Hi all,
I'm reddwarf. I like roulette, although I lost money overall. I also like to test and think about it, like so many of the forum members.
I posted this, because I'm very interested in what other fourm members think of my idea: Roulette might be beatable.
To explain why I think this, we first must think about what binds roulette and statistcal theory (maths as you call it):
I. Roulette and Statistics
Unless to what some people on this forum claim: statistics is proven, all phenomena in roulette can be described by statistics, just by assuming that the spins are independent and the numbers have equal probability of falling.
So the streaks, the "law of the third", the formation of patterns you name it: all can be described by statistics and yes, on the long run, when we play roulette the measured statistics more and more converges to the "theoretical" statistics.
According to statistical theory: roulette can not be beaten. Does this imply that the game of roulette is unbeatable? Yes and No!
more to follow (just wanna make sure that all I typed is not lost - again)
So why does statistics prove and does not prove that roulette is beatable?
Statistics is a field of science where, independend of underlying processes we can say something meaningfull about the outcome of the processes, by using a few simple and testable assumptions (independant probabilities etc).
For example: based on this assumption, we can show that after 24 spins, the probability of more than 1 repeat is extremely close to 1 (hence "law of the third" - it does not equal 1, so it is not a true law!). Or 31 blacks in a row must occur now and than! and 5 times a repeat must occur now and than also!
This basically means that if we use a mode of play what I call random play, the law of large numbers will govern our result. So what is random play?
Random play examples:
1. waiting for an event that will make you win
2. trying to predict what comes next
3. using a systems that uses: "what goes up must come down"
in other words: all systems based on gamblers fallacy are actually random play!
Now, lets assume that there is 1,just 1 method that is not random play. Can this beat roulette? All we can say is that it is undecided at best!
Sounds strange? Think about this example:
I'm an alien from Mars, and I'm really interested in the particals that use a wormshaped vehicle to move (=humans commuters in a train).There are so many, that I'm not going to count each and every particle. After studying the behaviour of these so called humans that start at A en travel to B or C for 1 year, I came up with the following statistical law:
1. of all humans that enter the wormshaped vehicle, 99.00000% leave the vehicle at B
2. the remaining humans, 1.00000% leave at C.
3. at C the wormshaped vehiclereturns to A again
The alien is also an avid gambler and a clever one also. On any give day he projects numbers on the heads of the humans, and his fellow aliens can bet on what human leaves where, or what human stays on the train. How would you bet? Oh yes, it is a Dutch bet: you will always lose in the long run.
Any thoughts?
Think about this: the train returns to A again
The numbers are based on a zillion observations.....
Bet on the driver to stay on the train!!!
Maybe a strange example, but it illustrates that statistics does describe the process, but does not equal the process (in this case)
to be continued
Hmm that's a good question:
I think that most people wil say yes because 99.9999% of al methods, systems and strategies in every forum are random play. Yes sometimes you win,but averaged out over all players and time,it's a loser. And no, when you are a winner for a year: it has nothing to do with special gifts, it's just plain luck (can also be calculated how many people emerge as a winner after 1 year using a specific system!).
We can put it in a different light altogether and see is the answer is undecided or not:
Lets assume that a roulette session is either won or lost. What makes up a session has te be seen yet, but for now lets assume that we know when a roulette sessions starts or ends.
We can now write down all spin combinations that might occur in that session. Of course there are a tremendous amount of combinations (depending on the session length).
The claim is actually that when we play random, there is always at least 1 combination that will cause us to lose.
But can we prove that there is No or more than 1 method that will cause us always to win? My claim is: this is undecided at best. (simply because I never found a proof that such a system does not existin math literature)
to be continued
2. What must a winning system look like?
Before we can answer this, we have to understand what makes any system method or strategy loose. As mentioned before: every random play loses in the long run.
The reason why random play loses is that not all permutations in a session are covered. An example to illustrate:
say we have a session of 36 spins. we bet on last EC to repeat, using a martingale, we can now show that overall we will lose because the probability of no repeaters is larger than 0. So 1111111111111 etc or 22222222222222 are permutations that will cause this method to lose in the long run
By the way: this is also a nice method to debug any system: just find a permutation that will cause a loss, can you find one? and RNG or roulette ball will definatly find it example: the Dz/Cl method of black pearl: a sleeping dozen or column (please note the probability of a dozen or column sleeping for more than 9 spins is ~ 2.6% It will happen say every 40 sessions!!)
method feature 1:
the method must be such that all permutations are covered OR the impact of permatuations that will cause a loss are minimized. Because roulette is a Dutch bet, we are not able to cover all permutations. So we must minimize the impact of "negative"permutations.
This minimization must follow the rules of a winning system: we must be 100% that the loss due to a negative permutation is less than the loss without covering for the negative permutation
By the way: such bets DO exist SOMETIMES :-X
to be continued
Apart from feature 1:
feature 1b: sometimes all fields will be covered
feature 2: inside bets MUST be used at some point in the sessions
feature 3: the decision to start a session can be equal to the decision to end a session (independant spins), so no waiting is required
To illustrate what I mean: lets create an example roulette game and try to meet all above requirements. please note this is just an example,not a winning strategy!! It just illustrates how we can use the features to build a method + some bonus info on which I will never elaborate!!
Session: we start at will, we stop when 3 unique dozens have appeared
negative permutations: repeats of previous dozens!, zero's or a combination
Lets define the betting unit U as 4*b, b=base bet, 1 dollar, 10 cents or whatever. So in our system 1 unit = 1U =4*basebet
bet1:
if previous dozen=1 or 3: bet 0.5 units on dozen, bet 0.25 on line that completess the half, bet 0.25 on the zero and bet 1.5 units on the oppisite half
if previous dozen=2: bet 0.25 on line, bet 0.5 units on dozen that completess the half, bet 0.25 on the zero and bet 1.5 units on the oppisite half
what can happen:
1. opposite half (another unique dozen): we win, technically the session is not ended, but we end it anyway
2. zero, we win, technically session is not ended, but we end it anyway
3. covered dozen -> we win 0.75 units on the negative permutation, so overall we lose 0.75 units (instead of the 1.5 units we would have lost without covering the negative permutations
spin2:
if zero falls, or the previous dozen repeats, we can repeat the previous bets
if the line falls we cover the previous 2 dozens + the zero (with 0.25 units) + the half that contains the dozen not yet fallen
to be continued
This example illustrates several things. One of them is how to create a system that might be ableto beat roulette.of course, this is not the one. This can be easily seen: it is still random play because not all negative permutations are minimized: A long streak of dozens will kill this system. And yes, it will happen.
reddwarf
So to finalize:
1. Statistics does not say that the game of roulette is unbeatable: it only proves that it is unbeatable when using random play
2. if a winning system exists than: we have to define what a session is, and we have to create a step-by-step approach to avoid random play.
Please note we did not say that all steps shouldn't be random play: ate least some of them during the sessions shouldn't be.
Is this useful? I hope so
grts reddwarf
My word -- you have worked hard to produce this very interesting and thought-provoking thread.
I'm about to read it all again -- slowly and carefully this time!
Meanwhile let me throw this thought into the pot:
Roulette is beatable in very short term play if you go in, and then come out as soon as in profit. (Yes, along the lines of hit'n'run.)
This avoids the casino's long term edge stripping you bare. (After all, why else do they ply punters with food'n'drink?...To make 'em stay there until their edge cuts in, of course! It's a statistical certainty that keeps the casinos afloat...)
Hi Esoito,
I agree that a hit and run approach, combinedwith a systems that minimizes random play might be a long term winner. You stop the session when you are in the plus.
The second requirement is important: let's assume that I bet on the color to repeat, and I use a marti, or a labby. When I'm in the plus, i quit. The next day I use the same or another method. Still I claim that in the long run I will loose! The only thing is, It will take longer ( in days) before I notice that I loose.
reddwarf
So will this thread remain theoretical or will there be some solid tactics to produce the method that you mentioned above?
Scooby Doo
Give me some time, I will come up with some suggestions
but I'm kind of busy building a starting BR ;-)
reddwarf
Quote from: reddwarf on Mar 08, 05:34 AM 2011
Hi all,
I'm reddwarf. I like roulette, although I lost money overall. I also like to test and think about it, like so many of the forum members.
I posted this, because I'm very interested in what other fourm members think of my idea: Roulette might be beatable.
To explain why I think this, we first must think about what binds roulette and statistcal theory (maths as you call it):
I. Roulette and Statistics
Unless to what some people on this forum claim: statistics is proven, all phenomena in roulette can be described by statistics, just by assuming that the spins are independent and the numbers have equal probability of falling.
So the streaks, the "law of the third", the formation of patterns you name it: all can be described by statistics and yes, on the long run, when we play roulette the measured statistics more and more converges to the "theoretical" statistics.
According to statistical theory: roulette can not be beaten. Does this imply that the game of roulette is unbeatable? Yes and No!
more to follow (just wanna make sure that all I typed is not lost - again)
Roulette is beatable REDWARF, theres no maybe about it
Quote from: reddwarf on Mar 09, 03:06 AM 2011
Hi Esoito,
I agree that a hit and run approach, combinedwith a systems that minimizes random play might be a long term winner. You stop the session when you are in the plus.
The second requirement is important: let's assume that I bet on the color to repeat, and I use a marti, or a labby. When I'm in the plus, I quit. The next day I use the same or another method. Still I claim that in the long run I will lose! The only thing is, It will take longer ( in days) before I notice that I lose.
reddwarf
I like your statistics approach but how can you say that a "hit and run" system is better than a "Hit and stay" system?
Martingale must NOT be used with your money - you must use casino money on this very very risky way to prove that you are correct when the wheel keeps telling you that you are a loser.
I've seen this fascination with hit and run before and I can't find any statistics that back it up. If you want to put a table maximum on a single number that's perfectly ok as long you you realize it's a totally insane way to risk your BR.
Eventually ALL winnings will be wiped out with a "hit and run"; statistics doesn't operate differently on "hit and run" verses longer term betting.
"I've seen this fascination with hit and run before and I can't find any statistics that back it up. "
Would you deny that the longer you play the greater the chance of the casino's statistical edge (goodness me -- there's that S-word again) draining your capital?
After all, the edge is their sole raison d'etre...they certainly don't exist solely for the players' benefit!
Quote from: esoito on Mar 11, 12:12 AM 2011
"I've seen this fascination with hit and run before and I can't find any statistics that back it up. "
Would you deny that the longer you play the greater the chance of the casino's statistical edge (goodness me -- there's that S-word again) draining your capital?
After all, the edge is their sole raison d'etre...they certainly don't exist solely for the players' benefit!
The odds of Green 0 showing up is 1/37 in each spin.
Doesn't matter if it's 2 spins or 100 spins the odds are the same.
The odds of ANY Roulette bet are well known and work on 2 spins or 1,000.
The idea of "hit and run" is just as bogus as Gambler's Fallacy - it sounds good but no math can back up the claim...
A very reputable, professional player on this forum, XXVV, has this to say:
"It is the nature of roulette to provide short cycles of opportunity with which, if we are alert and well prepared, we can take advantage of with a small short term edge, and step aside before the inexorable correction takes place."
and
"I believe there are numerous ways, hundreds of ways, to achieve short term edge, although I am currently re-checking a method we devised some years ago which at the time was checked by a professional applied mathematician who maintained it had +5% edge on the house ( average - it varies over time)."
The "inexorable correction" is, of course, one reason for short-term play.
The whole thread is a VERY instructive exercise, especially the last half from XXVV:
link:://rouletteforum.cc/roulette-and-gambling-framework/common-sense-betting/270/?topicseen (link:://rouletteforum.cc/roulette-and-gambling-framework/common-sense-betting/270/?topicseen)
Quote from: MauiSunset on Mar 11, 02:39 AM 2011
The odds of Green 0 showing up is 1/37 in each spin.
Doesn't matter if it's 2 spins or 100 spins the odds are the same.
The odds of ANY Roulette bet are well known and work on 2 spins or 1,000.
The idea of "hit and run" is just as bogus as Gambler's Fallacy - it sounds good but no math can back up the claim...
MATHÂÃ,¿? This is where you miss the truth about beating roulette. Math as applied in the traditional sense doesn't dictate your success or failure in a supposedly random game of chance.
Your success DEPENDS on one major FACTOR. STRIKERATE. The method you employ either has a high enough strikerate or IT DOESN'T.
If it does, and you apply it with superior money management and plain common sense discipline. THE GAME IS BEATEN, plain and simple.
Beating roulette is a TRIANGLE OF THREE ESSENTIALS, GOOD STRIKERATE, SUPERIOR MONEY MANAGEMENT AND ABSOLUTE SELF DISCIPLINE.
If anyone of them are missing, FORGET IT THE HOUSE INDEED WINS. Now the problem certain people who post on these kind of forums have, is the inability to A, divorce themselves from the standard layout of roulette, and B, not be swallowed up by the mathematicians word on what is and isnt possible in this game.
And as a result become an instant negative thinker,naysayer,pessimist. PERCENTAGE STRIKERATE is what its all about. Find a method that delivers enough of it and apply it CORRECTLY and the games decoded,beaten.
I know of three such methods and am currently proofing a 4th. Which may turn out to not just be sailing through grail waters but firmly anchored on its shores. I know absolutely roulette can be beaten, and my job on this forum is to enlighten others who come with an open mind..
This is what you want to get from this strategy. Many times people learn faster if they can see the bigger picture or an outline of what they are working to learn. Following the trend leads to three possible outcomes. Nothing ever stays consistent very long. There is always something changing from one direction to another. The three conditions are that this works very good, this works very badly, or this will be chaotic mixed with both good and bad.
So what's the basic strategy you might ask. It's in finding the working very good state while avoiding the working very badly state. You must stay out of the badly formed trends. You must also attack the very good states. The way to do this is to test the waters. You have to jump in in order to participate. You must have a playing technique that allows you to risk your first bets. You must have enough bankroll to take a few losses. Once you have found a working trend you must ride it big and hard while it happens. You must back off on the first loss. There is an entire discussion on backing off and jumping back in. But the first move is to back off after you have huge winnings.
Everything else is just small parts of searching for working trends. Now I hope that most of you can see the difference between searching for something and belief in expectations or depending on anything being due. All this is is being prepared for this if you find something happening that you like. Even the AP players like to find something they can exploit. There is no difference with the Blackjack players that wait for excellent conditions while counting cards. Good players know when they have conditions that favor them. My method is about knowing when that happens. It's just not based on probability or physics. It's based on coincidence.
Folks win the PowerBall Lottery all the time - they win hundreds of millions of dollars - they have no skill.
But what's more fascinating is that all those clairvoyants don't win all the time.
Luck is short term oriented - folks place $100 on a single number and win every day at every Roulette table - I've seen it happen many times.
Since skill is not needed in Roulette, luck will explain instances that look interesting, not some kind of statistically abnormality where statistics turn's it's back and wasn't looking for 2 spins.
Quote from: MauiSunset on Mar 11, 12:35 PM 2011
Folks win the PowerBall Lottery all the time - they win hundreds of millions of dollars - they have no skill.
But what's more fascinating is that all those clairvoyants don't win all the time.
Luck is short term oriented - folks place $100 on a single number and win every day at every Roulette table - I've seen it happen many times.
Since skill is not needed in Roulette, luck will explain instances that look interesting, not some kind of statistically abnormality where statistics turn's it's back and wasn't looking for 2 spins.
Does luck last 7 years Mauisunset, You try to make a point without solid knowledge of what you're trying to comment on. Your assumptions and ignorance are text book. Exactly what we expect from the standard naysayer. When you have systematically beaten this game week in week out for several years, you know luck is not even in the equation.
Its called PERCENTAGE STRIKERATE. Master roulette by taking it out of its natural playground the standard layout which CANNOT BE BEATEN. AND THROW IT INTO A FORMAT THAT WILL TAME IT. The LAW OF AVERAGES. Random bows down to it everytime, and once you know this you begin the journey to beating this game day in day out. I doubt you will even get that. ???
Quote from: Johnlegend on Mar 11, 02:33 PM 2011
Does luck last 7 years Mauisunset, You try to make a point without solid knowledge of what you're trying to comment on. Your assumptions and ignorance are text book. Exactly what we expect from the standard naysayer. When you have systematically beaten this game week in week out for several years, you know luck is not even in the equation.
Its called PERCENTAGE STRIKERATE. Master roulette by taking it out of its natural playground the standard layout which CANNOT BE BEATEN. AND THROW IT INTO A FORMAT THAT WILL TAME IT. The LAW OF AVERAGES. Random bows down to it everytime, and once you know this you begin the journey to beating this game day in day out. I doubt you will even get that. ???
My $25 gift certificate to Outback Steak House remains unclaimed - all those Roulette players making all that money and not enough time to demo it for $25.
I stand pat - I've not seen any Roulette system demoed that beats my "play slow, drink fast" method.
Imagine what you can order for $25 at Outback.....
P.S.
I have confidence that 300 years of wacky, insane, out of this world Roulette systems attack and Roulette will be back for year 301 in just 9 months from now....
I'd take you up on the challange but unfortunatly I don't think we have an Outback Steakhouse here in the part of rural England that I live in. Shame.
Robert
Quote from: trebor on Mar 11, 06:23 PM 2011
I'd take you up on the challange but unfortunatly I don't think we have an Outback Steakhouse here in the part of rural England that I live in. Shame.
Robert
OK, I will PayPal you $25.
I'm finishing up our Maui vacation and travel back to St. Louis on Saturday - I have someone taking the challenge on Monday so Tuesday, March 15 is open for a 2 hour session. St. Louis is Zulu - 6 hours so let me know when you would like to do the 2 hr session and we can alert folks.
If the guys on Monday makes $1 then the prize is gone - but you are still welcome to demo your system right here in real time.
Great!
Go for it, Robert!! No excuses now ;D
I (and others, no doubt) will watch this space with great interest...
Quote from: esoito on Mar 11, 10:36 PM 2011
Go for it, Robert!! No excuses now ;D
I (and others, no doubt) will watch this space with great interest...
The challenge has no merit or id participate in it by letting someone with the technical ability run it for me. As soon as he stipulated the method must work for 100 spins i knew he doesnt understand beating roulette at all.
WINNING STRATEGIES USE *TRIGGERS* you dont just jump in like some fool and bet every spin. Your bet MUST QUALIFY. Thats what he cannot take on board. So for example an awesome method like MATRIX VERTICAL 3 might take 50 spins to get its trigger. But you know 99 times out of a 100 You are going to Win. Someone like Mauisunset simply cant understand that. He thinks you have to sit there like some fool betting every spin WRONG.
You could be right.
The results will be interesting -- assuming anyone takes up the challenge.
Then the arguments will begin on how to interpret them!
Nothing ventured, nothing gained. It keeps us all off the streets in the meantime.
I was actually just making a comment on the prize offered.
As many have said the rules stipulated make the challenge meaningless. We could all be up 1 point on three separate sessions of 100 spins but it wouldn't show the system works long term.
Also is this flat betting only?
Robert
Quote from: trebor on Mar 12, 07:58 AM 2011
I was actually just making a comment on the prize offered.
As many have said the rules stipulated make the challenge meaningless. We could all be up 1 point on three separate sessions of 100 spins but it wouldn't show the system works long term.
Also is this flat betting only?
Robert
You do your own thing for 100 spins or if you have triggers 2 hours of time. You can bet anyway you want, the goal is to make $1 after 100 spins.
I guess if you play in a way that the pit boss comes over to you and brings 2 ex-football players and politely asks you to leave the casino I'd follow that same instinct and end the session.
Guys, you moan and groan about this as if you have never played a real game in a real casino - the object is to play a session of 100 spins and make a profit and win my $25 prize.
If you are worried that I will parade around holding up a loser for ridicule that's not my object - I want to observe a winning Roulette Player in action for 100 spins. The one and only person who has taken up my challenge is coming back for round #2 on Monday and I wish him luck. You can read my posts here and elsewhere where I'm running the contest and I don't ridicule him but praise him for having the guts to take on a challenge.
If anyone can make just $1, in 100, 200, or 300 spins then this is a very big deal to me since I don't believe it can be done; it would be earth shaking and easily worth $25 to watch.
Quote from: MauiSunset on Mar 12, 11:57 AM 2011
You do your own thing for 100 spins or if you have triggers 2 hours of time. You can bet anyway you want, the goal is to make $1 after 100 spins.
I guess if you play in a way that the pit boss comes over to you and brings 2 ex-football players and politely asks you to leave the casino I'd follow that same instinct and end the session.
Guys, you moan and groan about this as if you have never played a real game in a real casino - the object is to play a session of 100 spins and make a profit and win my $25 prize.
If you are worried that I will parade around holding up a loser for ridicule that's not my object - I want to observe a winning Roulette Player in action for 100 spins. The one and only person who has taken up my challenge is coming back for round #2 on Monday and I wish him luck. You can read my posts here and elsewhere where I'm running the contest and I don't ridicule him but praise him for having the guts to take on a challenge.
If anyone can make just $1, in 100, 200, or 300 spins then this is a very big deal to me since I don't believe it can be done; it would be earth shaking and easily worth $25 to watch.
The problem most have with your challenge is why do it live for just 100 spins?
Theres already a method on the forum I absolutely know will make at least 15 points in 100 spins. Why Mauisunset can you not run it yourself?
I will give you the rules and in less than a week you will have a different attitude about roulette. I am no techno whizz on computers either you or someone else on here can play it live or for fun money online or just on paper against real live spins. I assure you. you will never think roulette unbeatable EVER AGAIN, ARE YOU UP FOR THAT?
That's how I feel JL.
I don't see the point of going through the palaver of some sort of demonstration that I would have to spend time sorting out that in reality would prove nothing whether I won or lost.
MauiSunset could run the tests himself but all he will say is it can't be done. I'm baffled by his attitude. On the one hand he says that he doesn't believe anyone can win one point in 100 spins and then says that if someone demonstrated such a result to him "it would be earth shaking". We all know that this is achievable in the exact 100 spins or exact 2 hours but not necessarily in each and every case.
Is it me or does this all make no sense.
Robert
Over the years of being on roulette forums, it puzzles me WHY there always has to be someone that has to jump into the thread and start nay-saying whatever method is being discussed and roulette in general.
One thing I'm 100% sure about is that they have never put in the hours of testing to even try to locate a working model of a roulette method that has a chance of winning consistantly.
I read a story about a man in California. He had a claim on a piece of property to mine for gold. After a few years and no big strike, he sold the property to a mining company and moved back East.
The mining company dug the shaft 23 more feet and hit one of the largest gold strikes in California.
My point is that if you just say that it's not possible, your giving up just like the guy that first owned the mine. Many things were not possible before they became possible...horseless carriages...airplanes...transplants...rocketships...and many, many other things.
So instead of saying something is not possible, work toward making it possible.
Scooby Doo
Quote from: Johnlegend on Mar 12, 05:08 PM 2011
The problem most have with your challenge is why do it live for just 100 spins?
Theres already a method on the forum I absolutely know will make at least 15 points in 100 spins. Why Mauisunset can you not run it yourself?
I will give you the rules and in less than a week you will have a different attitude about roulette. I am no techno whizz on computers either you or someone else on here can play it live or for fun money online or just on paper against real live spins. I assure you. you will never think roulette unbeatable EVER AGAIN, ARE YOU UP FOR THAT?
Great I accept.
I'm in the Maui airport right now headed back to St. Louis - I will be back at Roulette on Monday March 14 and will contact you then via PM.
Thank you.
And PLEASE be sure to post how you go!
You have many interested members... ;)
Quote from: esoito on Mar 13, 04:00 AM 2011
And PLEASE be sure to post how you go!
You have many interested members... ;)
Sure you do!
Quote from: ScoobyDoo on Mar 12, 11:23 PM 2011
Over the years of being on roulette forums, it puzzles me WHY there always has to be someone that has to jump into the thread and start nay-saying whatever method is being discussed and roulette in general.
One thing I'm 100% sure about is that they have never put in the hours of testing to even try to locate a working model of a roulette method that has a chance of winning consistantly.
I read a story about a man in California. He had a claim on a piece of property to mine for gold. After a few years and no big strike, he sold the property to a mining company and moved back East.
The mining company dug the shaft 23 more feet and hit one of the largest gold strikes in California.
My point is that if you just say that it's not possible, your giving up just like the guy that first owned the mine. Many things were not possible before they became possible...horseless carriages...airplanes...transplants...rocketships...and many, many other things.
So instead of saying something is not possible, work toward making it possible.
Scooby Doo
ABSOLUTELY!!! And scooby an I have done just that HINT HINT, YOU COULD SAY WE ARE TWO OF A KIND LOL ;D ;D
Sorry Scooby I couldnt help that one. But in a matter of days TWO OF A KIND Will on anyone who knows winning tongue and in their minds. :)
Hi all,
I was,and still am kind of busy, so it took a while before I could post again:
Summary: if we are able to avoid random play (=waiting for a winning event to happen), we just might beat roulette. JohnyLegend says he can, I hope that Mauisunset will be able to confirm this.
I will continue to ramble on in the meantime. How can we avoid random play? In my opinion, the only way we can do this is by using FACTS. So what are the facts? that have nothing to do with statistics/probability? Please feel free to contribute
1. Pigeonhole principle (as advocated by Dyksexlic): repeats happen on all numbersets.The pigeonhole principle can be used to proof or disproof some very nice properties, like the next two:
2. related to this: link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waerden%27s_theorem (link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waerden%27s_theorem): when we have two colors, there will be a pattern in maximum 9 spins, involving 3 spins. The distance between these 3 spins of the same color is identical
3. Theorem of friends and strangers: after 6 spins, I must have at least 3 similar colors, parities, halves
4. ...?
Strangly enough, after 1 year of study, these are the only, non-probabilistic facts that I could find!
There are a few probabilistic facts also (that might be employed to defeat the house edge, which I personally do not believe is possible):
1. RTM: regression to the mean (the a sampe average/stdev of the second sample will most probably be closer to the mean than the sample average/stdev of the previous sample)
2. birthday paradox (leading to the so called law of the third, which of course is not a law at all,but a rule-of-thumb)
3. ...?
Please note: it is easy to proof that using RTM we can predict with very high accuracy if the next sample mean/stdev will be larger or smaller than the previous one, but onfortunatly we can not bet in this!
Do you know of more non-probabilistic/probabilistic facts?