Author Topic: Statistical Question @ Palestis  (Read 847 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Joe

Re: Statistical Question @ Palestis
« Reply #15 on: June 01, 2019, 01:34:07 PM »

Unlike other types of statistics, long term roulette statistics will always lead to equilibrium. Between EC's, dozens ,columns, DS's, streets and among the 37 numbers.
How can you use this information creatively?
I think it's just a difference of definition. You seem to be defining "roulette statistics" as only the number of hits for the groups (evens, dozens, numbers etc) which do indeed equalize within the groups. But roulette statistics are any statistics pertaining to the game of roulette, which can include those relating to the law of the third, back to back losses, or anything else. The limit is your imagination. It just seemed to me that you were making a distinction (which isn't required) between those kinds of stats and simple stats relating to equilibrium. That's what I meant by "narrow".

It's my belief that combining multiple statistics and examining their relationships is the key to success. Roulette is a multivariate game. Systems fail (my opinion) because they don't take this into account and are far too simple or "one-dimensional". You can't avoid the inherent complexity, but that means a lot of hard work!
 

palestis

Re: Statistical Question @ Palestis
« Reply #16 on: June 01, 2019, 03:38:16 PM »
Why systems can fail is another issue that deserves its own post.
But for my own purposes it is the win/loss ratio and the knowledge of the number of possible back to back losses that I care to establish through long term statistics specific to a particular system.
So I purposely chose a statistical narrow view because it works for me. Keeping things very simple has worked for me just fine  throughout the years.
I don't disagree that keeping track of more complex statistics is not redundant to arrive at successful decisions, but if things work with simplicity I see no reason to make them more complex than they actually are.
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, Third, Stratege, Astutillo, fiben7

Joe

Re: Statistical Question @ Palestis
« Reply #17 on: June 02, 2019, 03:49:08 PM »
I don't disagree that keeping track of more complex statistics is not redundant to arrive at successful decisions, but if things work with simplicity I see no reason to make them more complex than they actually are.
Different players have different ideas about what "works", depending on their tolerance for taking risks. I personally have a low tolerance, so I don't consider any systems which use aggressive negative progressions as "working", even though they may have won so far (where those kinds of progressions are concerned, it's just a matter of time...).

 And there is also the issue of how much research and testing has been done. People have different ideas about how much is enough, but obviously if your research or testing is flawed or inadequate it can have disastrous consequences; ie you may think you have a winner, but you don't, until you find out using real money at the tables.
In my experience relatively simple systems just don't work. And this makes sense, because if they did everyone would be making a killing at the casinos.
 
The following users thanked this post: Third

scepticus

Re: Statistical Question @ Palestis
« Reply #18 on: June 02, 2019, 09:21:47 PM »

 Re: Statistical Question @ Palestis  " Different players have different ideas about what "works", depending on their tolerance for taking risks. I personally have a low tolerance, so I don't consider any systems which use aggressive negative progressions as "working", even though they may have won so far (where those kinds of progressions are concerned, it's just a matter of time...)."
I largely agree Joe but don't agree that " simple " systems are ineffective. The simpler the better - easier to bet.I used to bet  a single dozen using the 9 block as my guide .
Progession Bettors may like to know that  over my last 30 tables I won 3 units with it using Flat Bets .Using   a simple  1-2--3-4  over 4 spins it  would have won  59 chips.
p.s.i bet single numbers nowadays .

Verification that 
(1 ) Higher risk wins higher profits and lower risk mean slower profits . BUT only if you have a good Bet Selection !
« Last Edit: June 02, 2019, 09:39:41 PM by scepticus »
 
The following users thanked this post: Third