How long is "the long run"?

[hanshuckebein]

math tells us that roulette can't be beaten in the long run.

still I haven't figured out what is actually meant by the term "long run". maybe it needs an explanation that even math fails to give or can't be explained at all.

does "the long run" mean all the spins that have been played in the world? does it mean all the spins an individual player has played in his lifetime? does it refer to a single session? if so, how many spins must I play in this particular session? does it depend on the chances I play? what if I use a progression? does it extend "the long run" to be a little longer?

so, how long is the "long run"?

cheers

hans

[albalaha]

It is an ambiguous term and does not have any definitive meaning but normally if u want to test the effectiveness and consistency of any system, you select 10 different live tables with 100 spins each and maybe you could be able to conclude something, atleast to your satisfaction.

[albertojonas]

very nice topic.

i would like to hear what seasoned guys have to say about this.

[hanshuckebein]

It is an ambiguous term and does not have any definitive meaning

thank you for giving your definition, albalaha. as long a nobody is able to give another definition I totally agree with you that "it does not have any definitive meaning".

but why should we worry about something that has no definite meaning?

well, maybe the guys who use the expression to proof that you can't win roulette can help with their definition of "the long run"?

[Bayes]

I agree that "the long run" doesn't really mean much, but it's worth mentioning that it will take longer (in other words, more spins) to test a system playing one number than one playing 30 numbers. This is because of the higher variance associated with playing fewer numbers. If you happen to hit a positive deviation (or even just an "average" sequence) when testing a system playing only a few numbers, you can easily be misled into thinking you have a winner, even after thousands of spins This is much less likely to happen if you're betting on say, two dozens (24 numbers).

[esoito]

And, of course, a contrarian view is that if you play hit'n'run then the 'long run' doesn't matter at all 

[Skakus]

And, of course, a contrarian view is that if you play hit'n'run then the 'long run' doesn't matter at all

Enter the personal permanence.

[Bayes]

Hi Skakus,

As I understand it, "personal permanence" is a record of all the spins you have played (no matter when or where), is that correct?

But how does it help to avoid the long run?

[Skakus]

Hi Bayes,
Yes, all the spins you have played.
Given the fluctuating nature of the game the personal permanence means you are always in the long run, making hit and run tactics an illusion.
I could be wrong, but thatââ,¬â,,¢s the way I see it.

[esoito]

"...you are always in the long run, making hit and run tactics an illusion."

Now that is an interesting thought...I can see what you mean.

Yet conventional wisdom suggests the longer you sit there the more likely you are to hand back your profits (if any. LOL)

[MrJ]

I look at it like this but keep in mind, its only my opinion >> We'll say a guy plays roulette for 40 years of his life. 3 days per week (?), 7 hours per day (?), 40 spins per hour (?). Do the math on that. To me, thats the 'long run'. I see no point of a method being tested, has to be positive after 700 billion spins, thats nonsense!

Ken

[albalaha]

Long run can be rationally termed to be a period where any system can be tried and tested under various random conditions--be it a thousand spins to millions. Zumma testers' book is a nice example of it. The main purpose of use of the term "long run" is to see whether it is the strength of the system that makes someone win under various conditions or it is merely a lucky or unlucky streak which has shown in the first session.
                       I think one can conclude(or may be confuse) himself about the quality of a system by testing it upon 10 different wheels with 100 spins each. It is completely insane to ask for million or billion spins.

[Twisteruk]

I look at it like this but keep in mind, its only my opinion >> We'll say a guy plays roulette for 40 years of his life. 3 days per week (?), 7 hours per day (?), 40 spins per hour (?). Do the math on that. To me, that's the 'long run'. I see no point of a method being tested, has to be positive after 700 billion spins, that's nonsense!

Ken

LoL That made me Laugh my ass off !!!

Just woke up 6am and read that  

Priceless Ken

[Skakus]

I look at it like this but keep in mind, its only my opinion >> We'll say a guy plays roulette for 40 years of his life. 3 days per week (?), 7 hours per day (?), 40 spins per hour (?). Do the math on that. To me, that's the 'long run'. I see no point of a method being tested, has to be positive after 700 billion spins, that's nonsense!

Ken

My point exactly.

190 odd thousand spins is a good innings for that chap, but that's at the end of his 40 year stand. There was a time 40 years ago when he first walked up to play and his game just slotted right in from spin 1. Hence, always in the long run or no such thing as the long run. The two are mutually inclusive.

Maybe, and I stress maybe using closed ended methods like long progressions to ââ,¬Å"get outââ,¬Â require a continuous set of spins. But any flat betting or open ended method should be able to handle a collaged spin set. 

Mathematically, the long run is about achieving a certain number of standard deviations depending on all the variables of the bet. Mr Bayes might be able to shed some wisdom here.

[hanshuckebein]

Guys, first of all let me thank you for putting all your opinions and thoughts into this thread. while reading them the following: questions went through my mind:

My point exactly.

Mathematically, the long run is about achieving a certain number of standard deviations depending on all the variables of the bet.

if this is the case, then" the long run" should not be our enemy because we also know that in "the long run" things even out. this should lead us towards a no win-no lose situation in the worst case.

or is it just about the zero/ 2.7% house edge that makes us lose in our 700 billion spins?

cheers

hans