Does random have limits?

[Roulettebeater]

Now 2nd part, how to make money using this info.

you can't!

[Firefox]

You can get 110 reds in a row.

It's just a very small chance.

Random has no limits.

There's no way to take advantage of the fact that it's a small chance.

[Person S]

This is a very tough nut.

Do not think that my question is irreconcilable, but where can I read or learn about non-random math?

[Firefox]

This is a very tough nut.

Do not think that my question is irreconcilable, but where can I read or learn about non-random math?

link:s://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference

link:s://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness

link:s://:.quantamagazine.org/a-unified-theory-of-randomness-20160802/

[Person S]

link:s://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference

link:s://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness

link:s://:.quantamagazine.org/a-unified-theory-of-randomness-20160802/

Thank you, Firefox!
In fact, this is not exactly what I'm looking for.
I am interested in mathematics in cycles until I can find apples and pears and divide them into baskets O_o

[Person S]

ИнÑ,ересно...
Odds are never dynamic
In the beginning of a scenario, one might calculate the probability of a certain event. The fact is, as soon as one gains more information about that situation, they may need to re-calculate the probability.


When the host reveals one door that contains a goat, this is new information.
Say we are told that a woman has two children. If we ask whether either of them is a girl, and are told yes, what is the probability that the other child is also a girl? Considering this new child independently, one might expect the probability that the other child is female is ½ (50%). But by building a probability space (illustrating all possible outcomes), we see that the probability is actually only â..." (33%). This is because the possibility space illustrates 4 ways of having these two children: boy-boy, girl-boy, boy-girl, and girl-girl. But we were given more information. Once we are told that one of the children is a female, we use this new information to eliminate the boy-boy scenario. Thus the probability space reveals that there are still 3 ways to have two children where one is a female: boy-girl, girl-boy, girl-girl. Only â..." of these scenarios would have the other child also be a girl.[17] Using a probability space, we are less likely to miss one of the possible scenarios, or to neglect the importance of new information. For further information, see Boy or girl paradox.

This technique provides insights in other situations such as the Monty Hall problem, a game show scenario in which a car is hidden behind one of three doors, and two goats are hidden as booby prizes behind the others. Once the contestant has chosen a door, the host opens one of the remaining doors to reveal a goat, eliminating that door as an option. With only two doors left (one with the car, the other with another goat), the player must decide to either keep their decision, or switch and select the other door. Intuitively, one might think the player is choosing between two doors with equal probability, and that the opportunity to choose another door makes no difference. But probability spaces reveal that the contestant has received new information, and can increase their chances of winning by changing to the other door.[17]

[Steve]

Sorry, that's a load of crap.

So in 2 spins with no zero wheel, we can have:

BB
RR
RB
BR

Then if we have B, the possible overall outcomes are BB and BR. That's a 50/50 chance. Nothing changed.

Random is as limited as numbers. It is stupidity to say random has limits in any context that can change odds.

[Person S]

Sorry, that's a load of crap.

So in 2 spins with no zero wheel, we can have:

BB
RR
RB
BR

Then if we have B, the possible overall outcomes are BB and BR. That's a 50/50 chance. Nothing changed.

Random is as limited as numbers. It is stupidity to say random has limits in any context that can change odds.

Without a doubt, the next move will be independent and the probability is 50/50.
I see something else.
If you look at the big picture, this is different data.
Need to think about applicability in roulette, I do not think this is a recipe. But I think the advanced guys talk about it.

[hanshuckebein]

You can get 110 reds in a row.

It's just a very small chance.

Random has no limits.

There's no way to take advantage of the fact that it's a small chance.

if we only think in terms of "theoretical probabilty" I would agree.
if we also take "experimental probability" into consideration I wouldn't.

cheers
hans 

[Roulettebeater]

if we only think in terms of "theoretical probabilty" I would agree.
if we also take "experimental probability" into consideration I wouldn't.

cheers
hans 

And who cares what you agree with ?
The tables shits on your consideration and is ready to teach you a lesson when you play

[hanshuckebein]

And who cares what you agree with ?

well, obviously you do as you have felt an urge to post such an unfriendly reply.

cheers
hans 

[Firefox]

if we only think in terms of "theoretical probabilty" I would agree.
if we also take "experimental probability" into consideration I wouldn't.

cheers
hans 

Fair point Hans,  but it depends on the length of the experiment.

Let's take the experimental value we have at the moment though, about 30 even chances in a row, as I remember.

That's still enough to sink progressions like the 6x Martingale 5 times over.

So the experimental random we have evidence of now, goes many times beyond what most people would believe as random and is enough to cause their systems total ruin many times over.

While the theoretical random still lurks in the background ready to show itself at any moment and surprise us still further.

In practical terms the assistance people seek from the nature of random to improve their betting is further away than ever.

[Steve]

Its not even about how rare an event is. Firstly, 100 reds in a row will happen as often as any other sequence. Secondly, the payouts are still short.

[hanshuckebein]

I guess this is a discussion that's been going on for over 200 years in some way or the other - so I will retreat from it here.

"Since there are four possible gender-pairings (man-man, man-woman, woman-man, and woman-woman) probability proves that  half of all people are gay." 

cheers
hans 

[Firefox]

"Since there are four possible gender-pairings (man-man, man-woman, woman-man, and woman-woman) probability proves that  half of all people are gay." 

cheers
hans 

That's a Bayesian problem though Hans. There are external influences on the pairings. Genetic, natural, historical, societal, familial, market, social, governmental, reproductive etc etc.

Whereas Red/Black or heads/tails is an a priori circumstance.

So, drawing any parallels is comparing apples with oranges.