@ turbo

[cht]

The betting odds is not the statement of probability of the event. To assume that is fallacious.

The betting odds is what it is, that is "fixed" odds the house or bookie presents to the betting public based on the "general" probability of the event, say inside numbers, minus the house edge giving a 1:35 payout for inside numbers.

The current probability of this inside number event is not this "fixed" betting odds, where variance plays it's role.

[Steve]

The betting odds is not the statement of probability of the event.

Uh, yes it is. Probability is the same as odds.

The current probability of this inside number event is not this "fixed" betting odds, where variance plays it's role.

What are you talking about? The number of pockets isn't variable for a wheel. It stays the same.

I think you are trying to say the odds may be 1 in 37, but it doesn't mean you are going to win 1 in 37 times over perhaps a session of 100 spins. You're right about that, because you might not win even once.

Simply if your bet selection is no better than random, you will average 1 win per 37 spins (for flat bets on European wheel). The only way this can change is if you increase the accuracy of predictions (aka improve your odds).

[cht]

Uh, yes it is. Probability is the same as odds.

The [fixed] BETTING ODDS is not the statement of probability of the event. To assume that is fallacious.

I leave it to your understanding about what I wrote.

What are you talking about? The number of pockets isn't variable for a wheel. It stays the same.

I think you are trying to say the odds may be 1 in 37, but it doesn't mean you are going to win 1 in 37 times over perhaps a session of 100 spins. You're right about that, because you might not win even once.

Simply if your bet selection is no better than random, you will average 1 win per 37 spins (for flat bets on European wheel). The only way this can change is if you increase the accuracy of predictions (aka improve your odds).

[The General]

First of all a ten red in a row is a fat tail event.

This fat tail event can be in the same direction of variance or against it.

The more important matter is the quality of variance in the current structure of distribution.

The application of RTM with lower risk profile is when the variance is not at it's upper limit, say 1 to 2 deviation.

This fat tail 10 reds in a row can then be exploited to apply this RTM strategy in this instance.

When the variance is say 3 and beyond deviation followed by a 10 red fat tail event, then RTM strategy will have too high risk profile. The opposite strategy of divergence from the mean will be the more suitable strategy.

The most basic understanding is a 10 red outcome is not variance itself but a fat tail event.

Sorry, but the made up jargon isn't helping your argument.  RTM can not be used to exploit any gambling game.  You're not comprehending basic probability and variance.  A good place to catch up on the basics is the wizardofodds.com

[Steve]

CHT, how are you supposed to predict variance? You can predict an expected range with reasonable accuracy, but you are still stuck with 1 in 37. So your attempts to predict any outcomes based on variance are quite futile.

[cht]

Sorry, but the made up jargon isn't helping your argument.  RTM can not be used to exploit any gambling game.  You're not comprehending basic probability and variance.  A good place to catch up on the basics is the wizardofodds.com

I agree wizardsofodds.com is a place to learn the basics for the ignorant general public.

However it is the worst place to learn anything more than basics.

And there is a huge world beyond the basics that you have no idea about.
(Apologise for this line but it is what it is.)

No comments beyond this post. Pls do not reply.

[cht]

CHT, how are you supposed to predict variance? You can predict an expected range with reasonable accuracy, but you are still stuck with 1 in 37. So your attempts to predict any outcomes based on variance are quite futile.

I won't respond to your valid question for obvious reasons - this is as far as I will go on forums.

[The General]

I won't respond to your valid question for obvious reasons - this is as far as I will go on forums.

In order to understand why the statement is absurd, replace the word "variance" with the word "luck." 
Do you believe that you can actually predict "luck?"

[cht]

It is a lot easier to call variance as "luck".

These are the videos that study the BASIC math of variance="luck" and standard deviation="luck of luck".

Ok, I'm done here.

[evs]

THE GENERAL
√npq. for 100 tests 50/50 = √100* 0.5*0.5 = 5.
1σ=5
2σ=10
3σ=15
here is you luck or failure!

[MoneyT101]

Turbo, CHT.....why do you guys need them to understand you?  You laid enough information for those that would like to investigate for themselves.  Just go and make your money!

A winning method is not meant for everyone.

Steve/general.... each spin is independent if you track it spin by spin!  when spins are combined its a whole new world of math.  Within this world of math there are ways to take advantage of the game

Its all based on how the information is tracked!  You create rules and go from there.

[The General]

THE GENERAL
√npq. for 100 tests 50/50 = √100* 0.5*0.5 = 5.
1σ=5
2σ=10
3σ=15
here is you luck or failure!

By the way, you left out the zeros in your equation.

My point was that you can't predict when you will be lucky or unlucky.  In other words you can't predict when you will have positive variance or negative variance.

[The General]

when spins are combined its a whole new world of math.

Oh really!  Please explain.

By the way, when the spins are combined, the next spin is STILL and independent trial.

[Steve]

when spins are combined its a whole new world of math.

How? A string of 1 in 37's does not make anything but a string of 1 in 37's. If you think a group of spins changes the odds, it doesn't. If it did, then it wouldn't be 1 in 37.

If you know otherwise, please explain.

[Andre Chass]

Turbo can explain it!