Relativity and Quantum Mechanics in Roulette

[falkor]

Here's what I've discovered with Roulette and how you can beat it:

Relativity - You can't ever witness 22 reds in a row unless you play for 4 million spins in a row and record/observe each one. Alternatively, you could take a recording of 8 million spins and then run a simulation starting at 4 million and you will encounter it sooner, but that's no longer natural. So the only people who are ever going to report 22 reds in a row are bots or the casino themselves. I believe there's a way of calculating the maximum number of reds likely to ever appear in a row and reach a constant like the speed of light, but that test is not easy to describe (it might be a figure near to 50). Dividing, say, 4 million spins into multiple sessions played at different times and/or different tables will increase your chances of winning.

Quantum Mechanics - the past affects future spins from the act of observing/recording a sequence of results (Gambler's Fallacy is false). To convert more losses from, say, even chance bets to more wins it depends on how many spins you are going to sit there for. For 100,000 spins you need to wait for Black or Red to be ahead of the other by 105 before betting on the opposite. You will then end up with slightly more wins than losses. For 1 million spins that figure of 105 would need to be higher, but you won't be sitting there for 1 million spins, right?

You could beat Roulette with more losses in total and using a Negative Progression, but the table limits will stop you from achieving that.
So the way to beat Roulette definitively is by using a Positive Progression when you know you will get more wins than losses.

Am I crazy or a genius? 

[ehtelgaeb]

Am I crazy or a genius? 

Yes.

[nottophammer]

do you go to b+m often, as when i'm there playin granps and that block of 9 can take 33 spins to hit and thats more than once i've seen, so you could well see that block of colour.

[falkor]

Sorry, I'm not familiar with that game.

[Rewster88]

Edit: sorry, I didn't know I could modify somebody's post. Have now lost most of the text. I meant to just quote it as a new reply--falkor

[ego]

 
-

This make me think of this qoute from the Wiki ...

"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."

I test this... Ecart play ...
This is how the LW-Registry look like:
LWLWWLWWWW LLL WWWLWWLLWWLWWLWLWWWWLLWWWWWWLWLWWLWW LLL LWWLW

Cheers

[falkor]

Maybe its an idea to wait for a  difference  like 6% and than bet for the lowest in a flatbet, light progr.??

Grtzz R

Everything is relative to the observer, so your bet should be based on the difference that you record or observe.

[falkor]

If you are going to a Casino just for 1 day or 1,000 spins, you only have to wait for a difference of 2 for even money bets, but then you have to leave the casino at the end of the day and not continue to play! (see attached)

[Turner]

Not trying to be an Ar*e here Falkor, but I read a lot on these 3 subjects (Relativity/Quantum Mechanics/Roulette)

Here's what I've discovered with Roulette and how you can beat it:

Relativity - You can't ever witness 22 reds in a row unless you play for 4 million spins in a row and record/observe each one. Alternatively, you could take a recording of 8 million spins and then run a simulation starting at 4 million and you will encounter it sooner, but that's no longer natural. So the only people who are ever going to report 22 reds in a row are bots or the casino themselves.

Not true. The odds of dying in a plane crash in Europe are around 18 Million to one. Tell that to the people on board the Malaysian Airways Flight 370. Well you cant, because they all died. They didnt have to go on 18 million flights first did they?
I believe there's a way of calculating the maximum number of reds likely to ever appear in a row and reach a constant like the speed of light, but that test is not easy to describe (it might be a figure near to 50). Dividing, say, 4 million spins into multiple sessions played at different times and/or different tables will increase your chances of winning.

Will it? I think not. Take 12 numbers from one table, 12 from another, 13 from another. You will have 37 random numbers which will fit nicely into the Binomial distribution curve
One of the points of relativity is that you have your own personal space time world line. Its unique to you....that includes what you observe.

Quantum Mechanics - the past affects future spins from the act of observing/recording a sequence of results (Gambler's Fallacy is false).
Every spin is random and independant. They have no memory of each other. Its an illusion because there is a marque and you treat time as if it moves, with past time, "now" and time to yet happen
Thats a human illusion....and you feel comfortable with it, so you see past numbers, and the last number as "now" and think that the future is predictable.

To convert more losses from, say, even chance bets to more wins it depends on how many spins you are going to sit there for. For 100,000 spins you need to wait for Black or Red to be ahead of the other by 105 before betting on the opposite. You will then end up with slightly more wins than losses. For 1 million spins that figure of 105 would need to be higher, but you won't be sitting there for 1 million spins, right?

You could beat Roulette with more losses in total and using a Negative Progression, but the table limits will stop you from achieving that.
So the way to beat Roulette definitively is by using a Positive Progression when you know you will get more wins than losses.

I dont see the link with quantum mechanics. Its the study of the very very small:electrons etc. Even molecules start to act as expected for E=MC2.


Am I crazy or a genius? 

[warrior]

Turner is right.

[falkor]

Not true. The odds of dying in a plane crash in Europe are around 18 Million to one. Tell that to the people on board the Malaysian Airways Flight 370. Well you cant, because they all died. They didnt have to go on 18 million flights first did they?

How do you know the plane flew in the first place? Did you know any of the people that died, personally? Were you there with them at the airport on the night of their departure? That news story was a hoax.

I'll let you know how I do at the Casino tonight!

[nottophammer]

Falkor
Dont go tonight you'll crash and burn ask turner

[Proofreaders2000]

Falkor better yet ask Turner to accompany you for a bankroll stop-loss.

[RouletteGhost]

I love lamp.

[Turner]

That news story was a hoax.

wow....what are the odds of that?. Must be billions to one