Variance Avoidance fallacy

[falkor2k15]

Why do people think that playing for 2-4 number repeats in 37 spins or 1 arithmetic progression of 2 EC repeats within 9 spins gives us some predictable variance!?

Don't want an apple - want a pear. I can't rearrange them - but I could ignore the apples until I reach a pear and then take the next one. I dunno - just rambling.

Bet entry: Wait for a Serie of loses and then a Win and enter there.

Why do people keep promoting variance avoidance alongside discussions about repeats? Is it to steer people astray from knowing the true application of strategies involving repeats...?

We all know that waiting for 6 losses on Red is not going to help us in terms of an entry point for Black (same with double dozens vs. single dozens). Waiting for 6 sleepers before betting on the repeats is no different.

Despite many facts stated about repeats that are totally valid, nobody has thus far been able to come up with a single fact about variance avoidance (used in conjunction with repeats); that, to me, shows there is a deliberate on-going attempt to obscure facts about repeats in the same vein as covering up a cancer cure - variance avoidance serving nothing more than a chemotherapy or radiotherapy for steering the truth movement in the wrong direction!

[Pogo]

Why do people think that playing for 2-4 number repeats in 37 spins or 1 arithmetic progression of 2 EC repeats within 9 spins gives us some predictable variance!?

Why do people keep promoting variance avoidance alongside discussions about repeats? Is it to steer people astray from knowing the true application of strategies involving repeats...?

We all know that waiting for 6 losses on Red is not going to help us in terms of an entry point for Black (same with double dozens vs. single dozens). Waiting for 6 sleepers before betting on the repeats is no different.

Despite many facts stated about repeats that are totally valid, nobody has thus far been able to come up with a single fact about variance avoidance (used in conjunction with repeats); that, to me, shows there is a deliberate on-going attempt to obscure facts about repeats in the same vein as covering up a cancer cure - variance avoidance serving nothing more than a chemotherapy or radiotherapy for steering the truth movement in the wrong direction!

I think that you have made a valid assessment.  Particularly in regard to TurboGenius's thread.  This also happens in other threads.  Once a member posts what might seem a very good idea, it gets shouted down to stop discussion.

[Scarface]

Good point.  The house edge is insignificant when compared with variance.  If there was a way to reduce variance enough this game could be beat. 

[falkor2k15]

Reduce variance or increase it? And what has repeats got to do with this problem? Why not play a red/black game or a single/double dozens game and work with the variance from that?

[Kattila]

Ok , i agree that not always can avoid  the variance but....
at least sometimes can do it.
See example excel file ( bet only doz 3 here) , but can use same MM /Lw
with orthers bet selections .
I know not always will help this MM and LW strategys but sometimes is
better than never, and yes can avoid the long LLL...s   runs. 

[Scarface]

Every system will lose eventually due to extreme variance.  Maybe it's best to go with the flow.  Be flexible and be prepared to switch your method of play.  Play what's hot

[RouletteGhost]

Why do people think that playing for 2-4 number repeats in 37 spins or 1 arithmetic progression of 2 EC repeats within 9 spins gives us some predictable variance!?

Why do people keep promoting variance avoidance alongside discussions about repeats? Is it to steer people astray from knowing the true application of strategies involving repeats...?

We all know that waiting for 6 losses on Red is not going to help us in terms of an entry point for Black (same with double dozens vs. single dozens). Waiting for 6 sleepers before betting on the repeats is no different.

Despite many facts stated about repeats that are totally valid, nobody has thus far been able to come up with a single fact about variance avoidance (used in conjunction with repeats); that, to me, shows there is a deliberate on-going attempt to obscure facts about repeats in the same vein as covering up a cancer cure - variance avoidance serving nothing more than a chemotherapy or radiotherapy for steering the truth movement in the wrong direction!

Why do people promote variance?

Why do you promote flat earth?

Chemotherapy. I share your hatred for this type of medicine and think the pharmaceutical industry is corrupted and suppresses natural cures and suppresses immune systems. But for what it's worth m friend beat cancer with chemo.

[DoctorSudoku]

Variance of course matters -- even for this repeaters method.

Let's say you are betting on the 3-peaters hoping that one of them becomes a 4-peater.

Then variance strikes -- the cold numbers (the 0-peaters and the 1-peaters) start heating up and then they start becoming 2-peaters and 3-peaters.

In the meantime, you keep betting all the old and the new 3-peaters -- but they remain 3-peaters.

Not one of them has become a 4-peater (what you are shooting for).

Your wait is becoming longer.

And the negative progression that you are forced to employ is also getting longer and deeper.

So, yes, variance does matter. Ignoring variance -- even for this repeaters method -- will put your bankroll in jeopardy.

[vladir]

So, what can be done about this? How can we control variance?

[wiggy]

It has to be timing for me and why I don't subscribe to TurboGenius and his progression on repeats. That's just papering over variance and why you can drop a bundle. That's alright for sims, but not in the real world. Notto has posted plenty of stats and there are loads on the Win-maxx site as well. Don't get me wrong, stats are not the be all and end all, but you can use them creatively along with whatever else you have to bet more selectively.

[Andre Chass]

Why wouldn't a series have an increasingly lower probability of extending than a single event has of happening once?

Obviously, each unique spin has a probability of 50% (academically, by excluding the greens) for either color.

However, the overall proportion of total reds vs blacks should be 50%. So every time another of the same color is added to the group, the probability of the group/sample containing ONLY that one color decreases. Is there really a 50% probability that a sample size of 100 (e.g.) will contain 100 reds or blacks? When a person gambles on the roulette spin, he may be betting FOR a single spin, or AGAINST a series.

Isn't saying that the wheel has no memory like saying the wheel hasn't had a haircut in (x) weeks? A gambler isn't betting on the wheel, he's betting on the statistics. Past data would appear to be relevant due to the sampling.

The trick is to be in the right place at the right time: at what point will the group or sampling attempt to correct itself to ensure an equal distribution of reds and blacks? Because obviously it is inevitable

[DoctorSudoku]

The trick is to be in the right place at the right time: at what point will the group or sampling attempt to correct itself to ensure an equal distribution of reds and blacks? Because obviously it is inevitable

Yeah, you manage to pull off this above-quoted trick of yours ...... and you would have your Holy Grail (and all methods, including the repeaters method, will attain HG status).

Of course, pulling off your above-suggested trick on a consistent basis is the ultimate trick of them all (and it is, sadly, an impossible one).

[cht]

Anyone interested read Colbster's post #17&#19
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=14735.15

Post#29 Colbster ".....we don't have to play EVERY cycle....."

[cht]

Sorry post#61.....that's the purpose of the calculations on post#19. Play when the spin sequence is rich with positive expectation which might pinpoint the height of the distribution. Your enemy is the fat tail distribution so do not go down the progression path since the kurtosis is unbounded.