Random Thoughts

[Priyanka]

EDGE â€" Four letters that every gambler looks for. Whether it is roulette or baccarat or blackjack. Whether it is real life or casino life. Whether it is advantage play or system play. Every gambler looks for an edge. Unfortunately it is Casino who has kept it locked in a safe and every gambler plots to break that safe. There are some who has the access to the key to this safe, but prefers to keep it a secret so that you don’t kill the golden goose. There are some who doesn’t even know how a key looks like but quite good in theoretical plots around designing it. There are some who takes pleasure in weaving stories just like the captain flight in Planes, where in actually doesn’t have a clue. In between all these are a confused set of individuals who has the majority to win an election if there was a vote. What a strange world.

So where is the key. How do we locate this thing called edge. Let us restrict our discussion only to roulette, apt to the title of this forum. To start with let us assume that there is no edge. Is that a right assumption? Can we prove this assumption with an evidence. A very intelligent mathematician might calculate, point to the house edge and say there is no edge. A smart physician or an engineer might point at the balanced wheel say there is no edge.

A person who has access technology advancements beyond our imagination like Jack palmer in 24, might say that I can predict using complex formulae and advanced capture mechanism to predict where the ball lands when the ball is released might say… Ahh! Here is your edge! Just like everyone cant get to the moon, this technology might not be in everyone’s reach. Just like you cannot take calculator to a KS1 exam, you might not be allowed to take this technology into a casino.

If someone assumes that I am going to explain that I have an edge that everyone can play, read back what is stated in bold. To start with let us assume that there is no edge. One who is following this thread, will gain nothing more that some amusing ramblings and cryptic videos where I will boast of my winning sessions. Just setting the expectations straight.

[Priyanka]

Some may be aware of this question, some may not.
"How many elements of some structure must there be to guarantee that a particular property will hold?"

A bit complex to comprehend. British are always a bit complex to comprehend (My personal opinion). A british bloke called Ramsey is behind this question. Hmm! Not the one from the bolton family. The one from bolton family might be inspired by this old bloke to cut a structure from Theon into a piece and then fry it to see whether it will hold. Hang on, how is this question relevant to Roulette? Why am I interested in structures and properties.

Our relevance comes through a dutch bloke who followed Ramsey. His name is Van der Waerden. What he believed is slightly complex. To make it too simplistic, we can restate it by saying

“in 9 spins of roulette yielding black and red, there will be one arithmetic progression of 3 integers holding the same colour”

Let me explain the scientific term here first before proceeding further. The term is “arithmetic progression”. It is nothing but a sequence of numbers where the difference between consecutive terms is constant.

1,2,3,… is an arithmetic progression
1,3,5,7… is an arithmetic progression
1,4,7,10.. is an arithmetic progression
2,6,10, 14… is an arithmetic progression

Now coming back, lets take a set of 9 spins.
RBR BRR RBB
123  456  789

Lets check whether what the dutch said was true. See the arithmetic sequence of spins 1,3 and 5 â€" I get RRR. There are 512 combinations that can happen, but none of them will fail to have an arithmetic progression of 3 integers holding same colour. Interesting isn’t it!

Now look at some boring boasting of a session
link:://youtu.be/AIvAeaHzKVY

[Priyanka]

For a moment lets forget that we need to win. Lets see the possibility of applying what the dutch said to the roulette. Lets not play the game of random numbers and guessing. Lets play the game in finite 9 number cycles. Lets play the game using a template and let the casino catch us rather than we going after predicting the casino. It is paradoxical to note that even though we are playing based on a what we see as previous spins, we are not making any guesses here, but playing to a fixed template. The casino is trying to predict and win over us rather than we predicting what the next spin is. We are just playing to prove the theorem right.

First spin â€" B
Next â€" R

An arithmetic progression of 1,2,3 is not possible.
Next â€" R

An arithmetic progression of 2,3,4 is possible. So we play as per our template to prove the theorem  and play R.
Alas â€" B. A loss.

No arithmetic progressions possible at this time (1,2,3../ 2,3,4…./3,4,5…/, 1,3,5/ 2,4,6)
Next â€" B

Only possible progression is 4,5,6  to become BBB. So we play B.
Next â€" R. A loss.

Now only possible progression is 1, 4, 7 to become BBB. So we play B.
Next â€" B. A win.

The outcome is LLW


Lets play another game.
First spin â€" R
Second â€" B
Third â€" R
Fourth â€" B

We could get 1,3,5 to be RRR.
Oh my god â€" B. Lost

Two progressions possible now. 2,4,6 or 4,5,6. Both point to BBB
Bingo â€" B. Won
Outcome is LW


One final game before I get to bed.
First spin â€" B
Second â€" R
Third â€" B
Fourth â€" R

We could get 1,3,5 to be BBB
Awesome â€" B. Won.

Outcome is W.

Any thoughts here?

Now look at the following 8 spins.
BRRBBRRB

If we play based on the theorem, what will we play for the 9th spin? Black or Red? Leaving you with these thoughts.

[shuttle]

I think that there are two choices:

1. B - because you have 1,5,9 as a possibility.

2. R - because you have 3,6,9 as a possibility.

BTW thanks for the interesting posts.

[nottophammer]

is this going to be a PA topic

[atlantis]

As shuttle said...
Although I prefer "B" because it seems to be on a run of forming the "terrible twos" 

A.

[Chrisbis]

It could also be that new start points of arithmetic progression can over lap with existing ones!

I would play  R because it's a 3.6.9 a.p.

[Priyanka]

Nottophammer â€" I will let you decide and answer that question as I don’t know the answer to that question 

Very interesting perspectives. Shuttle â€" you are absolutely right. We cannot play the ninth spin. Of all the 512 combinations, this is an example of a combination where you will be left with a loss if you choose to play based on this theorem.

There are two main ways to think about roulette and its outcomes.

• Conditional probability, Odds and random â€" This is the common if not traditional way to approach the game. There is nothing wrong with any of these methods unless you are fighting to beat the random (note, am using it as a noun  . Very bad influence!). Repeaters, variance, 3SD, playing the last, playing the opposite, playing for streaks and chops -  whichever method you use to deliver your bet selection, what you will finally select is a random selection. You are just trying to see whether you can align the random to the laws of probability and you will not get a 100% correct selection. Knowingly or unknowingly, you are trying to fit things within a distribution pattern. I reiterate, there is nothing wrong in doing this, this is one common way of approaching the game seeing the outcomes as random.
  
  


• 
  Not everything is random â€" This is the most uncommon way of looking at roulette outcomes. Again there are two interesting sections here.
  
  
  
  
  • Physics â€" This is a way to approach the game where the physics of roulette play a major role. The speed of the rotor, the position in which the ball is released, the speed in which the ball is released, the abnormalities with the ball and the wheel a lot of physical aspects of the game come into play here. This is not random. The accuracy of prediction is greatly improved with the random variables coming into play being very limited like the air pressure in the room, sweat from the dealer hands impacting the speed in which the ball rolls, dirt falling in the roulette table impacting the wheel friction â€" it goes on and on. But in summary, this is another way to play the game. I will reserve my opinion on whether it is an advantageous way to play over playing a random game.
    
    
  
  
  • Maths â€" It is a little bit more complex to explain (especially as it is not the common way to play). Let me see whether I can try to take an example to explain this. Of three spins that yielded red or black numbers, there will be at least two red or two black. Hmm! This is not random right. This is an absolute result. The dutch theorem that I explained is another example of things that are not random. The difficulty in this is the practical applicability. And hence very uncommon way to play.
    

So what? It is very very important to know when your selection is random and when it is not. Atlantis â€" very interesting perspective in the way you explained to avoid double hell. The moment you approach it that way, it becomes a random selection. Chrisbis â€" you are forgetting the combination of 1,5,9 as well. If you are chosing to play 3,6,9 and forgetting 1,5,9 - then it becomes random.

The above example of 9 spin finite cycle non-random behaviour can be done for any set of numbers. For example for a dozen, this limit is 27. We cannot not have an A.P of length 3 of same dozens in a set of 27 spins. It is debatable whether to call it non-random or limits of random. You can device a way to play even chances or dozens using these. The lower the number, the higher the complexity and difficulty to track and play. Try playing this for sets of 27 spins with both dozens and ECs and you will figure out a whole new way to play roulette.

I will try posting a few sessions for the benefit of someone who is following the thread (I hope someone is ) but will be able to better understand this with a few spins on the board (We all like keeping things simple and straightforward right )

This is just the first stepping stone. Before getting further into the world of random and non-random and how we can combine these two worlds, another question. As I touched upon dozens, “A dozen on the carpet, a dozen on the wheel, a selection of 12 numbers that changes constantly. Are they different? Do these bet selections result in changes to your predictions or the distribution?”

[Priyanka]

So here i have picked up the first few spins from table 2 yesterday from wiesbaden. Without getting into the complexities of money management lets adapt a simple 1-1-2 approach for EC which will suit our finite 9 spin cycles and a finite up 1 for 2 losses for dozens which will suit out 27 spin cycle.

Spin	Red/Black		Dozen
18	R		2
19	R		2
19	R	Win. First set finsihed.	2	Win. First set finished
9	R		1
31	B		3
21	R		2
17	B		2
25	R	Win. Second set finished	3	Loss.
26	B		3
27	R		3	Win. Second set finished
36	R		3
31	B	Loss.	3
17	B		2	Loss.
34	R	Loss.	3
13	B	Win. Third set finished		2
0	0		0	Loss. Ignore zero spins for the moment
12	R		1	Loss.
26	B		3	Two possibilities here***. Third set finished with a loss
12	R		1
12	R		1
10	B	Loss.	1	Win. Fourth set
36	R		3
12	R	Win. Fourth set finished	1
18	R		2
23	R		2
0	0	Loss. Ignore the zero spins.	0	Loss.
1	R	Win. Fifth set finished.	1	Loss
10	B		1
6	B		1	Win. Fifth set
30	R		3

EC goes - W W LLW  LW LW - +2 units
Dozen goes - W LW LLL W LLW - +3 units

Overall - +5 units


***This is an interesting point in dozens. The more the number of outcomes you are trying to fit the arithmetic progression, the higher this phenomenon of confusion will occur. I have taken the approach of absorbing the loss if there is more than one possibility. Another way to play this is absorb the loss only if all the possible outcomes are possible. In case of ECs, it will be both the outcomes becoming possible. In case of dozens, it will be all three outcomes becoming possible. If one takes this approach then the game swings between playing single dozen and double dozens.  Remember, there is no right or wrong way of doing things here. It is just to understand the concept that roulette can be played without getting lost into random.

[Big EZ]

Interesting reading so far.....look forward to more 

[ddarko]

EDIT : Question had already been asked to her....

Sorry 

[Priyanka]

EDIT : Question had already been asked to her....

Sorry 

What happened??

[ddarko]

What happened??

I had asked a question that I'd originally asked you many moons ago, seemed silly to
repeat said question. My apologies, feel free to these posts

[falkor2k15]

Try playing this for sets of 27 spins with both dozens and ECs and you will figure out a whole new way to play roulette.

Can't think how they could possibly help each other? For ECs perhaps we are trying to avoid this situation:
BRRBBRRB

But in the above situation would we be anymore likely to get a win from the dozens instead?

This is just the first stepping stone. Before getting further into the world of random and non-random and how we can combine these two worlds, another question. As I touched upon dozens, “A dozen on the carpet, a dozen on the wheel, a selection of 12 numbers that changes constantly. Are they different? Do these bet selections result in changes to your predictions or the distribution?”

I think they are all the same? I think the prediction would need to be changed based on each arithmetic progression? I don't see how the distribution is affected or how random can be combined. Any experiments you suggest we try?

[vladir]

Why assume there is no edge, when we all know that there is house edge?