New Forum Address: ROULETTELIFE.COM
  Update your Bookmarks

Author Topic: Counting Methods For Roulette?  (Read 8624 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

UK-21

Re: Counting Methods For Roulette?
« Reply #30 on: June 26, 2016, 11:35:29 AM »
How many STD's is 25 red in a row and 0 black?

Work out the probability and then compare it to the Wikipedia table I've referenced above:

= (18/37) x ( (18/37)^(25-1) )

Eighteen over thirty seven times
eighteen over thirty seven to the twenty fourth power.

If it's 25 reds on the trot, the bit around "0 black" is irrelevent - I can't see where ~6 Standard Deviations come into it?

Use a spreadsheet . . . it makes life easier.

 

Reyth

Re: Counting Methods For Roulette?
« Reply #31 on: June 26, 2016, 12:11:06 PM »
I have probably been doing it wrong and I am not as mathematically inclined as you guys are but I have found STD's to bee too general of a benchmark; its almost as if the wheel doesn't care about STD.  It only seems to care about extremes of maximum and minimum in aggregate form.

I know I sound quite supid and dense but that's how I see things. :shrug:
 

Sputnik

Re: Counting Methods For Roulette?
« Reply #32 on: June 26, 2016, 02:37:57 PM »
The law of series is something intressting if you dig deeper into probability.
Easy to run RX and see singles and series of two and series of Three and higher during 300 trail sample.
There is some expectations, certain amount of singles and series of two and series of Three and higher during 300 trail sample.
Now assume you wait for one indpendent window of bias to appear, for example 3 STDS within 20 trails.
All singles among series of two, now how many series of Three will you expect for the next 20 trails?
I would say at least two if you don't belive that you will break the World record for even Money bets.
But probility dictate after several million simulations that the benchmark is 5.49 STDS for even Money bets, that would be 40 contra 2 events, so the assumption is that you will face more then two series of Three for the next 20 trails with one exception, if the STDS stop growing stronger and start hovering at the same value, but that would only be a delay for the next chop of series of Three and higher to show.
I don't need to prove this fact you can see for your self with own simulations for several million trails.

I attack a excel sheet that helps you caculate the STDS/Z-Score/Ecart for roulette and even money bets.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2016, 03:08:53 PM by Sputnik »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, Reyth

Reyth

Re: Counting Methods For Roulette?
« Reply #33 on: June 26, 2016, 03:31:19 PM »
now how many series of Three will you expect for the next 20 trails?
I would say at least two if you don't belive that you will break the World record for even Money bets.
But probility dictate after several million simulations that the benchmark is 5.49 STDS for even Money bets, that would be 40 contra 2 events, so the assumption is that you will face more then two series of Three for the next 20 trails with one exception, if the STDS stop growing stronger and start hovering at the same value, but that would only be a delay for the next chop of series of Three and higher to show.

Wow.  This would seem to be a VERY valuable technique for Paroli based systems! :D
 
The following users thanked this post: Sputnik

UK-21

Re: Counting Methods For Roulette?
« Reply #34 on: June 26, 2016, 03:36:12 PM »
I've looked at the sheet you attached. I think we've been discussing different things, as the "Z-Score" is NOT the standard deviation. When I plugged in a bet coverage of 18.5 (0.5 prob) and 100 trials the "Z-Score" came out at zero, which I assume denotes "no variance"?? When I plugged in an outcome of 60 wins/losses it correctly recorded 2.00 (denoting 2 StdDevs off of the mean) - which would be correct. The Standard Deviation on this combination of trials and probability is 5 (so EV of 50 + 2 x 5 = 60).

Looking at your post above, if you are experiencing results that are falling 5.49 standard deviations from the mean after several million trials then something is wrong - probably the calculation that has arrived at this answer. The range of normal statistical variance is +/- 3 StdDevs, with 99.73% confidence.

But this is bye the bye . . . I still don't understand the logic behind tracking the standard deviation, apart for the purposes of determining if results fall within statistical norms?? I can't see how doing this will alter the probabilities of certain numbers, or groups of numbers, occuring in future spins? It appears to me that those who follow a regression theory approach do so on the basis that what's gone on in the past will affect the probabilities of what happens in the future - which of course we all know is nonsense.

So I'm still at a loss . . . .

 

Sputnik

Re: Counting Methods For Roulette?
« Reply #35 on: June 26, 2016, 03:47:41 PM »
 
Quote

Wow.  This would seem to be a VERY valuable technique for Paroli based systems! :D

Yes that is how i play my HG for even money bets.
I need to hit above 5.49 STDS to lose my bankroll which will not happen during my Life time.

 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...

Look at singles contra series of three, if you follow singles you win twice when you reach a serie of three (two in a row) everything between is break even terriorium.

You can break the Carsh Star Variant Progression into six levels of betting.
Or use larger window between singles contra larger series.
We talk about 30 to 36 attempts and we break even with zig zag.

Cheers
« Last Edit: June 26, 2016, 03:51:14 PM by Sputnik »
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

scepticus

Re: Counting Methods For Roulette?
« Reply #36 on: June 26, 2016, 04:28:17 PM »
The law of series is something intressting if you dig deeper into probability.
Easy to run RX and see singles and series of two and series of Three and higher during 300 trail sample.
There is some expectations, certain amount of singles and series of two and series of Three and higher during 300 trail sample.
Now assume you wait for one indpendent window of bias to appear, for example 3 STDS within 20 trails.
All singles among series of two, now how many series of Three will you expect for the next 20 trails?
I would say at least two if you don't belive that you will break the World record for even Money bets.
But probility dictate after several million simulations that the benchmark is 5.49 STDS for even Money bets, that would be 40 contra 2 events, so the assumption is that you will face more then two series of Three for the next 20 trails with one exception, if the STDS stop growing stronger and start hovering at the same value, but that would only be a delay for the next chop of series of Three and higher to show.
I don't need to prove this fact you can see for your self with own simulations for several million trails.

I attack a excel sheet that helps you caculate the STDS/Z-Score/Ecart for roulette and even money bets.

A Probability is NOT a FACT .
" Being a statistician is better than being a novelist- you can use much more imagination."
 We are told that past results don't have any effect on future results so this mean that any conclusions drawn  from  any sample apply only to that sample.
So, like me , you guys are only guessing. The difference is that I admit it.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2016, 04:40:50 PM by scepticus »
 

Sputnik

Re: Counting Methods For Roulette?
« Reply #37 on: June 26, 2016, 04:47:31 PM »
 Several million simulations say different.
 Regression is the real thing.

 Cheers
« Last Edit: June 26, 2016, 05:01:19 PM by Sputnik »
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

UK-21

Re: Counting Methods For Roulette?
« Reply #38 on: June 26, 2016, 05:05:11 PM »
A Probability is NOT a FACT   . . .

Scepticus,
For once we're both bemused at the same time ? ? ?   :D

Sputnik,
I'm interested to know what it is that the the several million simulations prove different? That a lack of a run of (say) consecutive reds in a past series means that this is more likely to occur in the future?? I ask as that seems to be the thrust of the points made above, and tracking the variance results in the way described can be done to identify when this might happen. If it is as I interpreted, I'm afraid this is a deeply flawed assertion - as the idea of numbers being due, whether single instances, doubles, runs of three or a series of more, is a fallacy (as all regular wheel-of-doom players know).

 

Sputnik

Re: Counting Methods For Roulette?
« Reply #39 on: June 26, 2016, 05:30:47 PM »
It does not matter what you say as you don't prove anything you say, i add simulation software so every one can see regression with there own eyes.
Why don't you add a simulation software that show that there is no regression.
Any one is free to make hundred tousen simulations, i have and don't need to listen to your arguments as i have seen what i have seen with my own eyes.

And i hate to repeat my self, you don't know when, but you know it will happen.
But the limit has been simulated for several million trails where the STDS reach 5.49 once.
So i put my money above 5.49 STDS and now i will never lose my hole bankroll during my life time.
That is a great feeling.

But you can come along with the old boring argument that nothing is due to happen.
So you can say there will be a day when i will face X singles among series of two with no series of three among them and i will lose my bankroll.
But i say i will hit at least two or more series of three if i will face the worst and extreme sequense that can happen when the bell curve grow stronger based upon that particular playing modell.

I will base my main income upon this when i start travelling to Finland, Denmark, Polen, Germany, England among three other winning methods.
So you can not convince me about any error or fallacy as the bell curve grow stronger and hovering and getting weaker no matter what any body say.
That is the nature of the game and i use the law of series to exploit it whit predermind playing model.

As you like to qoute Wiki so will i do the same ...

"Regression toward the mean simply says that, following an extreme random event, the next random event is likely to be less extreme. In no sense does the future event "compensate for" or "even out" the previous event, though this is assumed in the gambler's fallacy (and variant law of averages). Similarly, the law of large numbers states that in the long term, the average will tend towards the expected value, but makes no statement about individual trials. For example, following a run of 10 heads on a flip of a fair coin (a rare, extreme event), regression to the mean states that the next run of heads will likely be less than 10, while the law of large numbers states that in the long term, this event will likely average out, and the average fraction of heads will tend to 1/2. By contrast, the gambler's fallacy incorrectly assumes that the coin is now "due" for a run of tails, to balance out."

Cheers
« Last Edit: June 26, 2016, 05:51:35 PM by Sputnik »
 
The following users thanked this post: thelaw, Reyth

UK-21

Re: Counting Methods For Roulette?
« Reply #40 on: June 26, 2016, 08:06:21 PM »
Oh well . . . . good luck with that then.
 

Reyth

Re: Counting Methods For Roulette?
« Reply #41 on: June 27, 2016, 01:30:56 AM »
Sputnik is correct in my opinion.   Equal distribution is an objective force that limits random results.  This force can be used to our advantage and Sputnik has come up with a way to identify specific triggers that are associated with these limits.  I think he deserves alot of credit.
 

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 #42 on: June 27, 2016, 03:03:22 AM »
Random Walk

Let's say the wheel has only two possible outcomes, red or black. No zeros.
 
Our expectation moving forward is that black will hit about half of the time, and that red will hit about half of the time.
 
After ten spins our results with a little variance thrown in is as follows:
RBRRRRRBRB
 
 30% Black (3 hits)
70% Red hit.  (7 hits)
 
Now that there's an imbalance, what do you suppose our expectation is moving forward for the next set of 20 spins?   Is black due to hit more frequently than red?  Does black have to hit more than red for "system player's regression to the mean" or "system player's law of averages" to occur?   
 

 
Moving forward, we have 20 more spins below. Our expectation once again is that each color will hit equally.  But with a little variance thrown in the results are as follows.
RBRBBRBRBBRRRBBRRRBR
 
45% Black (9 hits)
55% Red (11hits)
 
Now take a close look at the grand totals for all 30 spins below.
 
40% Black (12 hits)
60% Red (18 hits)
 
Because black went from hitting only 30% of the times to hitting 40% of the time in the larger sample,  here's where some of you will say that "regression to the mean" is taking place.   (Some of you are probably also saying that it's the "law of averages".)

It's true that black hit more frequently, but it's still a net loser! In order for it to appear to "regress to the mean" or for the "law of large numbers" to work, it didn't have to hit more than red in order to appear to catch up, all that needed to really take place was the spin sample had to grow larger!

 In small spin samples, the difference between how often the red and black hit can be quite large...percentage wise. moving forward, our expectation should always be just expectation, not that one color will hit more than the other to even out the imbalance!   Again, as the spin samples grow exponentially larger, regression to the mean appears to happen, even if the losing color never catches back up!

The law of large numbers, and regression to the mean, law of series... doesn't, can't, won't, will not make anyone's system work!  Not in small samples, big samples, wide samples, short samples, short term, near term, long term.  Ever! 

-Really
« Last Edit: June 27, 2016, 03:07:10 AM by Real »
 

Reyth

Re: Counting Methods For Roulette?
« Reply #43 on: June 27, 2016, 03:08:52 AM »
Regardless of the truth of your example, the random results of Red and Black are still being limited and can be expected to not exceed certain minimums/maximums.  The purpose of all system design is to structure our bets to take advantage of that limiting force.We have told you this over and over but it still hasn't sunk in.
 

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 #44 on: June 27, 2016, 03:15:19 AM »
Sorry Reyth,

By now, surely you have to be asking yourself why none of your systems seem to really work.

I guess your just going to have to learn the hard lesson on your own...if ever. 

Best of luck,

-Really