Random Thoughts

[Tomla021]

Well lets see whos  right the PHD or the General.....maybe new maths have been discovered maybe not
he he

[The General]

Tomla,

Why is it that some people choose to completely dismiss and or ignore what very well educated people have written about the random game of roulette?

[Tomla021]

not dismissing anything written --science and math and stats are moving forward at breakneck speeds

[The General]

not dismissing anything written --science and math and stats are moving forward at breakneck speeds

So in short, you believe that science and math will beat the random game of roulette?

[Steve]

Its all really very simple.

The payouts are unfair for the odds. The ONLY way to overcome this is by improving your odds. HOW you do this is the question.

[rrbb]

Hi General,

Yes, i have read that great book of mr Thorpe:
Indeed this was a smart guy but:

He never gave a formal proof! It is a sequence of statements (he himself even mentioned a loophole in his "proof". go ahead, read it again!

This is why i stated that i have never seen a formal proof: people always claimed it is sef-evident.

His proof is like:

Everyone knows the earth is flat
When people left to find out, no one returned.

This is logigal because when the earth is flat you will fall of it when you do not respect the edge.

So now i'v proven the earth is flat!

[rrbb]

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

No Nicksme,

Mr Thorpe and Claude Shannon found this way. Go ahead, google it...

[Steve]

rrbb, if you've ever had experience with visual ballistics, bias analysis, roulette computers or other advantage play, you'd know and see first hand there's no doubt it works. Here's one extreme case below. Carefully watch the video and results.

link:s://:.youtube.com/v/PUqjvSvEnX8

It helps to check the numbers and predictions (European wheel):



I can also show you government test results, discussion transcripts with casino staff, recorded phone conversations with casino staff, news articles, tv documentaries etc. There is no shortage of proof. It's all about increasing accuracy of predictions. You dont need to use electronic devices. There are many ways to do it.

With computers the proof is so much easier to see because they can even predict the rotor strike point - where the ball will hit the rotor. So you dont need thousands of spins for proof.

[Steve]

I'm not trying to brag but what Thorp had, compared my computers, is like comparing a Commodore 64 to a modern i7 pc. Its very different technology. His idea was revolutionary yes, but we are talking about a few lines of computer code with a vague assumption that conditions in roulette dont change.

Her's what I mean:
link:s://:.youtube.com/v/jPMq3s3aZNk

[rrbb]

rrbb, if you've ever had experience with visual ballistics, bias analysis, roulette computers or other advantage play, you'd know and see first hand there's no doubt it works. Here's one extreme case below. Carefully watch the video and results.

link:s://:.youtube.com/v/PUqjvSvEnX8

I can also show you government test results, discussion transcripts with casino staff, recorded phone conversations with casino staff, news articles, tv documentaries etc. There is no shortage of proof. It's all about increasing accuracy of predictions. You dont need to use electronic devices. There are many ways to do it.

With computers the proof is so much easier to see because they can even predict the rotor strike point - where the ball will hit the rotor. So you dont need thousands of spins for proof.

Hi Steve,

I know it works! Again i did read Thorpe an Shannon and many others. This has be Proven! First with pen an paper, then by these guys themselves. And indeed, the only way out of these assumptions is by covering the wheel, or but making people place their bets before the croupier releases the ball.

I am convinced that physical systems work.

But to claim that it has been proven that roulette can never be beaten is FALSE.

Although i have to admit that Priyanka's attempt and yours could be used (to be honest, i did like yours).

But a proof consists of not just loose statements, or observations of similar behavior.

I understand that not all of you might be scholed in this way of thinking...

Let me start with what a formal proof looks like

---â€"
Let Sj be a strategy consisting of
j games

Let M be the maximal individual betting decisions in a game.

Let Rij be the result of the betting decision of the i-th betting decision in the j-th game. The betting decisions themselves are mapped on a predefined set of all betting decisions that are possible for this strategy.

Let Si{Rij} be the sum over all betting decisions (indicated by counter i) for game j.

The sum over all games of the strategy played ad infinitum (=forever, j goes to infinity) is defined to be: res

Can now be written as:

Res= Sj{Si{Rij}}
Because the order of summation can be changed, this can also be written as:

Si{Sj{Rij}}. This should be read as: we first sum for all the j games played, the i-th result.

Because the betting decisions were mapped on all possible betting decisions this equates to a constant bet. As it can be PROVEN that for a constant bet the expectation value <0,

This second sum must be <0.

This then implies that the first sum

Res= Sj{Si{Rij}}

Must be <0. This means that no strategy can exist for which each individual game is, at least, on average a winning game.

Now, spot the assumptions!

[Steve]

You can never be 100% sure of anything. Simply more data means more proof. When testing a system, you need to test thw working principle that is supposed to increase accuracy of predictions. With a system like Priyanka's, there are lots of RBR RRR etc sequences. One way to test the theory is find a particular sequence where you think certain future spins are more likely.

For example, RRR means RBR would be more likely to spin next. But a simple test over a large amount of spins shows that RRR is no different to RBR, RRB, BRB etc. It is just old gambler's fallacy. It is the subject of intense debate on the forum. WHAT'S THERE TO DEBATE? JUST TEST THE DAMN THING OVER ENOUGH SPINS AND SEE. That's why I had software created and published to demonstrate the principle. Anyone can test even billions of spins and see. It's really not hard for anyone to know the truth. Simple testing can resolve any argument.

And when you conclude that a system isnt at all changing the odds, ask yourself: how are you going to overcome the unfair payouts if you havent increased your odds? Its simple math.

[rrbb]

You can never be 100% sure of anything. Simply more data means more proof. When testing a system, you need to test thw working principle that is supposed to increase accuracy of predictions. With a system like Priyanka's, there are lots of RBR RRR etc sequences. One way to test the theory is find a particular sequence where you think certain future spins are more likely.

For example, RRR means RBR would be more likely to spin next. But a simple test over a large amount of spins shows that RRR is no different to RBR, RRB, BRB etc. It is just old gambler's fallacy. It is the subject of intense debate on the forum. WHAT'S THERE TO DEBATE? JUST TEST THE DAMN THING OVER ENOUGH SPINS AND SEE. That's why I had software created and published to demonstrate the principle. Anyone can test even billions of spins and see. It's really not hard for anyone to know the truth. Simple testing can resolve any argument.

And when you conclude that a system isnt at all changing the odds, ask yourself: how are you going to overcome the unfair payouts if you havent increased your odds? Its simple math.

Hi Steve,

With all respect: your reasoning is flawed. There is an assumption underlying your example. Your reasoning is like: " all swans are white, just go to the park and see for yourself". For decades this was seen to be a fact. All dissenters were ridiculed.

We all know what happened when Australia was discovered...

When you look closely to your statements you rigthly claim that spins are independent (this is the assumption underlying your example). And yes, this is a fact as it underlies randomness (and its implementations like the roulettewheel, or PRNG).

But nobody said that Priyanka is betting on "spins"...

Grts rrbb

[Tacwell]

Why does it have to be so complicated? With a mechanical system you know the odds of a specific sequence occurring, that's not an assumption, you know what the payout will be, that's not an assumption, so you can calculate expected value. If it's negative, don't expect long term profit.

[Priyanka]

nobody said that Priyanka is betting on "spins"...

Hmm

[rrbb]

Why does it have to be so complicated? With a mechanical system you know the odds of a specific sequence occurring, that's not an assumption, you know what the payout will be, that's not an assumption, so you can calculate expected value. If it's negative, don't expect long term profit.

Hi Tacwell,

You are right. Keeping things simple makes living easier.

But it is a choice. Columbus had the choice not to set sail, but he did: boy was that a bad decision