Randomer Thoughts

[Turner]

Why does Priyanka wait for virtual observation spins with a value of 0.05 before placing a proper bet of 1,5 or 10 in online BV Roulette? What is Priyanka trying to achieve, does it make any difference, and is it relevant to the above statements?

not sure....but I think you cant free spin on BV so you have to pay for a tracking spin

could be wrong

I was thinking similar about your previous post and how there seem to be contradictions.

I dont care really, this post is interesting enough without trying to pin people down or expose something.

Too journalistic for me

[psimoes]

So you are playing for the sequence RB. Place a bet on red. Red comes through. Now what is the probability that you will get a sequence RB after a red has come through? It is 50% and not 25%.

But that Red didn´t come for free... you said "Place a bet on red. Red comes through" like it was a sure win. It was the usual 50% chance. The chance you have to bet RB and win is 25%.

[psimoes]

not sure....but I think you cant free spin on BV so you have to pay for a tracking spin

could be wrong

I was thinking similar about your previous post and how there seem to be contradictions.

I dont care really, this post is interesting enough without trying to pin people down or expose something.

Too journalistic for me

I think you´re right. I believe Nottophammer does  the same to track new spins on the FOBTs, by betting the minimum wage on Red and Black at the same time. Just to keep the wheel spinning. If the Zero shows up it´s a very small loss.

[falkor2k15]

not sure....but I think you cant free spin on BV so you have to pay for a tracking spin

could be wrong

I was thinking similar about your previous post and how there seem to be contradictions.

I dont care really, this post is interesting enough without trying to pin people down or expose something.

Too journalistic for me

Tracking/virtual is the same, right?

"Contradictions" is maybe the wrong choice of words here then since it's not meant to come across like I am pinning anyone down or trying to expose them... the best way to teach or "clarify" a subject is by "context" and "comparison". This framework is needed to make sense of things besides giving examples; likewise when studying history we need "chronology" as another method for "comprehending" the subject. Instead of using the word "comparison" though, I used the words "contradiction" and "complement", in turn, which are the opposite sides of "comparison". So who else made this "cynical" assumption about me? 

[Turner]

So who else made this "cynical" assumption about me?

I didnt mean it that way...seriously

Im just using the latest data

[falkor2k15]

Yeah, the data has been posted in a very disjointed fashion, so there's nothing bonding it together for coherency. That's why I started the other topic: to try to put everything into context. Some teachers/presenters believe in discussing topics separately and then having these "branches" of information merged under the "root" of a tree at some later point in time. Well, such teaching methods are lousy and delay the student's ability to fully absorb the subject, causing them to be completely confused throughout the entire class only to have all the dots joined at the very end. Bad brain. Ideally, teachers need to begin with an overview first, thereby establishing the context, and then drill down deeper to the granular level. What comes first? Non-Random, Statistics, Progression - exactly - it must happen in that order! So I hope this comparison helps in expressing what I am trying to explain here.   

[falkor2k15]

I'll give you my answer to this problem:

Is this a contradiction to what Priyanka said before?

It went like this, consider the sequences RB, RR, BR, BB. ¼ is the likelihood of each of these sequences to occur. So you are playing for the sequence RB. Place a bet on red. Red comes through. Now what is the probability that you will get a sequence RB after a red has come through? It is 50% and not 25%. Simple as it may sound, but a complex subject to get your head around it.  Why complex? It seems a very simple thing. The odds of next spin is always the odds of the position you are playing. Hmm! Let me think again.

But stringing together ECs we can create an odd placement that we like like quads, dozens, so on and so forth. We don’t even have to look at the numbers or wheels. How is this possible. See this example below on Red and Black.
Instead of playing one position of just R and B, what if we play RR, RB, BR and BB. Instead of giving odds of 1/1 we have converted ECs to give odds of 3/1. An example play is below. For simplicity, what we will be looking to play is for getting the outcome RB.

Or is Priyanka describing two different things? Bayes? Priyanka?

I think in the first example Priyanka is talking about simply playing a "single" spins based on the previous 1 spin - but in the 2nd example Priyanka is planning to play (2) spins in advance.
The contradiction I see is that Priyanka doesn't always stick to the same bet selections, but seems to adapt them on-the-fly somehow (this violates the principle IMO). If she is not adapting them to past information then why/how is she adapting them?

[falkor2k15]

I'll take a shot at this too...

Is Bayes' statement compatible with Priyanka's statement regarding virtual bets?

Priyanka,

Good post.
... It's very hard to convince people sometimes that what they're doing doesn't work the way they think it does.
And of course it explains why many believe that "virtual bets" are a good idea.

As long as the selection process of selecting the number stream from roulette is random, it doesn't matter whether you have placed bets or virtually observed them. 

In a random game (yes in a random game of roulette) the rate at which you will lose your chips to house edge is not dependent on what you have observed but based on your placed bets.

Why does Priyanka wait for virtual observation spins with a value of 0.05 before placing a proper bet of 1,5 or 10 in online BV Roulette? What is Priyanka trying to achieve, does it make any difference, and is it relevant to the above statements?

I think both statements are false re: virtual spins/tracking. If virtual spins didn't count and if past information didn't mean anything then the ratio of cycles would always remain constant even if the cycle was broken before a repeat occurred. I believe that the act of observing a spin is what brings the outcome into reality to be part of a random sequence that has to obey certain laws. Gambler's Fallacy? May be - but I've not seen any valid experiments/counter arguments that has convinced me otherwise. However, it may be my lack of understanding when it comes to key fundamentals within probability/statistics that is mostly to blame here.

If only Bayes or Priyanka could demonstrate a system that wasn't based on virtual spins/tracking or past information then I may see things from a different perspective - but I can't see that happening. For example, here Priyanka waits - virtually tracking - until a line has appeared (1) and then repeated (2) before commencing betting:

Therefore, Priyanka is relying on past spins as a trigger to commence her attack.

How else could Priyanka or Bayes interpret that???

Back to the Basics topic with Turbo? 

[Bayes]

"Contradictions" is maybe the wrong choice of words here then since it's not meant to come across like I am pinning anyone down or trying to expose them...

I think Priyanka is "man" enough to respond to anyone who points out contradictions.  And don't know why you put it in those terms - I think contradictions should be exposed; it's not a question of trying to "expose" the person, but the argument. This is a tried and trusted technique pioneered by Socrates and honed over the centuries. Let's not abandon it!

The whole enterprise of roulette systems is one huge contradiction, if we assume that outcomes are random. The problem with the standard  mathematical analyses is that they take randomness for granted and so always end up "confirming" it. The formulas for binomial distribution etc are only valid for IID (independent and identically distributed random variables), so if you "do the math" for any system you're always going to conclude that whatever results you happen to have got must be just a fluke. It's a vicious circle.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I do better when I take account of past results than when I don't (I don't use "virtual" bets though). This shouldn't be the case, according to the "standard" model. If I try to analyse why it seems to work by focussing on some part of my bet selection process and trying to analyse it mathematically, I always end up with the result that it can't work. Of course! what else should I expect?

Is there a way out of the circle?

[falkor2k15]

I think Priyanka is "man" enough to respond to anyone who points out contradictions.  And don't know why you put it in those terms - I think contradictions should be exposed; it's not a question of trying to "expose" the person, but the argument. This is a tried and trusted technique pioneered by Socrates and honed over the centuries. Let's not abandon it!

But why might somebody not see eye to eye with you on this point? (most valid BTW; I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here!  ) Could it be something to do with logic's enemy: emotions?

As I mentioned elsewhere, I do better when I take account of past results than when I don't (I don't use "virtual" bets though). This shouldn't be the case, according to the "standard" model. If I try to analyse why it seems to work by focussing on some part of my bet selection process and trying to analyse it mathematically, I always end up with the result that it can't work. Of course! what else should I expect?

Aren't "virtual bets" the same as observational spins and tracking? What's the difference?

Judging by your last sentence are you saying that you've encountered things in roulette that seem paradoxical and not in accordance with conventional maths?

[Tomla021]

so many questions and no clear answers, Im still trying to work out how I can have pears when apples keep on showing----Im severely behind

[falkor2k15]

so many questions and no clear answers, Im still trying to work out how I can have pears when apples keep on showing----Im severely behind

If you figured that out then you would have figured out the whole thing so don't be too hard on yourself! I'm going to leave quad cycles for the moment and start toying with dozen cycles. I miss being back at school, so it's nice to play around with this stuff. I'll let you know if I find anything useful... random usually does what I tell him to do...NOT! 

[Bayes]

But why might somebody not see eye to eye with you on this point? (most valid BTW; I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here!  ) Could it be something to do with logic's enemy: emotions?

I don't think emotions are a good way to make decisions, especially for a gambler. 

Aren't "virtual bets" the same as observational spins and tracking? What's the difference?

I think of virtual bets as waiting for some specific "trigger". I don't wait for triggers but look at past spins (and my record of success so far) to adjust my selections accordingly. Maybe it's a fine line. But according to the maths no selection should make any difference. The idea of "bet selection" for the game of roulette is absurd, from the point of view of the standard mathematical model.

Judging by your last sentence are you saying that you've encountered things in roulette that seem paradoxical and not in accordance with conventional maths?

The patterns and characteristics do largely conform to the mathematical model. So in the sense of relative frequencies things do work out as they should. But there are only regularities on the "large scale" or long run. There is no maths for the short term,  so I can't say I've seen anything which is paradoxical. On the other hand, the short term is nothing but a succession of long terms, so if there isn't something of the long term in every (or at least, most) short terms then the long term wouldn't be what it is.  I keep an eye on both the longer and shorter terms and try to find a balance - Gizmo would call it "local and global context", Winkel would say it's "gambler's intelligence".

[psimoes]

The idea of "bet selection" for the game of roulette is absurd, from the point of view of the standard mathematical model.

Therefore there are no "bad" systems as wel as there are no "good" systems. All systems are good because all systems are bad.

[praline]

OK, boys and girls

I'm the smartest student in Priyanka's class

My great idea that I mentioned before, turned into "Priyanka's method".

As said before "... don't complicate...".


Give me sequence of numbers and I will play them like she would