Random Thoughts

[rrbb]

So i propose a challenge: (I hope Priyanka allows this, it is her thread. if not, our mod can remove this post with my consent)

Formally proof that roulette can not be beaten, then and only then it is a fact.

A formal proof is NOT a list with million numbers and betting results...

A formal proof can be written in words, maths, or even in drawings. Clearly state the steps and the assumptions! I advice you to work together with people you trust (e.g. via PM's)

rrbb

[Priyanka]

Interesting challenge, I will take the first attempt and expect many others to share what they think.. Following illustration is my proof.

The only thing missing is the house edge. When you put house edge into the mix, you always lose. Thats my proof and assumption.

[Turner]

Formally proof that roulette can not be beaten, then and only then it is a fact.

A formal proof is NOT a list with million numbers and betting results...

A formal proof can be written in words, maths, or even in drawings. Clearly state the steps and the assumptions! I advice you to work together with people you trust (e.g. via PM's)

Yes I dick around...its a personality disorder, but I am a well read guy.

I think there is something we are missing, and that is of Genius. All historically genius people were barracked by the "experts" until it was beyond criticism that their genius had seen things in a way no one else had .

They all had the same info and tools, but only one was a genius. The General and others studied everything, and got no where....deeming it to not be the way.

Caleb, you have to concede that it is totally possible that rather than roulette cant be beat, in your definition, it could be that you just never made that genius move to find it.

[rrbb]

Hi Turner,

I actually think you are a little bit to rough towards some people. Everyone who spends a lot of time and effort in trying to master something is a hero in my book.

grts rrbb

[Turner]

Hi Turner,

I actually think you are a little bit to rough towards some people. Everyone who spends a lot of time and effort in trying to master something is a hero in my book.

Not intended
My point is...just because you spent a lifetime studying something, and deem it useless doesnt mean that you can tell someone that recons they have the answer that its rubbish based just on your experience.
It may be that you werent good enough to find the answer.

Thats a realistic view point

Not everyone is a genius. Thats a fact

Im not

[thelaw]

Not intended
My point is...just because you spent a lifetime studying something, and deem it useless doesnt mean that you can tell someone that recons they have the answer that its rubbish based just on your experience.
It may be that you werent good enough to find the answer.

Thats a realistic view point

+1

Basic logic!

[The General]

Formally proof that roulette can not be beaten, then and only then it is a fact.

It has already been proven.  Go read on the history of game if you'd like to see the proof. 

If you'd like further confirmation, and some snickers, then feel free to post that you believe that the game can be beaten on any math/physics forum.

Guidelines for Evaluating Systems

The general principles apply to almost all gambling games, and when they apply, they guarantee that systems cannot give the player an advantage.

To help you filter anGud reject systems, here are conditions which guarantee that a system is worthless.

1. Each individual bet in the game has a negative expectation. This makes any series of bets have a negative expectation.
2. There is a maximum limit to the size of any possible game. (This rules out systems like the Martingale and up as you lose.)
3. The results of any one play of the game do not "influence" the results of any other play of the game.
(Note that we are talking about the "game of roulette", not the "gaming device."
4. There is a minimum allowed size for any bet. (This is necessary for the technical steps in the mathematical proof.)

Under these conditions, it is a mathematical fact that every possible gambling system is worthless in the following ways:

1. Any series of bets has a negative expectation
2. This expectation is the (negative) sum of the expectations of the individual bets.
3. If the player continues to bet, his total loss divided by his total action will tend to get closer and closer to his expected loss divided by his total action.
4. If the player continues to bet it is almost certain that he will:
a. be a loser
b. eventually stay a loser forever, and so never again break even;
c. eventually lose his entire bankroll, no matter how large it was.

-Please note the source "The Mathematics of Gambling", by Dr. Edward O. Thorp.






Note the "Dr." in front of the name.  This means that he's more than qualified to comment on whether or not the random game of roulette is beatable.

[Nickmsi]

Once again, the General is correct.  We can't beat roulette with random systems as they will lose in the long run to the house edge, negative expectations, etc etc.

So how do we win.

Caleb and Steve have found a Non Random way to beat roulette using physics, they can get an edge by analyzing the wheel and predicting sectors most likely to hit.

They have found one, are there more Non Random ways to beat roulette??

Do you think that is what this thread is about??

Cheers

Nick

[Priyanka]

Note the "Dr." in front of the name.  This means that he's more than qualified to comment on whether or not the random game of roulette is beatable

Hmm....  Assumptions....   How do you know none of us here have a Dr in front of the name.

3. If the player continues to bet, his total loss divided by his total action will tend to get closer and closer to his expected loss divided by his total action.

This is only an assumption and not a fact. No one has been able to prove yet the strong law of convergence. Only the week law has been proven. This is in direct contradiction to equidistribution theorem which can be proven through Weyl's criterion.

If the player continues to bet it is almost certain that he will:

There is a reason that Dr. has written "almost" certain. This essentially means one cannot definitively say that these outcomes will never occur, but can for most purposes assume this to be true.

Do you still think its a proof?

[The General]

Hmm....  Assumptions....   How do you know none of us here have a Dr in front of the name.

Reyth/Priyanka,

Because they don't hand out doctoral degrees to people that believe that the random game of roulette can be beaten.  Again, feel free to ask anyone on any math/physics forum. (And be ready for some snickers.)


It's foolish to argue the point any further. 


You should focus on what can be beaten, the wheel.

[button]

Note the "Dr." in front of the name.  This means that he's more than qualified to comment on whether or not the random game of roulette is beatable.

I disagree, IMHO having a PHD just means you spent more of your life studying theory instead of living.  I and I am sure many others have come across lots of people with degrees coming out their ears, but they are basically stupid when it comes to life experience.

Did the "Dr" study the wheel for years?, or did he just make assumptions?

[thelaw]

Priyanka,

Because they don't hand out doctoral degrees to people that believe that the random game of roulette can be beaten.  Again, feel free to ask anyone on any math/physics forum. (And be ready for some snickers.)


It's foolish to argue the point any further. 


You should focus on what can be beaten, the wheel.

This is the General's standard go-to move........when he has nothing left........he attacks the other party.

Reminds me of what Nate Diaz said about Conor Mcgregor after he submitted him : "As soon as guys start to lose the stand-up........everyone magically becomes a wrestler"

[The General]

Some people foolishly believe that it's my argument.  Like it or not it's history's.  It's fact.  It's basic math.
When playing the random game of roulette, the long term expectation is the total amount bet x the house edge.  Since the house edge is a negative value, then perhaps someone can tell me what bet amount can be multiplied times a positive amount to produce a positive amount of money.  (Again, this has to do with the long term expectation.)  Perhaps Pyriyanka has found a way to multiply a negative number times a positive one and produce a positive value, but as for the rest of us living in the real world.... we're stuck with real math.


Look around.  All of these various people with degrees and experts in their fields telling you that the random game of roulette can NOT be beaten.  Why do you suppose that they're all wrong?

Why is it the less someone knows about mathematics and the history of the game the more certain that everyone else in the know is wrong?

[Steve]

They have found one, are there more Non Random ways to beat roulette??

There are almost always many ways of achieving the same result. You dont need to use traditional advantage play. Just something that increases your odds of winning. Remember the difference between odds and payout.

[Priyanka]

random game of roulette can NOT be beaten

No one disagreeing that. All am saying is there are more non-random ways rather than  just exploit the wheel. The basic assumption people have taken is everything is random in the game of roulette. I am just saying that, that assumption doesn't hold good in certain aspects of roulette outcomes. When that assumption is shaken, all the proof we had so far doesn't hold good. Law of large numbers gets shaken when that assumption is shaken. Proof based on randomness and convergence gets shaken when you shake that assumption. It is always possible to obtain certain non-random events withing any random stream.