A simple test that would gain you a Nobel prize

[Robeenhuut]

Hello all,

Thanks for the constructive replies.
We already have two confirmations that such phenomena is observed (by F_LAT_INO and ego).
Guys, do you understand, if true, how remarkable and groundbreaking such an observation is, in relation to mainstream probability theory? Therefore, I urge anyone interested to do their own tests and report back. We need a bigger sample, more tests. Could someone make a little program so we can test many spins?

ego,
could you please post links to your strategy and software?

So the first step is to confirm that indeed corrections to take place in the frame of 100 or 160 spins (and win the Nobel prize)
The next step is to find out how to capitalize on that.

Kav (Roulette Probabilities)

Kav

You can test it until you drop dead on RX.  Just put auto spin on 50 spins and go to statistics on Even money bets. If you get results with SD higher than 3 just auto spin next 50 spins. The subject of capitalizing on a heavy imbalance (expecting SD not to continue over 3 in following spins) was discussed before. Two keywords are Marigny de Grilleau and regression toward the mean. Unfortunately if you get like in your example 12/38 breakdown in your first 50 spins then even if SD drops below 3 it would not necessarily mean that a less dominating EC would hit at better than 50% ratio. Its a nice concept to work on but of no practical value in constructing a winning bet.
   

[Kav]

Kav

Unfortunately if you get like in your example 12/38 breakdown in your first 50 spins then even if SD drops below 3 it would not necessarily mean that a less dominating EC would hit at better than 50% ratio. Its a nice concept to work on but of no practical value in constructing a winning bet.

That's exactly my point.
I make the case that the less appearing EC will indeed hit at better than 50% ratio in most of the cases. (not all the cases but more than 50%).
If this is true, if corrections of heavy imbalances do happen, in a predictable way, not in billions of spins but in like 100-150 spins, then this discovery is of amazing practical value!

Kav

[ego]

Many don't understand this concept and i can read the confusion about this topic.
When you deal with trails and not events it is very difficult to define what is underrepresented and make it very difficult to develop a march to catch strings of correction.

This is not the case when you deal with the law of series - then the underrepresented events become very clear and you know exactly what to observe as part of correction and its more easy to develop a march upon does principals.

[monaco]

Kav

Unfortunately if you get like in your example 12/38 breakdown in your first 50 spins then even if SD drops below 3 it would not necessarily mean that a less dominating EC would hit at better than 50% ratio. Its a nice concept to work on but of no practical value in constructing a winning bet.

For me, the practical value in betting of observing the imbalance is the probability of (at least) a lower variance in the next sample of spins.
Usable 'correction' can be as little as a lower dispersion. Lower dispersion helps most MM's.


A correction of hits above 50% ratio is a bonus.

[ego]

We should also add that we deal with three present states after the imbalance stop growing.
One is that the state start hovering around zero where there is no continues imbalance or continues correction - i regard this state as part of correction based upon my definition upon this methodology.
Then there is the raw correction state that is a direct opposite effect that can come as a small, medium or large strings of events.
At last it can stop growing and then fall back to back to certain degree - but as we not chasing for events that does not matters so much based upon this methodology or as to speak you follow the flow.

[Gizmotron]

Confirmation Bias:
" A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way." (Wikipedia)

[ego]

Well that is true and we could state the wheel has 37 degree of freedom - so no matter what state is present it still has 1 in 3 as red and black is 50/50 ...
But after significant statistical results and observation so does correction exist.
The main focus do is not many understand what correction is.
I would say when the events - can be any - hit the bell curve top - then it can continues as the bell curve it self has no limit - but sooner or later no matter what any one claim - so does correction states appear - the events stop growing and start to hovering or getting small, medium or large drawdowns.

Any Monkey can simulate it and you don't need a wiki to understand the concept.

Then what it boils down to is if a march is the same with the same probability chasing events as any other bet selection - the answer is no - as you know what the future hold up front and you use the tendency towards that direction to capitilazie - that make it different then trending or betting with or against any other kind of events or bet selections.

It like creating a loophole and there is only one way out.

[TwoCatSam]

 confirmation bias

That's the term I've been trying to remember.

Thanks, Giz.

Sam

[Kav]

Confiramation bias is exactly why I asked any and all of you to do your own tests and report your unbiased results.
I fully understand it is easier to copy wikipedia than testing Wiesbaden spins. But at least don't act like a smart-ar*e.

While I also believe in corrections finding 12 or less in 50 would take some time.

That's true. That's why I asked for help in testing. But if we confirm that the principle is true it should also hold true (to a different extent) in even less extreme situations.

In my limited testing, after 12 or less color appearances in 50 spins, the missing color dominated (more than 50% appearances) the next 50 spins in more than 50% of the tests.

It should be easy for a programer to program such a test and test thousands of spins. (regrettably I don't have RX)

[Gizmotron]

Confiramation bias is exactly why I asked any and all of you to do your own tests and report your unbiased results.
I fully understand it is easier to copy wikipedia than testing Wiesbaden spins. But at least don't act like a smart-ar*e.

...It should be easy for a programer to program such a test and
test thousands of spins. (regrettably I don't have RX)

I am a programmer. I don't suffer from the bias of magical thinking. Do the work. I've done
mine. By the way, You need to test with more than ten million spins changing the random
seed every half million spins at a time. People that put down Wikipedia as a defence
mechanism don't impress me much.

[Kav]

I am a programmer. I don't suffer from the bias of magical thinking. Do the work. I've done
mine. By the way, You need to test with more than ten million spins changing the random
seed every half million spins at a time. People that put down Wikipedia as a defence
mechanism don't impress me much.

Hey Mr. "living proof that Roulette can be beat every time you set out to beat it",

Apart from arrogance is there anything constructive you have to offer to the masses?
Wikipedia is not a reliable reference for evaluating creative thinking. It's just a compilation of mainstream views.  If you read an encyclopedia in 1900 it would say that nothing weighting more than air could ever fly. Yet today there are planes weighting tons. Don't believe everything you read on wikipedia as absolute, eternal truth.

[Robeenhuut]

Confiramation bias is exactly why I asked any and all of you to do your own tests and report your unbiased results.
I fully understand it is easier to copy wikipedia than testing Wiesbaden spins. But at least don't act like a smart-ar*e.
That's true. That's why I asked for help in testing. But if we confirm that the principle is true it should also hold true (to a different extent) in even less extreme situations.

In my limited testing, after 12 or less color appearances in 50 spins, the missing color dominated (more than 50% appearances) the next 50 spins in more than 50% of the tests.

It should be easy for a programer to program such a test and test thousands of spins. (regrettably I don't have RX)

You can get RX trial version for free from uxsoftware.com. 

[Gizmotron]

Hey Mr. "living proof that Roulette can be beat every time you set out to beat it",

Apart from arrogance is there anything constructive you have to offer to the masses?

Just this. Your research will validate the normal results and aspects found in binomeal distribution. If you get any other significant result beyond what would be found in a study of "large numbers" then your data set will be considered flawed.

There is no reason for Roulette acting magical. Your results will confirm what I'm saying. Everyone needs to learn. Your approach is the very best way. Do the work.

[Bayes]

I knocked up this little tool for experimenting -

[attachimg=2]

But don't get too excited, for one thing, I coded a win to count as "not a loss" (ie; win or break even).
Also, it's one thing to get > average in the next sequence MOST of the time, but that's not the same as making a profit overall, you have to take into account how much you LOSE in those sessions where you get less than average. Another thing to be aware of are those cases where you get a rush of wins early on and then losses later;  just betting the next X spins mechanically through to the end may not be the best way to test the hypothesis. I tend to agree with Ego in that the best way is to wait for the correction to manifest before you start your attack.

Note that the 2nd sample (the one you would actually be betting in) doesn't have to be the same length as the first sample (but obviously, the trigger has to be less than the first sample!). Play around with different figures and see what you get.

I haven't actually implemented the file option yet, so you're stuck with RNG for now. Also, it can take a long time to do the analysis (250,000 spins are taken at a time), so be patient. It takes 2-3 minutes on my computer.

I'm pretty sure I coded this idea years ago and the end result in terms of profits was... you guessed it - right on the mathematical expectation.

[attachmini=1]

[Kav]

Hi Bayes,
Great to have you contribution. Could you please explain how exactly the app works?

update:ok now the images show up and I think I understand how it works