New Forum Address: ROULETTELIFE.COM
  Update your Bookmarks

Author Topic: Counting Methods For Roulette?  (Read 8651 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

dobbelsteen

Re: Counting Methods For Roulette?
« Reply #15 on: June 23, 2016, 08:44:02 AM »
In excel it is much easyer to write for a Red number the figur 1 than R. This makes it also possible to count results and make digrams of the results. This is valid for all chances.That makes analises much more clear.

Sheridon which tools do you use to study the random sequences. In the past I used VB but now I use only Excelsheets
 
The following users thanked this post: Sheridan44

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1693
  • Thanked: 285 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Counting Methods For Roulette?
« Reply #16 on: June 23, 2016, 12:03:30 PM »
Random sequences are just that, random sequences.  Claiming that they're not random or that they're exploitable is an oxymoron. 
 
The following users thanked this post: Sheridan44

dobbelsteen

Re: Counting Methods For Roulette?
« Reply #17 on: June 23, 2016, 12:13:59 PM »
I do not appreciate such replies.These remarks are not a contribution to the topic.
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Jesper

Re: Counting Methods For Roulette?
« Reply #18 on: June 23, 2016, 12:19:26 PM »
Random sequences are just that, random sequences.  Claiming that they're not random or that they're exploitable is an oxymoron.

It may well goes for your own way!
 

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1693
  • Thanked: 285 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Counting Methods For Roulette?
« Reply #19 on: June 23, 2016, 12:34:14 PM »
Quote
I do not appreciate such replies.These remarks are not a contribution to the topic.

Well Dobbelsteen, it's like this.  You can choose to keep your head and the sand and stay in a safe zone where you don't have to hear the facts, or you can learn from people that are more experienced than you are.  It's a public forum.

I'm sorry, but the topic is stupid. I'm not politically correct, and I don't believe in keeping people stupid for the scammers.  (Besides, it irritates intelligent posters to read recycled gambler's fallacies.)

  Don't worry, I've said all that I plan to in this thread.   
« Last Edit: June 23, 2016, 12:39:56 PM by Real »
 

Sheridan44

Re: Counting Methods For Roulette?
« Reply #20 on: June 23, 2016, 12:40:40 PM »
Dobbel....

To organize data I use a combination of things.... I use Libre Office (ods file format) spreadsheets....which are kind of a pain in ways - as they are not compatible with Excel format. I had Excel for awhile but got rid of it - which was a mistake, I wished I would have kept Excel as it can do so much more. For data generation... I use my Roulette X-treme, Wiesbaden results, and sometimes the Random Org integer generator. I am fascinated with your SSB Strategy and have read many of your past posts on it....it's really interesting.

Real....

I know your methods are effective.... I have looked into AP methods (still learning) and are very intrigued by them.
------------------------------------------------------

I've always been a number geek and that's why I find relevance in both strategies....AP-VB and some systems.

I don't think one has to be on one side or the other (AP vs Systems). I've found merit on nearly every post - from everyone on this board since I've joined.

Come let us all reason together (someone famous said that at one time). I've made too many friends here to choose sides. Let's all enjoy. We all have a common "enemy" (the game itself).
« Last Edit: June 24, 2016, 04:08:51 PM by Sheridan44 »
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Sputnik

Re: Counting Methods For Roulette?
« Reply #21 on: June 24, 2016, 08:48:24 AM »
Here is a chart you can use as reference, i post the link so you can browse it and right click on your mouse to save image to your desktop.
http://i58.tinypic.com/2yk1flh.jpg

Above is the underrepresented events and at left is the overrepresented events.
I also show how to caculate the ECART/STDS

The french word for STDs is ECART

First you have to get the Absolute Ecart when you calculate.
So lets assume you have an sequence with 14 series alternating with two singles present.

Then you take 14 - 2 = 12

Now we want to get the statistical ecart so we continue with...

14 + 2 = 16

Now we take the sqr of 16 = 4

And finally we divide the absolute ecart whit the sqr

12 sqr 4 = 3,00

The Statistical Ecart 3,00



So for example you can use any window with 7 reds and 1 black in any combination as benchmark.
Then your assumptions and observation is the following expectation.
As 3.0 STDS window is pretty rare, so will the be at least two more blacks for the next 8 trails which would be regression towards the mean.
7 reds and 1 black is 1.5 STDS and from here it can continue to grow, so the question is what would be indication to ride imbalance for stronger STDS to grow.

Cheers
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, december, Reyth, Sheridan44

UK-21

Re: Counting Methods For Roulette?
« Reply #22 on: June 25, 2016, 09:12:50 AM »
I thought one calculated the standard deviation, based on probability and the number of trials as:

SquareRoot(n x p x (1-p) )

 . . . where n = number of trials (population) and p = probability.

http://ncalculators.com/math-worksheets/calculate-standard-deviation-from-probability-samples.htm [nofollow]

Easy for roulette, as we know the probability of any bet coverage, and we can plug in a number of trials to complete the calculation.

An interesting factor to note is that although the standard deviation as a %age of the total population reduces, the actual number increases. Using the example of flipping a coin (0.50 prob of heads or tails) over 100 trials, the StdDev is 5, which is 5% of the number of trials. If repeating the exercise for 10,000 trials the StdDev is 50, which is only 0.5%, albeit that the actual normal range of variance is ten times greater.

This is the reason that anyone placing bets based on the basis of regression theory, and that the results will always average back to the EV over time is mistaken - they don't; over the longer term they'll average back to somewhare between plus or minus three standard deviations either side of the mean. In the case of the coin flip example this will be:

100 trials,        StdDev = 5,       3 x StdDev = 15,  (100 x 0.5) +/-  15  = a range from 35 to 65 for heads/tails.

10,000 trials    StdDev = 50,     3 x StdDev = 150,  (10,000 x 0.5) +/- 150 = a range from 4,850 to 5,150

So if your 100 trials results were 40 heads (2 StdDevs south of the EV), and over the time it took to achieve 10,000 trials the variance reduced to 1 StdDev south it would look as though the variance was reducing - but 1 StdDev at 10,000 trials = 50, whereas 2 StdDevs at 100 = 10. So if you were betting on heads you'd have actually increased your losses five fold, chasing this idea.

Apologies for taking this off of the original thread - which I still think is a bizarre bonkers idea.

 
The following users thanked this post: kav, Reyth, Sheridan44

Re: Counting Methods For Roulette?
« Reply #23 on: June 25, 2016, 01:46:56 PM »
Oh, that's really good idea!
 

Sputnik

Re: Counting Methods For Roulette?
« Reply #24 on: June 25, 2016, 04:48:43 PM »
Tendency play/game:

Sherridan & all we need using some kind of playing model.
With this example i will referring to singles contra larger series.

I give example with regession towards the mean.
But i hope you get the main idea.

We look for imbalance or bias within a window of events / trails.
This means we are measuring overrepresented events and underrepresented events.

When we reach a benchmark around 3.0 STD (could be any) then we have a pretty strong imbalance / bias.
Then it can continue to grow stronger as the nothing is due or that the bell curve has no limit.
This does not effect us.

This window of bias or overrepresented events following strict rules and values based upon math and probability to be valid.
With the example singles contra larger series so do we have the following values or playing model.

Singles has the value of 1
Series of two has the value of 0
Series of three has the value of 1
Series of four has the value of 2
Series of five has the value of 3
Series of six has the value of 4
Series of seven has the value of 5
And so it continues ...

Look at this values again, here you have singles contra series of three and both with the same value.
This is because when you measuring the random flow or distribution of random events you want to make sure you have overrepresented events and underrepresented events or a true bias into one direction.

This way with this example larger series are underrepresented.
Now you can pick how many windows you want with 14/2 and you will for the next 50 100 150 200 250 300 trails get larger series.
You know they will show, but you don't know when, this is why cut point methodology only attack when change is present.

Example 14 singles and 2 series of three is 3.0 STD.
it's a window of 16 events with a strong bias or a strong window with overrepresented events.

This is the starting point or core about this subject.
To measuring the random flow and find overrepresented events or strong bias (around 3.0 std)
Different methods or measuring other events has other values based upon math and probability.

With this example we have find and observe a window with 14 singles and 2 series of three.
From this moment and further into the future so do we have some degree of expectation.

I am not saying we have a crystal ball.
But we have what we can call vacuum pressure or a hole or a window with strong imbalance of overrepresented events.
So our expectation is that sooner or later the underrepresented events will start to show.

I know that the bias can grow and get stronger and hit 4 5 6 STD but it does not effect us.
In this case we would only observe.

Cut point methodology is about to capture the drop point after a strong bias.
The drop point or the underrepresented events can come as tiny, medium or large drop points.

The main idea is to capture them when they already show or are present.
That way you have a indication that the bias or imbalance has stop growing stronger.

This is what i call tendency play.
We can also see it as regression towards the mean.

They will be pretenders who Think they know all the facts, so i offer you to see for your self how th animal or regression works in real Life.
I attach a simple software that measuring the random flow.

Sometimes it does not have to have a drop point or even out.
You win if it just stop growing stronger and stay at same level without getting stronger or weaker.
This is what i call or name the hovering state and i define it being part of the drop point or correction as it is present change.

I have simulation software where you can observe the values.
You can run 10.000 trails and look how the imbalance behave ( The ECART )

By this observations you can build a working march.
You can see what happens after 3 4 5 6 STD windows.

The software show the values on a rolling basis.
This way you can make statistical relevant observation of hundred thousand simulations.

It check R/B H/L O/E and measuring the ECART.
I attach the simulation software ecart and result file of one simulation.

You run the simulation software and load a spin file.
Then the software will convert the file into Ecart values.

This is also a good simulation software for deeper understanding of waves or Ecart play.
The simulation software indicate at right side when it reach 3.0 STD ...

The software measuing singles contra series and series contra singles, each event has the value of 1.

Quote
B-0.94    E 1.57    H 1.00
B-0.94    E 1.57    H 1.50
B-0.94    E 1.57    L 1.50
B-0.94    O 1.57    H 1.21
B-0.94    E 1.37    L 1.00
R-0.94    O 1.18    H-0.85
R 1.00    O 1.33    H 0.94
R 1.00    O 1.33    H 0.94
B 1.00    O 1.33    H 0.94
B 1.15    E 1.33    H 0.94
R 1.15    E 1.48    L 0.94
B 0.97    E 1.48    H 0.69
B 1.12    O 1.48    L-0.73
B 1.12    O 1.62    L 0.65
B 1.12    O 1.62    H 0.65
B 1.12    E 1.62    L-1.00
R 1.12    E 1.76    L-1.00
R 1.26    E 1.76    L-1.00
B 1.26    E 1.76    L-1.00
B 1.41    O 1.76    L-1.00
B 1.41    E 1.58    H-1.00
B 1.41    E 1.72    L-1.21
R 1.41    O 1.72    H-1.50
B 1.23    O 1.85    H-1.21
R 1.07    O 1.85    L-1.21
B 0.90    E 1.85    H-1.50
B 1.04    E 1.98    L-1.70
B 1.04    O 1.98    L-1.41
R 1.04    O 2.11    H-1.41
B 1.00    E 2.11    L-1.61
R-0.73    E 2.24    L-1.34
B-0.90    O 2.24    L-1.34
R-1.06    O 2.50    H-1.34
B-1.22    O 2.50    L-1.53
R-1.50    E 2.50    H-1.71
B-1.70    E 2.67    H-1.46
B-1.50    O 2.67    H-1.46
R-1.50    E 2.36    H-1.46
B-2.00    O 2.14    L-1.46
R-2.18    O 2.26    H-1.63
B-3.00    E 2.26    H-1.40  */25
R-3.15    O 2.00    L-1.40  */25
R-2.83    O 2.18    H-1.57
B-2.83    O 2.18    H-1.35
R-2.98    E 2.18    H-1.35
B-3.13    E 2.36    L-1.35  */27
R-3.27    E 2.36    H-1.51  */28
B-3.41    E 2.36    L-1.67  */29
R-3.54    O 2.36    L-1.46  */30
B-3.67    E 2.06    L-1.46  */30
B-3.40    E 2.24    L-1.46  */30
R-3.40    O 2.24    L-1.46  */30
R-3.14    E 1.98    H-1.46  */30
R-3.14    O 1.73    L-1.62  */31
R-3.14    E 1.51    H-1.77  */32
B-3.14    E 1.67    H-1.57  */33
R-3.27    O 1.67    L-1.57  */33
B-3.40    E 1.46    L-1.37  */34
B-3.16    O 1.26    H-1.37  */34
B-3.16    E-1.21    L-1.52  */35
R-3.16    O-1.50    H-1.67  */36
B-3.29    E-1.70    H-1.48  */37
B-3.05    E-1.41    H-1.48  */37
R-3.05    O-1.41    H-1.48  */37
R-2.83    E-1.61    H-1.48
R-2.83    E-1.50    H-1.48
B-2.83    E-1.50    H-1.48
R-2.96    E-1.50    L-1.48
R-2.74    E-1.50    H-1.62
R-2.74    O-1.50    H-1.44
R-2.74    O-1.50    L-1.44
R-2.74    O-1.50    L-1.26
R-2.74    O-1.50    L-1.26
R-2.74    O-1.50    H-1.26
B-2.74    E-1.50    H-1.09
B-2.54    O-1.70    L-1.09
B-2.54    E-1.89    H-1.23
R-2.54    E-1.61    L-1.37
B-2.67    O-1.61    L-1.21
B-2.47    O-1.34    L-1.21
B-2.47    O-1.34    L-1.21
R-2.47    O-1.34    L-1.21
B-2.60    O-1.34    L-1.21
R-2.72    O-1.34    H-1.21
B-2.85    E-1.34    H-1.04
B-2.65    E-1.09    L-1.04
B-2.65    E-1.09    H-1.18
B-2.65    O-1.09    H-1.02
B-2.65    E-1.28    H-1.02
B-2.65    O-1.46    L-1.02
R-2.65    O-1.22    H-1.15
R-2.47    E-1.22    L-1.29
R-2.47    O-1.40    L-1.13
R-2.47    O-1.18    H-1.13
B-2.47    E-1.18    H-0.87
B-2.29    E 1.00    L-0.87
« Last Edit: June 25, 2016, 05:22:08 PM by Sputnik »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, thelaw, december, Reyth, Sheridan44

UK-21

Re: Counting Methods For Roulette?
« Reply #25 on: June 26, 2016, 08:49:08 AM »
. . . I know that the bias can grow and get stronger and hit 4 5 6 STD but it does not effect us . . .

If you're seeing results that sit between five and six standard deviations off the mean, then you need to think about this . . . . even the RNG or wheel producing them is biased/corrupt, or the software that does the sums has errors in it.

Take a look at this Wiki page (jsut over half way down) to see what the probabilities of a 5 or 6 standard deviation events actually are:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation [nofollow]

I don't think we're discussing the same thing - as the actual variance isn't measured from a start point of one, or minus one - you'd take the EV as zero; ie if your results were bang on the EV there'd be zero variance. I'm not clear about what your table of data reflects?

 

Sputnik

Re: Counting Methods For Roulette?
« Reply #26 on: June 26, 2016, 09:41:20 AM »
I post this so you can get inspiration for creating a playing model.

In the old days i did many hundred thousands simulations and will end this topic about algorithms or march with money management.
Here i will go deep into how you can measuring the random flow or distribution.
Its based upon taking advantage of the law of series in all existing aspects.

This is the values and existing playing models based upon pure math and probability.
This is how you find you windows of bias or overrepresented events.

Series contra Singles.
Series has the value of 1 and Singles has the value of 1.
There is as many singles as existing series no matter length.

Singles contra series.

Singles has the value of 1 and Series has the value of 1.
there's is as many singles as existing series no matter length.

Singles contra larger series.
Singles has the value of 1
Series of two has the value of 0
Series of three has the value of 1
Series of four has the value of 2
Series of five has the value of 3
Series of six has the value of 4
And so it continues

Series of two contra larger series.
Singles has the value of 0 (you just skip them as none existing)
Series of two has the value of 1
Series of three has the value of 0
Series of four has the value of 1
Series of five has the value of 2
Series of six has the value of 3
Series of seven has the value of 4
And so it continues ...

Series of three contra larger series
Singles has the value of 0 (you just skip them as none existing)
Series of two has the value of 0 (you just skip them as none existing)
Series of three has the value of 1
Series of four has the value of 0
Series of five has the value of 1
Series of six has the value of 2
Series of seven has the value of 3
Series of eight has the value of 4
And so it continues.

Now to the underlying dimension.
You can divide singles only into singles of singles and series of singles.
And you can divide singles series versus series of series.
With the same math and probability measuring the random flow as above.

CHEERS
« Last Edit: June 26, 2016, 09:53:18 AM by Sputnik »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, december

UK-21

Re: Counting Methods For Roulette?
« Reply #27 on: June 26, 2016, 09:55:28 AM »
Sorry, still confused (I've read your response three times) and unclear about what this method is trying to achieve.

If you accept that results are random, then a series of results is simply a series of random events. I can't see what the significance of changes in the degree of variance (on a spin by spin, or sub-series by sub-series, basis) is.

As I've alluded to in an earlier post, as you play on the actual value for what one, two and three standard deviations represents increases, and even if the direction of travel of the variance (as measured in StdDevs) is showing consistent reductions (ie going from -2.5 to -1.8 Std Devs), the actual amount you could be losing could be increasing.

This does look to me to be another flawed concept.

 

Reyth

Re: Counting Methods For Roulette?
« Reply #28 on: June 26, 2016, 11:10:03 AM »
How many STD's is 25 red in a row and 0 black?
 

kav

Re: Counting Methods For Roulette?
« Reply #29 on: June 26, 2016, 11:22:42 AM »
4,66 Black is 3 STD. I imagine zero Black is near to 6 STD