" factor. You can read my opinion about the difference between theory and reality and theoretical use of statistics vs risking your own money (https://www.roulette30.com/win/betting-triggers-probability-mysteries)

I believe that in the constrains of reality and given that I don't want to pass a math exam but I risk my own money, for all practical purposes there ARE limits to roulette extreme events.

In thinking about this I think there is a certain "life or death", "fight or flight" instinct involved that could come into play in order for one to "intuit" the truth.

I think the real problem here is that roulette is so difficult as it is, that it is far too easy to believe GF related theory than it is to fight the variance with contrary theory; its too easy to lose in roulette and its too hard to prepare a proper statistical defense to deal with losses.

This conceptual environment may only get worse if one programs simulations because they tend towards simplicity whereas statistics in roulette and the means required to deal with those statistics, tend towards complexity.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: Bayes on August 18, 2016, 08:07:25 AM
Someone has recorded 75 continuous spins of a specific, unbiased roulette wheel. He plays the video and shows you the first 25 spins: they are all Black numbers. Then he stops the video and tells you that in the rest of the video the following 50 spins are either:
B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B
or
R B R R R B R R B B B B R B R R R B B B B B R R B R B B R R B R B B B B B R B R R R B B R R B R R B

We know that both sequences have the same probability. Which one would you choose to bet your money on, as the most probable continuation of a 25 all Black sequence? I believe that limits exist in reality and therefore I'd choose the second sequence. What would be your answer? Why?

As scep points out, there are always assumptions. If you hadn't explicitly said that the wheel was unbiased, I would have chosen the first sequence (all B's). This is because the empirical evidence suggests (according to Bayes' theorem) that there is a bias towards black. However, since we know the wheel is definitely not biased, I would choose the second sequence. But (and this is crucial), not because red is "due", but because a mix of red and black is more likely than all one colour, regardless of what has come before.

This doesn't contradict the fact that all sequences of the same length have the same probability, because in the case of a sequence the order of outcomes is taken into account. There are permutations and combinations; order matters for the former but not for the latter. To clarify this, consider the following sequences:

RRR
RRB
RBR
BRR

Ignoring the zero, each sequence has the same probability of 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/8 but if we ask, what is the probability that there will be exactly one black in 3 spins? The answer is the sum of each of the sequences which contain one black, which is 3 x 1/8 =  3/8. We can add them up because the sequences are mutually exclusive. So since 3/8 is a larger probability than 1/8, it makes sense to bet on there being 1 black in the 3 trials, rather than none. Notice that I don't need any information about what went before in order to come to this conclusion.

So in the light of this, I have a question for you, Kav. Suppose the conditions in your example are the same, but in this case you're given a choice not of just the two sequences

B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B

and

R B R R R B R R B B B B R B R R R B B B B B R R B R B B R R B R B B B B B R B R R R B B R R B R R B

but also a third, which is

B R R R R B B R B R B B R B B R R B B B B B R B B R B B R B B R B B B B B R B R B R B R R R B R R R

This last sequence has the same number of reds as the second, but the sequence (order) is different.

Which would you choose?

Quote
Another example. The first 5 spins in the video are 5 repeats of the number 7. Then he stops the video and tells you that in the next 10 spins one of the following sequences is correct:
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
6 5 19 18 17 5 7 0 1 32
On which sequence will you bet your money on?

The second sequence, for the same reasons given above.

Quote
Although, I will ask Bayes, you used to think "like I do" which to me sounds quite agreeable, but what exactly was/is it that made you give up this admirable mode of thought?

Good question. I've never been satisfied with just theory, no matter how plausible is it. The way to know is to actually put it to the test. This attitude is beautifully summed up by the great physicist Richard Feynman in a one minute video:

I believed there was a limit. And if there is a limit, it just seemed like common sense to wait for prior losses because in that way you're at least preserving your bankroll - losses cannot continue indefinitely so by "using up" some of those losses without having lost any bankroll, then losses should be fewer. It seems you have gained an advantage, not necessarily overcoming the house edge, but at least you should have reduced the length of the losing streaks. All very logical as far as it goes, but I was wrong because I didn't question the assumption that there was a limit. When I tested the assumption thoroughly I found that there wasn't a limit at all.

After doing the empirical tests I realized they only confirmed the simple conditions and nature of the game of roulette. On each spin each number has just as much chance to hit as any other. There are no limits implied, but players create their own based on what they see at the table, e.g. we never see 100 reds in a row, etc, therefore there must be limits and by extension outcomes can't be independent after all, therefore virtual betting works!
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: Bayes on August 18, 2016, 08:11:59 AM
I will reply to palestis later, but for now I have other things to do.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: palestis on August 19, 2016, 01:50:19 AM

As scep points out, there are always assumptions. If you hadn't explicitly said that the wheel was unbiased, I would have chosen the first sequence (all B's). This is because the empirical evidence suggests (according to Bayes' theorem) that there is a bias towards black. However, since we know the wheel is definitely not biased, I would choose the second sequence. But (and this is crucial), not because red is "due", but because a mix of red and black is more likely than all one colour, regardless of what has come before.
How can a wheel be biased towards a specific color? That's impossible.
Even if the wheel was heavily tilted, there are still 18 numbers alternating between black and red in the lower part of the incline. The only way that could happen would be if  the bottom of all the pockets of one color was raised, then and only then you would have color bias.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: Jesper on August 19, 2016, 04:13:32 AM

If somebody was showing me 12 of the same number in a row, like   12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12.
I would agree it is a very  rare event. If he ask me if I think it will repeat next 12 spins, I will say NO, it is extreme unlikely, and if it is a odds bet against it happens I may bet all I own.

But if I have to chose between a repeat and a certain other mixed frequency like  1,2,34,12,19,21,1,0,17,21, I would think it does not matter which I chose, as all (exactly) outcomes are the same probability.

If somebody use a system with a negative progression, there are more chances to win, when ever we try, but that has a cost when unwanted rare events happen.  There are 37^10 ways to get 10 numbers, some  methods will make it on most of them, and it may be so just one of the 37^10 is a loss.

Regarding bias of a color, it is possible if it is done by somebody can fiddle with the slots, by lack of maintenance it is very very unlikley.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: Bayes on August 19, 2016, 07:08:25 AM
How can a wheel be biased towards a specific color? That's impossible.

Actually it's not. Real posted this on another forum some time ago:

Quote
Oddly enough several years back we found a casino that had a few wheels with a red bias.  The casino had replaced the red inserts, but not the black inserts..I guess because they didn't have the correct material.  The red inserts were deadening the ball more, I guess because of how they were glued.  Regardless, it was one of the few times where a player could get an advantage playing on the outside.

But in any case, whether you know the cause of a bias is irrelevant. If the empirical data is suggesting that some outcomes are dominant then Bayes rule will always tell you to bet on whatever the dominating outcomes are. As you collect more data the dominance may decrease, in which case you would adjust your bets accordingly. If there is no dominance either way then the data says you shouldn't have a preference. Red is just as likely as black. You take account of the data you actually have, not some theoretical model of an ideal wheel which says that all outcomes are equally likely and that probabilities are fixed. The GF comes in when you say "this is a fair wheel and therefore when I see 10 blacks in a row I'll bet red because it's more likely than black". But that contradicts your assumption that the wheel is fair (which implies outcomes are equally likely and independent), hence the fallacy.

Quote
Sure betting against a long streak like 20-30 numbers not to repeat itself, most likely will succeed.
The problems is that it is only practical if you succeed in the first spins, not the latest. Betting against a 30 numbers sequence and doubling each time (even starting with just one penny), will require more money than 10 Bill Gates's  combined. Do the math. If the starting chip is \$5 you might need more money than the entire US population put together.
You can't possibly be serious recommending a system like this.

I'm not recommending any system at all. The point I was trying to make was that randomness doesn't have any limits, and that waiting for a longer streak of losses doesn't increase the likelihood that wins will come sooner rather than later. Isn't that what you're trying to achieve by using virtual bets?

Quote
Most likely the command instruction should be only 5 bets on B after 10 R, with the stipulation that the bets stop as early as when a hit occurs.  Did you program the simulation with those conditions?

No, but I'll write another one with the conditions you specify. In an earlier post you said you weren't interested in comparing the results of tests done when betting randomly or just on one side. But this means you must be just assuming that the method works. Without a "control" group how do you know this? You can't. The point of the simulation is to discover whether virtual betting results in reduced losses or variance compared to just betting continuously on one side, or randomly. So there should be two simulations done and the same number of bets should be placed in each, otherwise the comparison isn't a fair one. Conditions should be the same in both simulations, except that in one you're using virtual bets and in the other you're not. That way you know that the results tell you whether there is any difference with regard to virtual betting, and only virtual betting, not some other criteria.

Quote
Secondly does your simulation involve randomly varying \$ amounts on those bets?
Also does it take into account that after a streak of successful triggers, the player can change at will the starting chip to the lowest value, to protect his profits?

As I just explained, including these factors in the simulation would only muddy the waters and make it more complicated. It isn't necessary because if you include all this extra stuff in both simulations, the only difference would be in the fact that one strategy uses virtual bets and the other doesn't, so any differences in results will be attributed to that. All other factors such as money management etc will cancel each other out.

Quote
Because simulation is impossible if it involves "spur of the moment" decisions, and also money values that change randomly according to the player's will.

I agree that this can't be simulated, but how can a "spur of the moment" decision make any difference to your results?
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: Bayes on August 19, 2016, 07:22:10 AM
If somebody was showing me 12 of the same number in a row, like   12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12.
I would agree it is a very  rare event. If he ask me if I think it will repeat next 12 spins, I will say NO, it is extreme unlikely, and if it is a odds bet against it happens I may bet all I own.

Yes but if you really did see such a sequence - which has an astronomically small probability - wouldn't it be more sensible to abandon the default model of equally likely outcomes and assume that the wheel is biased? In that case betting on 12 to continue would be the best choice.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: Jesper on August 19, 2016, 07:58:30 AM
If somebody was showing me 12 of the same number in a row, like   12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12.
I would agree it is a very  rare event. If he ask me if I think it will repeat next 12 spins, I will say NO, it is extreme unlikely, and if it is a odds bet against it happens I may bet all I own.

Yes but if you really did see such a sequence - which has an astronomically small probability - wouldn't it be more sensible to abandon the default model of equally likely outcomes and assume that the wheel is biased? In that case betting on 12 to continue would be the best choice.

I had wait for some more spins. The chanse a wheel is biased to the extent it makes 10 of a kind, is minor as well.
In practise would a casino not start an investegation, allready after say 8 of a kind? Still all 10 spins in a row has the same probability, if we write down ten numbers and spin until they show, we have to spend about the same numbers of spins regardless which number we chose, 10 the same or any other numbers.
I have myself seen four and the 5th comes close after, in all it was 8 of the same numbers i 21 spins.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: palestis on August 19, 2016, 10:14:05 AM

Quote
Secondly does your simulation involve randomly varying \$ amounts on those bets?
Also does it take into account that after a streak of successful triggers, the player can change at will the starting chip to the lowest value, to protect his profits?

As I just explained, including these factors in the simulation would only muddy the waters and make it more complicated. It isn't necessary because if you include all this extra stuff in both simulations, the only difference would be in the fact that one strategy uses virtual bets and the other doesn't, so any differences in results will be attributed to that. All other factors such as money management etc will cancel each other out.

Quote
Because simulation is impossible if it involves "spur of the moment" decisions, and also money values that change randomly according to the player's will.

I agree that this can't be simulated, but how can a "spur of the moment" decision make any difference to your results?
Bayes
When a player walks around a casino floor observing many roulettes, there are no predetermined conditions as to what he may come across. In one roulette he may see 8 black in a row and he may decide to bet on red 4 times. Or on black, for that matter. Aiming to hit once and stop. Therefore he may not have to bet 4 times when at least one hit becomes a stipulation. Where betting black from the beginning (ignoring what came in the previous spins), means one thing and one thing only.
That all the streaks of red that you frequently see on score boards, would've been lost money. Frequent opposite streaks would mean frequent losses. At the same time most players would not be willing to continue betting with doubling against a negative streak after a few bets, for fear of losing too much. A \$10 minimum start will become a \$310 loss after just 5 spins (10-20-40-80-160). That would require 31 successful attempts just to recover.
In another roulette he may find 12 Odd numbers in a row, and he may bet on even 3 or 4 times, again aiming to win at least once and stop. Or continue betting on  odd 4 more times, or less if there is a hit. Another roulette may show that a dozen may be asleep for 16 spins, and he may decide to bet on that dozen 6 times, or less if there is a hit before all 6 bets are exhausted.
It is the "at least once" following a flexible rare event  that cannot be simulated. Simulation requires similar conditions to draw important conclusions. In roulette the object is PROFIT. The amount of profit is personal for every player, as it is the amount he allows himself  to lose before he walks away.
When conditions and amounts change perpetually, only empirical observations will work.
There are no short cuts around it.
Some members have been talking about extremely rare situations in this subject post, that an ordinary player may never see in his lifetime. Yet we are missing the big picture, which is situations that we are most likely to encounter time after time.
What is most likely to happen is available and visible to all every day every time.
Thinking of what can happen after 1 million spins is misleading.
It's far more important to know what is most likely to happen after 500 preexisting conditions (or triggers), as compared to a simulation of 10 million raw spins. As the latest may reveal situations so rare, it is highly unlikely that a player will ever encounter in his lifetime.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: kav on August 19, 2016, 10:53:11 AM
If somebody was showing me 12 of the same number in a row, like   12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12.
I would agree it is a very  rare event. If he ask me if I think it will repeat next 12 spins, I will say NO, it is extreme unlikely, and if it is a odds bet against it happens I may bet all I own.
Yes but if you really did see such a sequence - which has an astronomically small probability - wouldn't it be more sensible to abandon the default model of equally likely outcomes and assume that the wheel is biased? In that case betting on 12 to continue would be the best choice.
I think that introducing biased wheels in the context of this discussion of extreme probability events is misleading.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: Jesper on August 19, 2016, 11:08:00 AM
If somebody was showing me 12 of the same number in a row, like   12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12.
I would agree it is a very  rare event. If he ask me if I think it will repeat next 12 spins, I will say NO, it is extreme unlikely, and if it is a odds bet against it happens I may bet all I own.
Yes but if you really did see such a sequence - which has an astronomically small probability - wouldn't it be more sensible to abandon the default model of equally likely outcomes and assume that the wheel is biased? In that case betting on 12 to continue would be the best choice.
I think that introducing biased wheels in the context of this discussion of extreme probability events is misleading.

10 in a row that's a bias which would be visible for the naked eye!  "The extreme probability" Whats that?
Any who try to repeat any ten number series, face the same probability which order it ever will have. In that sense all ten numbers are very rare.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: kav on August 19, 2016, 11:12:30 AM
10 in a row that's a bias which would be visible for the naked eye!  "The extreme probability" Whats that?
Any who try to repeat any ten number series, face the same probability which order it ever will have. In that sense all ten numbers are very rare.

I described the puzzle/problem here: https://www.roulettelife.com/index.php?topic=1142.msg16034#msg16034 (https://www.roulettelife.com/index.php?topic=1142.msg16034#msg16034)
There is no dispute about the probabilities. And this is not a math exam, it is a gambling dilemma - there is a big difference.
It is up to you to bet your money on a number repeating 15 times. I would choose the other bet.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: Bayes on August 19, 2016, 11:26:41 AM
palestis, my question about the "spur of the moment" decisions was really a minor point. The point I would like to prove by the simulations is whether or not virtual bets have any impact on the number of losses and/or the variance.

You've offered an argument for the advantage of virtual bets:

Quote
Where betting black from the beginning (ignoring what came in the previous spins), means one thing and one thing only.
That all the streaks of red that you frequently see on score boards, would've been lost money. Frequent opposite streaks would mean frequent losses.

Yes but this completely ignores the fact that you are missing out on the short streaks (prior to your triggers of 4 or more streaks). Or, if you are aware of this, you say the virtual bets give you a greater degree of security than just betting straight away from spin 1. But as I've previously explained (and you didn't disagree), it isn't the length of the streaks which matters but the relation between any given streak and the chance of it continuing or breaking, and this is the same whatever the streak length happens to be.

I'll use your condition that you stop after the first win and use a 4 step martingale (or whatever you suggest).

There will be two simulations:

(1) Just bet on red continuously, using the same conditions. That is, I stop after the first win and reset the progression to 1 unit or continue until the progression busts. For example:

R win. stop, reset and bet R on next spin. (1)
B loss. double bet on next spin. (2)
R win. stop, reset and bet R on next spin (3)
B loss. double and bet R (4)
B loss. double and bet R (5)
R win. stop and reset progression. Bet red.

etc.

The numbers in brackets indicate the number of bets I have made.

(2) The second simulation will go like this:

R  no bet, looking for 4 blacks in a row
R  no bet, looking for 4 blacks in a row
B  ditto
B  ditto
B  ditto
B bet on red. (1)
B double and bet on red (2)
R win. reset and wait for next streak of 4 blacks.

Now of course for (2) I will have to get through many more spins because there will be a lot of no bets. I have made only 2 bets here, but for a fair comparison I will need to make the same number of bets in both simulations, agreed?

You are saying that method (2) is better than method (1), and I say they are both the same (that is the point of doing the simulation, to see who is correct).

But what does "better" mean? In statistics there are various tests you can do which determine whether two "treatments" or whatever have different effects. It can get pretty complicated, but let's keep it simple. I suggest the following: For each method I keep a count of the number of losses before I get the first hit, and also the total losses. Does that seem reasonable to you?

I'll print the detailed results to a file which I'll upload here. You can even provide the spins if you like.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: Jesper on August 19, 2016, 11:30:45 AM
10 in a row that's a bias which would be visible for the naked eye!  "The extreme probability" Whats that?
Any who try to repeat any ten number series, face the same probability which order it ever will have. In that sense all ten numbers are very rare.

I described the puzzle/problem here: https://www.roulettelife.com/index.php?topic=1142.msg16034#msg16034 (https://www.roulettelife.com/index.php?topic=1142.msg16034#msg16034)
There is no dispute about the probabilities. And this is not a math exam, it is a gambling dilemma - there is a big difference.
It is up to you to bet your money on a number repeating 15 times. I would choose the other bet.

Of  course  we can play how we like. Some discussion is a bit strange, and I think "triggers" may only delay the loss or win, as we play less.  Dobbelsteen use to say we can bet against any ten last spins, we do not have to wait for the run of ten of a kind. That's right, but the chance to lose ten in a row is allways the same regardless of how we bet.  Herr Dobbesteen says the loss is 1024 if a loss. But that's allways the risk playing EC, the risk  losing ten in a row is the same regardless of triggers. We can feel we lose less, but that is due to less play, and we can win less as well.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: Bayes on August 19, 2016, 11:51:30 AM
think "triggers" may only delay the loss or win, as we play less.

Exactly. There's no need to wait or walk around the casino looking for triggers. The same number of bets will produce the same results, virtual betting or not.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: Jesper on August 19, 2016, 12:27:58 PM
think "triggers" may only delay the loss or win, as we play less.

Exactly. There's no need to wait or walk around the casino looking for triggers. The same number of bets will produce the same results, virtual betting or not.

We can walk around and we can look for triggers, as long we know we do it just  because it is more fun.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: Reyth on August 19, 2016, 01:41:36 PM
I prefer to follow the proven statistics and the reduced max loss thank you.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: kav on August 19, 2016, 02:03:05 PM
Bayes,
I fully agree with the video you posted

The problem is that according to experiment or experience there are limits, since none has ever observed 50 consecutive Blacks or 15 repeats of the same number on an unbiased wheel.

I believe that this video is one of the best arguments supporting the existence of limits in roulette.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: Jesper on August 19, 2016, 02:21:50 PM
15 the same number repeated, I would think nobody see, as there is 37^15 possible outcomes, and 15 the same number is just one of them, which says it may happen once in a few thousend years of 1000 casinos time, with rapid spins. Yes, but that is the same for all 15 number sequences.   15 numbers in 37 is a astronomical small chance to repeat. Still rare things happen, calculate the odds of your own birth.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: dobbelsteen on August 19, 2016, 02:39:58 PM
Suppose we have a lotery with 512 figures. The first drawing gives the figure 321. How many drawings do we need to become two executive figures.We get one unit when a figure doesnot repeat.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: Harryj on August 19, 2016, 03:31:12 PM
I did intend to write a long post backing my ideas. However I lost my internet connection for most of this week, and am now threatened with a power failure.

I will only say that too much emphasis is placed on probability. Read Bernoulli's Theorem or D'Moivre's neither deal in facts. Only probabilities. Only with very large numbers can those probabilities be even close to facts.

I feel that in roulette or any gamble probability must bow to Statistics.

Harry
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: kav on August 19, 2016, 03:38:04 PM
I did intend to write a long post backing my ideas. However I lost my internet connection for most of this week, and am now threatened with a power failure.

I will only say that too much emphasis is placed on probability. Read Bernoulli's Theorem or D'Moivre's neither deal in facts. Only probabilities. Only with very large numbers can those probabilities be even close to facts.

I feel that in roulette or any gamble probability must bow to Statistics.

Harry
I (and many others) would certainly love to read that long post. :-)
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: Bayes on August 19, 2016, 04:04:57 PM
I believe that this video is one of the best arguments supporting the existence of limits in roulette.

Kav, how so? It hasn't been proven by experiment that there are limits. As I said earlier, the existence of apparent limits is due to the limitations of computing power.

But in any case, the longest recorded streak of an EC is 36 spins, which surpasses anything a computer has been able to turn up.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: Real on August 19, 2016, 04:46:29 PM
Quote
We can walk around and we can look for triggers, as long we know we do it just  because it is more fun.

You could also change it up.  If you see a woman in a green dress then that could be your betting trigger.  It should produce the same results.  ;)
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: Reyth on August 19, 2016, 05:49:45 PM

I did intend to write a long post backing my ideas. However I lost my internet connection for most of this week, and am now threatened with a power failure.

I will only say that too much emphasis is placed on probability. Read Bernoulli's Theorem or D'Moivre's neither deal in facts. Only probabilities. Only with very large numbers can those probabilities be even close to facts.

I feel that in roulette or any gamble probability must bow to Statistics.

Harry

I don't know why everyone is so focused on the triggers because that is only for short term protection and the relative reduction in expected max loss.

The objective reduction in the max loss is caused by the successive range betting; these act as sieves that improve the win rate because of the increased rarity of successive failures.

But alas, nobody talks about that except Pales & Harry.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: Sheridan44 on August 19, 2016, 05:54:43 PM
To me, there is a fundamental difference between trials and favorable cases....or probability versus "degrees of certainty" if you will. Probability represents the success ratio in only ONE trial. The degree of certainty measures the success ratio in a number of trials. Probability is static, whereas favorable cases are more fluid.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: palestis on August 19, 2016, 06:26:55 PM
Bayes,
I fully agree with the video you posted

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/b240PGCMwV0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The problem is that according to experiment or experience there are limits, since none has ever observed 50 consecutive Blacks or 15 repeats of the same number on an unbiased wheel.

I believe that this video is one of the best arguments supporting the existence of limits in roulette.
Indeed it proves the point some of us  have been trying to make for so long. If the experiment disagrees (which is non other than empirical observation), the assumption must be rejected. Though probability in not an assumption per se, it does assume that somewhere in the distant future or after several million spins, the unthinkable or extreme may happen. And if it happens so what? Are one or two rare exceptions going to compromise the vast majority of wins that came about simply by following the route of the empirical observation? (experiment).
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: Reyth on August 19, 2016, 06:52:54 PM
Bayes,
I fully agree with the video you posted

The problem is that according to experiment or experience there are limits, since none has ever observed 50 consecutive Blacks or 15 repeats of the same number on an unbiased wheel.

I believe that this video is one of the best arguments supporting the existence of limits in roulette.

LOL.  This is truly turning the tables on the theorists.  Its true that they cannot demonstrate nor prove their theory, they can only claim that their theory is defined correctly which is recursive and contradictory.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: palestis on August 19, 2016, 07:11:51 PM
If you program your range technique:

1) wait for trigger
2) bet range
3) repeat 1 & 2 if no hit in range until hit is established in the range

Basically this is the way to program the simulation Reyth. But one  problem is the trigger.
In one roulette I may bet red after 10 Black (because that's what I happened to see when I walked up to that roulette.). In another roulette I may  bet after seeing 6 black. In another after 12 odd. And this refers to EC triggers. It's not uncommon to play several different systems in the same session. Each having its own unique trigger. A trigger might form that requires to bet on one dozen or 2 dozens or 3 quads or 2-3 DS's. And out of the blue you play a different system.
This means that the trigger is not constant. It varies all the time, because we observe many roulettes. And we can't place an order for a specific trigger like we place orders for pizza. What you see is what you have to deal with at that moment.  And it can be different all the time. Only if you sit in one roulette you can wait for a specific trigger.
Another problem is the issue of the bet amount. One day if I had a bad day at work I may decide to start out with very small chip. Another day I may decide to use the maximum starting chip that I can afford. Again you can't simulate something that depends on how you feel at the moment, because the conclusions drawn are not representative of the player's actual playing style.
Also after a few successful bets I may decide to pull back and bet much lower. Believe it or not after a few successful consecutive attempts, you will find that most of the time things will get harder. In order to satisfy the player's own win/loss ratio. The opposite is also true. Harry can say a lot about this.
The point is that VARIABLE SITUATIONS cannot be simulated. And it's best left to manual  testing, to get more accurate results.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: Bayes on August 19, 2016, 07:23:44 PM
I will only say that too much emphasis is placed on probability. Read Bernoulli's Theorem or D'Moivre's neither deal in facts. Only probabilities. Only with very large numbers can those probabilities be even close to facts.

I feel that in roulette or any gamble probability must bow to Statistics.

Harry, it's not true that only with very large numbers can probabilities be close to the facts. It only takes a few thousand spins for the even chances to approximate very closely the theoretical probabilities.

And raw statistics, as everyone knows, can be manipulated or interpreted to mean anything. In fact they mean nothing unless interpreted. They don't stand on their own as objective facts. Reyth has interpreted his statistics to mean that virtual bets make a difference. I interpret them to mean the exact opposite.

1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, etc are the probabilities of successive streaks. These are statistics, are they not?  The value of each element is half the value of the previous element. How does this support the idea that it's better to start with the 4th element than the first, when the ratio between successive elements is constant?

What's being ignored is that it's the ratio of successive streaks that matters, not whether successive streaks diminish (which is true). A streak of 2 is to a streak of 1 what a streak of 5 is to a streak of 4, so wherever you start the chance of the next loss or win, or series of losses or wins, is the same. There's a factor of a half involved from streak to streak. Why is that so hard to understand?

As to limits, if there was a limit then the closer we get to whatever that limit is (be it 25 or whatever, for an EC), then the "distance" between successive streaks would diminish, so the ratio wouldn't be constant. The factor of a half, which was previously constant, would become a third, or a quarter, or a fifth. Where is the evidence for this? Do we see that it's far less likely that a streak of 10 will become a streak of 11 than it is for a streak of 2 to become a streak of 3, and increasingly less likely as the streaks get even longer?

No. And this has nothing to do with the tiny probability that anyone will actually see a streak of 40 reds in their lifetime, that's another red herring.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: palestis on August 19, 2016, 08:53:52 PM
palestis, my question about the "spur of the moment" decisions was really a minor point. The point I would like to prove by the simulations is whether or not virtual bets have any impact on the number of losses and/or the variance.

You've offered an argument for the advantage of virtual bets:

Quote
Where betting black from the beginning (ignoring what came in the previous spins), means one thing and one thing only.
That all the streaks of red that you frequently see on score boards, would've been lost money. Frequent opposite streaks would mean frequent losses.

Yes but this completely ignores the fact that you are missing out on the short streaks (prior to your triggers of 4 or more streaks). Or, if you are aware of this, you say the virtual bets give you a greater degree of security than just betting straight away from spin 1. But as I've previously explained (and you didn't disagree), it isn't the length of the streaks which matters but the relation between any given streak and the chance of it continuing or breaking, and this is the same whatever the streak length happens to be.

Yes I am well aware that I am missing out on winning opportunities. Which can be used against streaks that are not so friendly. I have had the same discussion with Mike about that some time ago.
Many things are wrong with this line of thought.
First of all you have to bet every spin. In doing so, you will lose due to the HE in the long run. That's the sad certainty.
Any wins here and there will only be temporary.
For that reason alone I wouldn't have to mention any other arguments against this style of play.
But there is more.
It's fine if you run into very short streaks. You can handle that. But if you run into a losing streak of 5, you will need to win 31 times just to recover one bad streak. If its 6 numbers streak you will need to win 63 times. 7 numbers streak you will need 127 wins to make up for it. Who in his right mind has the patience to wait for 31, 63 127 or  more  successful attempts, knowing that he will only break even? I wouldn't. Considering that streaks of 5 and 6 are frequent, most likely you will run into this situation in one session. And if you suffer another 5-6 number streak loss, forget about recovery anytime soon. Most players would give up playing that way. Can't you see the risk?
Continuous betting loses to HE.
Winning a friendly streak gets you single chip prizes.
Losing an opposite streak you  double quadruple octuple  etc.  your losses. Not a fair comparison.
Now it's the turn of the virtual losses.
First of all you have to set the minimum length of a streak that would count as virtual losses.
You may set it at 5, but it could very well be that in another roulette you may run into an 8 number long streak. Or 10 or 12.
Knowing that anything above 6 is getting to be rare, I can set my progression to just 3 spins.
Where in the other case, there is no progression limit, or the limit is your entire B/R that is at risk.
To lose that way here is what has to happen.
A 6 number streak has to turn to a 10 number streak very often. Which it doesn't.
A 7 number streak will have to become 11.
An 8 numbers streak has to become 12.
A 10 has to become 14. Very rare situations and when they happen all players gasp in awe.

Unless I am visually impaired, I simply never see those scenarios. Or if I see them they are very  few and far between.
In the previous scenario you bet every spin, and you double for an unknown numbers of spins. Which can be devastating if its long.
In the second scenario, you scale your progression down to 3 steps, and you count on the fact that a streak of 10 +  will not appear.  And it usually doesn't
And if it does rarely, one thing is certain. It will not happen again in a consecutive fashion.

Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: scepticus on August 19, 2016, 08:58:02 PM
You just beat me to posting Palestis.
A case here of   “ And never the twain shall meet !

I think we have been over this ground before.

I think Bayes is right to say that Paley will lose out when the earlier spins would have  given him a win.
I think Palestis is also right to say  “Yes, but I am willing to forgo them to lessen the bankroll needed when I do bet . And both my simulations and my actual betting confirm that “

Different strokes for different folks.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: Bayes on August 20, 2016, 08:40:59 AM
@Kav,

You're saying that because no-one has ever seen 50 blacks in a row then random must have limits. What, in your view, are the limits? Suppose someone had the patience to wait for a streak and then bet against it with a 10 step martingale. What would the streak length have to be to guarantee a profit?

"Extreme event" records are being broken all the time, and as I've pointed out more than once, it isn't possible to do an "experiment" to test directly whether random has limits or not. After all, suppose I managed to find a streak of 50 reds, then you could just say "ah, but that doesn't prove there are no limits - find me a streak of 100 reds!".

Of course, as palestis says, the fact that long streaks and extreme events exist doesn't really have direct practical consequences, but it does have a bearing on virtual losses, which is why I included "Limits of Randomness" in the thread title.

If there were limits, then virtual losses would work, wouldn't they? This is one of the consequences of the proposition that "random has limits". So going back to the video and Feynman's 3 steps, we have:

1. Make a guess (random has limits).
2. See what the guess would imply (virtual losses would make a difference).
3. Compare consequences with nature/experiment/observation/experience.

Now, if the outcome of the experiment disagrees with the implications or consequences of the guess, then the guess was wrong. Which in this case means that if we show that virtual losses don't make a difference to your bottom line then random doesn't have limits.

We can't directly find any limits, because we don't have the luxury of having infinite time and resources, but we can still use the 3 step method to discover whether there are any practical limits, which is what anyone should be concerned about anyway.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: Bayes on August 20, 2016, 08:58:36 AM
“Yes, but I am willing to forgo them to lessen the bankroll needed when I do bet . And both my simulations and my actual betting confirm that “

Different strokes for different folks.

scep, you're assuming that there is a benefit to virtual losses and that this is that it lessens the bankroll needed. Why should it lessen the bankroll?

palestis is saying that it is safer to wait for a streak of 7 because "you hardly ever see streaks of 10". But having found a streak of 7, it is then no less likely that it will turn into a streak of 10 than a single will turn into a streak of 4. This is because, as I keeping saying (and people keep ignoring), the relationship between streaks of successive lengths is the same. And note that these very statistics are what Reyth keeps reminding us "naysayers" of!

So starting from bet 1, it is not more likely that you will encounter a streak of 3 against you than if you wait for a streak of 7. The chance of a streak of 3 against you has a fixed probability of 1/8, and that's it. The fallacy lies in thinking that because you often see streaks of 3 but hardly ever streaks of 10, then it must be better to start from a streak of 7. If you actually count up your wins and losses you'll see that there is no advantage.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: Harryj on August 20, 2016, 11:19:33 AM
This exchange between Bayes and Pales, highlights the problem we face with Random. I do have seriuos thoughts on this. So while I compile that long post. Let me leave you with this question.

How probable is probability ??

Very claims the mathematician. After all what is a small percentage of 1% in a million trials?

But what about the poor "sucker in the street" ? Trying to decide on a small gamble ? He isn't thinking in millions, or even thousands. Perhaps not even in hundreds. How big an error is he facing?

Harry

Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: kav on August 20, 2016, 12:38:00 PM
Bayes,

@Kav,
You're saying that because no-one has ever seen 50 blacks in a row then random must have limits. What, in your view, are the limits? Suppose someone had the patience to wait for a streak and then bet against it with a 10 step martingale. What would the streak length have to be to guarantee a profit?

Since we are walking on thin ice here, I believe that the best choice of words is important.
I'm not saying that "random has limits" I'm saying "reality has limits". This is a more pragmatic approach than a scientific statement. Here is my view- I have carefully selected each word:
I believe that in the constrains of reality and given that I don't want to pass a math exam but I risk my own money, for all practical purposes there ARE limits to roulette extreme events.

I'm claiming nothing more (yet).

I'm not claiming that I know the exact limits, though 15 repeats of the same number or 50 consecutive Blacks seem out of limits and I would actually bet against them.

I'm not claiming I can use roulette limits to make money.
It is one thing to have the insight/knowledge and a totally different thing to capitalize on it. Table limits, bankroll requirements, extremely long waiting time, low profit/spin ratio and various other factors can make it hard to create a useful winning system out of great ideas, facts, insights, observations and knowledge.

It's like the Martingale or the law of the third (https://www.roulette30.com/2010/04/law-of-third.html). For example bankroll and table limits make the Martingale (https://www.roulette30.com/2014/03/the-martingale-progression.html) non-viable while it is a great idea. IF we accept that in 200 spins one can encounter no more than 135 losses, this is great to know, but very hard to devise a method to make a profit.

This is why I believe that the discussion about how one can capitalize on the "roulette limits" is muddying the waters about the practical existence of them with all kinds of debates. Let us first decide if there are realistic limits in roulette and then we can discuss the consequences and the possible ways to exploit this fact.

"Extreme event" records are being broken all the time, and as I've pointed out more than once, it isn't possible to do an "experiment" to test directly whether random has limits or not.

It's neither that simple nor that easy to break a record of 100 years in even chances. You would need another 100 years just for 1 more consecutive spin. Read that post by Real (https://www.roulettelife.com/index.php?topic=1071.msg16014#msg16014) . You may think that it supports your view of limitlessness but it also supports my view that realistic limits are what they are and you would need exponentially more trials to increase the limits by just one spin. Eventually you would reach the age of the universe and you would still have not exceeded all limits.

If there were limits, then virtual losses would work, wouldn't they? This is one of the consequences of the proposition that "random has limits". So going back to the video and Feynman's 3 steps, we have:

1. Make a guess (random has limits).
2. See what the guess would imply (virtual losses would make a difference).
3. Compare consequences with nature/experiment/observation/experience.

Now, if the outcome of the experiment disagrees with the implications or consequences of the guess, then the guess was wrong. Which in this case means that if we show that virtual losses don't make a difference to your bottom line then random doesn't have limits.

I don't agree. I understand your way of thinking and it seems to have some merit. But I don't agree that dismissing the value of virtual losses in everyday results will automatically dismiss the existence of roulette limits. It is perfectly possible that you can only gain an advantage if you push the outcomes into their extreme limits.

At the 10th or 15th consecutive spin there could always be a 50% chance of losing. But if you go for an extreme event your intention is that the losing streak will eventually lose. GF is about balance. One believes that the outcomes would start to balance out. Extreme limits are about... well limits, that there is an end. "It is due" is not the same with "it can't go further". You may miss the difference but it is there.

I firmly believe that the value of virtual losses (or past spins) is a related but different discussion that muddles the waters. You simply can not put someone who waits for 20 Blacks to bet on Red for another 20 spins on the same basket with someone who waits for 6 Blacks to bet on Red for the next 4 spins.

We can't directly find any limits, because we don't have the luxury of having infinite time and resources, but we can still use the 3 step method to discover whether there are any practical limits, which is what anyone should be concerned about anyway.
I don't care about theoretical limits of randomness. I give you that, let's say you are correct. It is irrelevant to my way of thinking. I care for realistic roulette limits and actual betting decisions (https://www.roulette30.com/win/betting-triggers-probability-mysteries).

I have a question for you, Kav. Suppose the conditions in your example are the same, but in this case you're given a choice not of just the two sequences
B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B
and
R B R R R B R R B B B B R B R R R B B B B B R R B R B B R R B R B B B B B R B R R R B B R R B R R B
but also a third, which is
B R R R R B B R B R B B R B B R R B B B B B R B B R B B R B B R B B B B B R B R B R B R R R B R R R

This last sequence has the same number of reds as the second, but the sequence (order) is different.
Which would you choose?
I would chose either the second or third. Both are a better bet for my money than the first one. I would avoid betting my hard earned money on the limits of roulette (deviation out of this world)

Someone has recorded 75 continuous spins of a specific, unbiased roulette wheel. He plays the video and shows you the first 25 spins: they are all Black numbers. Then he stops the video and tells you that in the rest of the video the following 50 spins are either:
B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B
or
R B R R R B R R B B B B R B R R R B B B B B R R B R B B R R B R B B B B B R B R R R B B R R B R R B

Which one would you choose to bet your money on, as the most probable continuation of a 25 all Black sequence? What would be your answer? Why?

[...] Since we know the wheel is definitely not biased, I would choose the second sequence. But (and this is crucial), not because red is "due", but because a mix of red and black is more likely than all one colour, regardless of what has come before.

And here we come the meat. My friend Bayes, believe me, since you choose the 2nd sequence, there is no explanation for your decision other than you don't want to bet in favor of a rare near impossible event of sky-high-deviation. So in praxis you accept that there are limits. As most would do if one was to bet his own money. There is no possible explanation for choosing one over the other between two sequences of equal probability. Theoretically there is no reason at all (beyond "limits of reality") to choose the second sequence.

Trying to explain your choice you write that: "because a mix of red and black is more likely than all one colour".
We are not talking about any mix though, we are talking about a very specific (in order) and extremely rare 50 spin sequence.
And then you continue:
"This doesn't contradict the fact that all sequences of the same length have the same probability, because in the case of a sequence the order of outcomes is taken into account. There are permutations and combinations; order matters for the former but not for the latter."

None is talking about combinations. We talk about a very specific sequence (specific order) that has the same probability with the all black sequence. Yet you bet your money on the non-all-black sequence. As I did. Because we both don't want to bet our money on a sky-high-deviation sequence that is beyond the so far known limits of roulette reality (not randomness).

To put it another way, both sequences are equally "rare", the only difference is that the all black sequence represents an out-of-this-world deviation from the mean - it is beyond any realistic limits.
It is wise to not bet in favor of such deviation. This is why we both chose the other sequence.

PS: I will try to compose a post with the more interesting parts of this thread. I thoroughly enjoy this discussion.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: palestis on August 20, 2016, 03:03:22 PM
“Yes, but I am willing to forgo them to lessen the bankroll needed when I do bet . And both my simulations and my actual betting confirm that “

Different strokes for different folks.

scep, you're assuming that there is a benefit to virtual losses and that this is that it lessens the bankroll needed. Why should it lessen the bankroll?

palestis is saying that it is safer to wait for a streak of 7 because "you hardly ever see streaks of 10". But having found a streak of 7, it is then no less likely that it will turn into a streak of 10 than a single will turn into a streak of 4. This is because, as I keeping saying (and people keep ignoring), the relationship between streaks of successive lengths is the same. And note that these very statistics are what Reyth keeps reminding us "naysayers" of!

So starting from bet 1, it is not more likely that you will encounter a streak of 3 against you than if you wait for a streak of 7. The chance of a streak of 3 against you has a fixed probability of 1/8, and that's it. The fallacy lies in thinking that because you often see streaks of 3 but hardly ever streaks of 10, then it must be better to start from a streak of 7. If you actually count up your wins and losses you'll see that there is no advantage.
Bayes
What you are actually trying to say is that by waiting for a 5,6,7 streak of virtual losses, I am setting myself up for a new record to be broken, or if that's too extreme to happen, I am setting myself up for an UNUSUAL increase in the number of LONG STREAKS never seen before in a table of daily results. Long enough to exceed the range of bets that I am going to place, to ensure that I will lose.
First of all I am not going to run into a new record because my range of bets is limited.
Secondly I am not going to change the landscape that we see every day, and out of the blue frequent  extra long streaks will start to emerge, something that we never saw before.
What you see in the picture is a typical landscape that you are very likely to see every day, every time, in every roulette in this world.
How can my action of waiting for several virtual losses change this landscape and start producing pictures that we have never seen before?  Not once not twice, but quite often. I doubt that this picture can ever change, except on a very few rare occasions.
I don't compare the results of betting only after so many virtual losses to constant betting from the beginning. Because it's not a fair comparison.
Constant betting from the beginning has a certain ending. Loss at least to the HE.
If I was playing the session depicted below, and run into the 6 or 7 numbers streak, and lucky to guess the right color I would be winning \$10,10,10,10,10, 10, 10. However if I picked the wrong color, I would be losing 10,20,40,80,160, 320,640. In a on line casino with 10 cents minimum, it would be no problem at all. But in that case you are playing for hobby. Not to make  money.
But in a real casino environment most players would not be able to handle this progression, either because they already lost their B/R in the first few steps, or for fear of losing too much for a benefit that's too small. Realistically, such playing style is impossible.
Playing the way I suggest even after 5 virtual losses and only 3 bets after that, would've resulted in winning all across the board. How can you ignore such a powerful fact?
I would definitely agree with you, if you showed me, a picture of daily results where streaks of 10+ numbers were just as many as  streaks of 5 numbers. But I doubt if such picture exists. Or if you find one, chances are you won't see it again any time soon.
And every time this question arises, theory proponents points us to simulations of several million spins, where it shows that new limits may exist and that old records can be broken.
What it doesn't point out is the hundreds of thousands of cases where results resemble what you see in the picture below.

Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: scepticus on August 20, 2016, 03:06:41 PM
“Yes, but I am willing to forgo them to lessen the bankroll needed when I do bet . And both my simulations and my actual betting confirm that “

Different strokes for different folks.

scep, you're assuming that there is a benefit to virtual losses and that this is that it lessens the bankroll needed. Why should it lessen the bankroll?

palestis is saying that it is safer to wait for a streak of 7 because "you hardly ever see streaks of 10". But having found a streak of 7, it is then no less likely that it will turn into a streak of 10 than a single will turn into a streak of 4. This is because, as I keeping saying (and people keep ignoring), the relationship between streaks of successive lengths is the same. And note that these very statistics are what Reyth keeps reminding us "naysayers" of!

So starting from bet 1, it is not more likely that you will encounter a streak of 3 against you than if you wait for a streak of 7. The chance of a streak of 3 against you has a fixed probability of 1/8, and that's it. The fallacy lies in thinking that because you often see streaks of 3 but hardly ever streaks of 10, then it must be better to start from a streak of 7. If you actually count up your wins and losses you'll see that there is no advantage.
Yes, Bayes, you are right -IN THEORY. But are you right in  actual practice ? I think it LOGICAL  to use virtual bets in practice .
If Palestis does  bet the way you suggest how much does he  LOSE if a win occurs early ? Nothing. How much does he WIN if a win comes early.? Nothing. Palestis is quite happy to forgo a POTENTIAL win to evade a POTENTIAL loss which would require a much larger bankroll.

If he bets your way if NO WIN comes early how much does he lose ?  And how much does he have to bet to win back his losses ? Quite a bit. Also, I don’t think you factor in the zero.
Betting his way the bankroll he needs is MUCH less than doing it your way IF A WIN DOES NOT COME EARLY !
He  prefers WAITING.
Different strokes for different folks.
His money .His Choice.
p.s,
I am prejudiced . I think the Long Run is irrelevant in actual betting and I think that is what you are relying on here.
I also think that maths geeks would not agree with your chosen method although I might.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: kav on August 20, 2016, 03:26:07 PM
Palestis,

Quote
I would definitely agree with you, if you showed me, a picture of daily results where streaks of 10+ numbers were just as many as  streaks of 5 numbers.

Bayes (and probability theory) is not saying that there are the same streaks of 5 as they are streaks of 10. They say that no matter the length of the streak, half the next spins will be Black and half will be Red.

So on average 1600 streaks would be divided likewise:

800 streaks of 1
400 streaks of 2
200 streaks of 3
100 streaks 0f 4
50 streaks of 5
25 streaks of 6
12 streaks of 7
6 streaks of 8
3 streaks of 9
2 streak of 10
1 streak of 11
You got the picture. Each time half the streaks continue and half the streaks break.
The absolute numbers decrease, but the percentage remains the same: 50%.

Put simply, theoretically most triggers just limit your losses by limiting your attempts. Limiting at the same time your opportunities to win. No real benefit. That's the theory.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: palestis on August 20, 2016, 04:33:31 PM

Palestis,

Quote
I would definitely agree with you, if you showed me, a picture of daily results where streaks of 10+ numbers were just as many as  streaks of 5 numbers.

Bayes (and probability theory) is not saying that there are the same streaks of 5 as they are streaks of 10. They say that no matter the length of the streak, half the next spins will be Black and half will be Red.

So on average 1600 streaks would be divided likewise:

800 streaks of 1
400 streaks of 2
200 streaks of 3
100 streaks 0f 4
50 streaks of 5
25 streaks of 6
12 streaks of 7
6 streaks of 8
3 streaks of 9
2 streak of 10
1 streak of 11
You got the picture. Each time half the streaks continue and half the streaks break.
The absolute numbers decrease, but the percentage remains the same: 50%.

Put simply, theoretically most triggers just limit your losses by limiting your attempts. Limiting at the same time your opportunities to win. No real benefit. That's the theory.
Kav don't forget that in a big casino you are likely to find dozens of roulettes open and active at any given time. What I am waiting for, may not be available in one roulette, but it would definitely be available in another. What you are saying is true if I sat down in one roulette only.
When you observe many roulettes, you have plenty of opportunities to bet even under the restrictions of virtual losses. In one roulette you might not see a color anomaly but you might see an odd/even anomaly. Or H/L. Or something else, that you recognize for a certain system.
With many roulettes under observation there is no shortage of betting opportunities.
Chasing winning opportunities without consultation of previous results will lead to a definite loss.
Because regardless of how many wins I had, when I run into a 6 number streak and play the opposite, I will either lose too much to bear or quit before I execute the entire progression.
That's the problem.
Where betting after 6, or 7 or more of one thing, I expect to hit the opposite more often than not. Because to lose I have to always exceed the rare. And just because I observe many roulettes, it doesn't mean that the rare becomes common occurrence. But that's what it has to happen, in order to lose.

It's like the Martingale or the law of the third (https://www.roulette30.com/2010/04/law-of-third.html). For example bankroll and table limits make the Martingale (https://www.roulette30.com/2014/03/the-martingale-progression.html) non-viable while it is a great idea. IF we accept that in 200 spins one can encounter no more than 135 losses, this is great to know, but very hard to devise a method to make a profit.
Taken from your own example, if in 120 spins we encountered 100 losses (even if they are virtual),  out of the 135 allowed, does that mean that in the next 80 spins (to complete the 200 spin cycle), we are likely to see another 80 losses, when the limit we know of is only 135 losses?
For me it means one thing and one thing only. If we exhausted most losses AT THE BEGINNING,(virtual or real), what remains will be many more wins.
According to Bayes if the losses happened at the beginning and all together in a long cluster,
then we are in danger of breaking the record or encounter a new event, we never saw before . And that's what I strongly disagree with
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: Bayes on August 21, 2016, 05:41:59 AM
According to Bayes if the losses happened at the beginning and all together in a long cluster,
then we are in danger of breaking the record or encounter a new event, we never saw before . And that's what I strongly disagree with

palestis, that's not at all what I'm saying, as Kav has tried to tell you in his last post. I'm sorry but you're just not getting it.

Not only that, but you won't accept any simulation as evidence either, because you think a computer can't mimic a player's style of betting, even though I explained that the style of betting isn't what's at issue, it's whether virtual losses are used or not.

Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: Bayes on August 21, 2016, 06:17:49 AM
@ Kav,

I think perhaps you're right and that I shouldn't have made this thread about the limits of randomness as well as virtual losses. It is just muddying the waters.

In fact if we accept your "practical" limits it still doesn't make a dent in my argument regarding virtual losses, because let's say that there really is a limit (for the even chances, it's 36, which is the longest recorded streak). In that case, this doesn't affect the stats and probability which say that up to a streak of 36, or even 25, it's still true that the chance of a streak continuing or breaking is 50%. That's enough to discredit the idea that starting your bets at a streak of 7 is somehow better than starting at a streak of 1.

But some who will admit that the chance of a streak ending is always 50%, deny the logical conclusion that virtual losses don't have an effect, and say it's only "theory". Oh well, I've tried, and perhaps the silent majority have "got it".

I'll write a simulation anyway.  ;)
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: GameNeverOver on August 21, 2016, 06:20:55 AM
@Palestis I'm with you on this one.
There are three phases in roulette:

1) "normal phase"
2) "destabilization phase"
3) "stabilization phase"

Waiting for a trigger is nothing but waiting for the "destabilization phase" to occur and get to or near its peak and winning is about cashing big on the "stabilization phase".

There are few approaches that result in profits in the short run and exploit the "normal phase" weaknesses but that is little risky because you never know when the wheel will enter in "destabilization phase" so I don't recommend using big money here.

Simple as that. :)

=GNO=
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: Bayes on August 21, 2016, 06:22:03 AM
Quote
We can walk around and we can look for triggers, as long we know we do it just  because it is more fun.

You could also change it up.  If you see a woman in a green dress then that could be your betting trigger.  It should produce the same results.  ;)

Real, I sent a couple of replies to your pm. Did you get them? Just asking because the pm system on this forum is unreliable.
Title: Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
Post by: Bayes on August 21, 2016, 06:27:55 AM
@ GameNeverOver,

Waiting for a trigger is nothing but waiting for the "destabilization phase" to occur

you never know when the wheel will enter in "destabilization phase" so I don't recommend using big money here.

Those statements are contradictory. If you never know when the "destabilization" phase will occur then why use triggers which attempt to capitalize on it?

It doesn't make any sense to say "just in case", because if you don't know then you don't know. Knowing nothing isn't grounds for making one decision in favour of any other.