Lets try again

[rrbb]

Long time ago i proposed the following thought experiment (disguised as a question).

Lets assume someone claims how to win consistently within roulette.

Now this person plays roulette while you are watching.

You just watch, nothing else.

You see this person placing bets, winning some, loosing some. But overall her bankroll is increasing. You can't believe what you are seeing.

so you decide to focus on one specific possible bet, say, a bet on zero (0) with 1 unit (lets call this a constant bet: the same unit on the same straight over and over again). Whenever 1 unit is placed on zero, it does not matter that more units are on the table at the same time, you track the results.

What would you expect to see?

As the spins are random: a constant bet is a loosing bet. Randomness implies that the spin results are independent of the past results. This clearly holds for straigths.

But every combination of bets can be seen as a combination of constant bets!

So there is no way this person can have a consistent winner...

Unless, unless, she came up with a way to make the spin results dependent on past results

For straights etc this not possible: no prediction is possible. We do not know what to bet when.

So either we come up with a completely new interpretation of what events to bet on, or we are stuck...

[rrbb]

So the question of roulette basically drills down to:

can we redefine roulette in such a way that we introduce dependencies?

And if so: what do we actually bet on? On something we think that will happen?

Or on nothing at all, we just place bets, knowing that we will win.

[praline]

can we redefine roulette in such a way that we introduce dependencies?

And if so: what do we actually bet on? On something we think that will happen?

We introduce dependency by starting a new cycle with last closing element. So actually we bet for an event, and this event will surely happen  100%.

[rrbb]

This is one example indeed. The problem being however that we know to bet what, but not when.

why not try to think about a method where we do NOT bet on an event. Sure, we use cycles as defined like you did, but instead of waiting for it to happen, why not try to go with the flow within a cycle? Like the tides...

Just asking

[Herby]

The flow is not constant.
It's built up from waves,bigger and smaller which sum up.
Almost no 2 waves are the same, because of the own dynamics  of  the smaller and bigger waves.

[3Nine]

I always loved the saying, all ships rise with the tide.  Thanks for the visual. 

Happy Father's Day to you and all Dad's here!

[Herby]

all ships rise with the tide

Titanic maybe not; for the visual 

[3Nine]

Titanic maybe not; for the visual 

Ha, yes, my methods all perform that way!   Herein lies the problem with metaphors... always an exception.

[rrbb]

Yes indeed, happy fathersday!

So although praline's statement is not untrue, the question is how to utilize it. And before you know it, you have a system that waits for a repeat.

But as Herby indicated: a lot is happening in, and inbetween cycles.

It is very difficult to grasp, not betting on events. All, yes all systems discussed on this forum are about betting on events. Some really stupid systems, some very sophisticated, but all, all  loose. Why? Think about the thought experiment.

If there is a method, it MUST use the fact that there are indeed dependencies. This is the only loophole out to avoid the law of large numbers.

But it must be a fragile method: at the moment one tries to predict an event, it collapses onto the law of large numbers again.

So to complicate things: how to NOT bet on events? What is the alternative??

Please note: using random is just a way to bet on events (the randomly generated numbers are the new predictions). So if such a method exists, it needs to be a little bit more sophisticated

[3Nine]

Would NOT betting on events be an event itself? Just a thought.

[Herby]

So to complicate things: how to NOT bet on events? What is the alternative??

Bet on the Anti event.

[3Nine]

Bet on the Anti event.

As in the complimentary set??

[Herby]

As Priyanka showed in some of her films.
I don't rember which one, but I found the idea interesting.

[Nickmsi]

Why wait for an event?

Use a Non Random system, like VDW, where past spins are dependent.

[MoneyT101]

Yes indeed, happy fathersday!

So although praline's statement is not untrue, the question is how to utilize it. And before you know it, you have a system that waits for a repeat.

But as Herby indicated: a lot is happening in, and inbetween cycles.

It is very difficult to grasp, not betting on events. All, yes all systems discussed on this forum are about betting on events. Some really stupid systems, some very sophisticated, but all, all  loose. Why? Think about the thought experiment.

If there is a method, it MUST use the fact that there are indeed dependencies. This is the only loophole out to avoid the law of large numbers.

But it must be a fragile method: at the moment one tries to predict an event, it collapses onto the law of large numbers again.

So to complicate things: how to NOT bet on events? What is the alternative??

Please note: using random is just a way to bet on events (the randomly generated numbers are the new predictions). So if such a method exists, it needs to be a little bit more sophisticated

Happy Fathers Day Everyone!!!

ok we know that cycles create a small dependence...As you posted in the holy grail thread; after the repeat the partition has a very small tendency for the opposite.  But the repeat seems to be the same. 

The problem with that is that we dont know when the repeats will come exactly.

Unique numbers might be better but the problem with that is more numbers to be played and early repeat...