Random Thoughters

[maestro]

i did ask normal question and you giving me example of generals play..i dont care what general does or play...

[The General]

Ball lands in generals sector

It was not bias. It was luck

He takes it and runs. I have a bias!!

It is some bloke who thinks his steak is better then everyone elses-Rouletteghost naively wrote:

Rouletteghost,

Ignorance is not a virtue.  Didn't you at least take one science and or physics class in high school???   

[Turner]

Luck is a double edged sword.

But....my point

AP players would not win if it wasnt for pure luck as well

I am not saying you cant find a bias or what you do is rubbish. I cant comment because I have never done it, but I get what it is you are doing

If Buzz Aldrin said landing on the moon was boring, I couldnt argue with him

But, you always lampoon people for their ideas because they amounts to pure luck

But AP players rely on luck as well. The bias alone isnt enough

[RouletteGhost]

Rouletteghost,

Ignorance is not a virtue.  Didn't you at least take one science and or physics class in high school???   

Earth science

Chemistry

Physics

And 2 Astronomy classes. Dickwad.

Astronomy is something where I'd blow your infant brain away

[The General]

AP players would not win if it wasnt for pure luck as well

No, we don't rely on luck. 

Here's a very crude example to explain why:

1. Luck a crude formula ..good or bad represents:  + or - (3 x the square root of the number of spins played over time).

2. A The edge (A 15% edge) represents: .15 x the number of spins played over time.

Input a few different amounts of spins into the crude formulas above.  Try using 300 spins, 2000 spins, and 10k spins.  After inputing various spin amounts you'll see that variance really isn't the factor that you believe it to be. Even in the event of extremely bad luck, the edge dominates over time to become the biggest value.  AP players do NOT rely on luck in order to win.  We rely on the edge, and try to play for as many spins as we can over time.

-The General

[RouletteGhost]

No, we don't rely on luck. 

Here's a very crude example to explain why:

1. Luck a crude formula ..good or bad represents:  + or - (3 x the square root of the number of spins played over time).

2. A The edge (A 15% edge) represents: .15 x the number of spins played over time.

Input a few different amounts of spins into the crude formulas above.  Try using 300 spins, 2000 spins, and 10k spins.  After inputing various spin amounts you'll see that variance really isn't the factor that you believe it to be. Even in the event of extremely bad luck, the edge dominates over time to become the biggest value.

-The General

Nah. You also win thanks to luck.

[The General]

Nah. You also win thanks to luck.

Then I'm surely the luckiest person that I know.




Rouletteghost,

Perhaps later on you can ask an adult to explain to you what it is that I have written. 

[RouletteGhost]

Then I'm surely the luckiest person that I know.




Rouletteghost,

Perhaps later on you can ask an adult to explain to you what it is that I have written. 

Luck

[Turner]

No, we don't rely on luck.

ok...accepting your crude formula, there are some edges of lower values, say 5% where -3xSQ would still get you into a negative

so my question is, how do you know your edge value without playing it? ...where you may find your edge wasnt that good.

heres the rub...and I may be wrong.

You would only know what edge you had by using the past data you had collected.

So you are predicting future play by using past data.

[RouletteGhost]

ok...accepting your crude formula, there are some edges of lower values, say 5% where -3xSQ would still get you into a negative

so my question is, how do you know your edge value without playing it? ...where you may find your edge wasnt that good.

heres the rub...and I may be wrong.

You would only know what edge you had by using the past data you had collected.

So you are predicting future play by using past data.

Yes

But but but its right for this. It is not meaningless here

[Turner]

Yes

But but but its right for this. It is not meaningless here

RG....with all due respect, can I just have a chat with Caleb. I am not trying to trump him (no pun intended)....just trying to understand AP

No better man to ask

[The General]

You would only know what edge you had by using the past data you had collected.

So you are predicting future play by using past data.

Yes, you're using specific data to measure the fitness and performance of the gaming device, NOT the random game.

For example:

Let's pretend that there's a ridge between the 0 and the 32 on the wheel.

How are you going to measure the effect that it has on the performance of the wheel?

The answer is that you're going to collect specific data.  Such as the approx. point of first impact of the ball on the fret, a rough estimate of wheel speed, spin direction,  ball being used and number hit.   Understand?

[Turner]

Understand?

yes

But you dont know it the ridge is going to do anything to make any difference

you cant see it and say, I will play 28 and neighbors because its a bit further round.

You would have to see if there is a bias relating to that anomoly, There may not be

[Turner]

yes

But you dont know it the ridge is going to do anything to make any difference

you cant see it and say, I will play 28 and neighbors because its a bit further round.

You would have to see if there is a bias relating to that anomoly, There may not be

Sorry, I left this late...will have to get off.

Will check in tomorrow.

[The General]

But you dont know it the ridge is going to do anything to make any difference

you cant see it and say, I will play 28 and neighbors because its a bit further round.

You would have to see if there is a bias relating to that anomoly, There may not be

Turner,

Cause and effect. 
You still need to collect the data to quantify it,  so that you know the scatter profile of the wheel at various speeds.  It's not as straight forward as just blindly betting the 28 and neighbors. 

You would have to see if there is a bias relating to that anomoly, There may not be

  That's the point of the specific data collection.