Theories, Myths, Facts And Ideas

[Joe]

Likewise whether conditions continue to remain unfavourable for future spins can't be predicted by past spins.

lucky, if we're going to have a discussion then we have to at least be consistent and not contradict ourselves. I hope you will point out my inconsistencies, if any, but in the meantime I'm going to point out yours. In a recent post you urged us to  look for dependency (the rest is bullshit, you said). But if future spins can't be predicted by past spins, there can be no dependency. Turbo also relies on dependency for his system to work, and you agree with him (your signature says so).
This is why discussions keep going around in circles; because posters keep contradicting themselves and being inconsistent. It makes rational discourse impossible.

Hit and run strategy assumes that past results continue to remain the same for future spins, an extrapolation assumption.

No necessarily. A change of dealer or ball speed may negatively impact the conditions, and this isn't an assumption, but a fact.

[Kav]

Some people prefer to talk vaguely.
It's easier.
None has given a specific example of a hit n run strategy.
It means different things to different people and there are many types of it.
Good luck discussing hit n run in general

[luckyfella]

No necessarily. A change of dealer or ball speed may negatively impact the conditions, and this isn't an assumption, but a fact.

How the new dealer or ball or rotor speed impacts the future bets, we don't know. Ofc we all wish we know.

Joe, this is MoneyT new thread with a new discussion topic.

Pls don't spoil yet another thread with expanded unrelated matters that's not in discussion here.

[Joe]

lucky, the topic is about Theories, Myths, Facts And Ideas. That's pretty broad and includes the concept of dependency, so I'm not derailing the thread. As long as we keep the discussion civil and don't get personal, it's all fine. I'd like to know where you stand on dependency because from your past posts I'm confused - do you believe it's possible or not? Yes or no will do and then we can move on.

[Joe]

Some people prefer to talk vaguely.
It's easier.
None has given a specific example of a hit n run strategy.

kav, in your view, when is hit and run justified? Can you give an example of a case when it is and when it isn't?

[luckyfella]

lucky, the topic is about Theories, Myths, Facts And Ideas. That's pretty broad and includes the concept of dependency, so I'm not derailing the thread. As long as we keep the discussion civil and don't get personal, it's all fine. I'd like to know where you stand on dependency because from your past posts I'm confused - do you believe it's possible or not? Yes or no will do and then we can move on.

This is my stand stated unambiguously and unequivocably. You may disagree.

I am 100% certain that roulette outcomes generated from dealer, wheel and ball shows elements of dependency under specific condition where future spins are dependent on past spins. Emphasis on certain specific condition.

This condition is determined purely based on math. It does not contain any physical inputs. You must also be aware that the outcome is derived from the physical orientation of the game.

Therefore, in summation, the outcomes from live dealer roulette is mostly random with small pockets of dependency. This element of dependency creates the possibility of prediction based on past outcomes thereby naturally increases the accuracy of the bet.

I hope I convey the correct message across.

[MoneyT101]

Some people prefer to talk vaguely.
It's easier.
None has given a specific example of a hit n run strategy.
It means different things to different people and there are many types of it.
Good luck discussing hit n run in general

I can’t give an example because I don’t see how hit and run will help.  Might help in a very short term but with more bets played, I believe whatever bet you are playing will fall to the LLN.

[Joe]

I am 100% certain that roulette outcomes generated from dealer, wheel and ball shows elements of dependency under specific condition where future spins are dependent on past spins. Emphasis on certain specific condition.

This condition is determined purely based on math. It does not contain any physical inputs. You must also be aware that the outcome is derived from the physical orientation of the game.

Therefore, in summation, the outcomes from live dealer roulette is mostly random with small pockets of dependency. This element of dependency creates the possibility of prediction based on past outcomes thereby naturally increases the accuracy of the bet.

There are several points I would like clarified here, but best left for a new thread. And worth mentioning that it's not Turbo's view that dependence is only to be found on live spins. He believes that the dependency is built in to randomness itself, and claims his system works just as well on RNG as physical wheels.

[MoneyT101]

There are several points I would like clarified here, but best left for a new thread. And worth mentioning that it's not Turbo's view that dependence is only to be found on live spins. He believes that the dependency is built in to randomness itself, and claims his system works just as well on RNG as physical wheels.

We can do it here... let’s tackle dependency next it’s one of the topics

1.Law of large number,
2.Independent spins

I just want to get some different views on law of large number.  I hope kav will share more from his point of view.

Anyone else want to add anything?

[redhot]

LLN is an interesting topic.

Any bet we make is just a combination of single number bets.

If we look at each individual number in our bet and put them into a column in a spreadsheet so each number has it's own column. We then record the result for each number every time we bet them, over the long term they would all fall victim to the LLN (1/37), the sum of each column would be negative. Therefore any combination of these individual number bets would also fail.

The only way out is dependency.

RRBB described this well:

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...

[Joe]

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.

Why is a dependent bet on single numbers not possible and yet is possible for other bets? Can't see the logic.

[MoneyT101]

Why is a dependent bet on single numbers not possible and yet is possible for other bets? Can't see the logic.

Good question!  If you read many of redd messages you will notice he already tested for years.  He admits he isn’t as clever as dyksexlic to share information. So it does it in other ways...

What do you take from that?  Why do you think he said that?

I believe he said that to hint towards dependency using groups.

Also he says “new interpretation of what events to bet on”.   With this alone you know it’s not the same events everyone is thinking about when it comes to cycles.

Also when people read dyksexlic messages they believe he only played repeats and he only played straights.  This is false! 

[MoneyT101]

Therefore any combination of these individual number bets would also fail.

I agree

I go back to this hit and run.  Anyway you want to label it.  If you play more this idea will fail.

The only real hit and run that will work is to get hits before law of large number catches you.

Example: Cycle is 4 spins long and you always bet 3 spins of the cycle.  The overall cycle result determines whether you won or loss. Let’s say sometimes you win on spin 2 sometimes on spin 3 and sometimes spin 4.  But you always stop on a win and continue to play out the cycle by watching it end.

Your placed bets will fall to the LLN but it won’t make sense cause you are winning individual spins before cycle is over.

Stopping on a win but continuing to watch the cycle end.

Whether you placed bets and/or watched.  The LLN will be in effect.

Let’s say I didn’t stop on a win and continue the cycle with a .5 minimum bet on red.(Priyanka videos) So now I placed bets to end the cycle. 

Did that change anything? I still won before the cycle ended and the cycle result is my original bet; just won inside of it. Before the LLN took any effect on my bet overall which was the cycle result.

[falkor2k15]

The concept MoneyT is describing is an event wrapped up inside another event. For example we can bet like this:

Event 1, Event 2, Event 3

Or

Event 1
E V E N T 2
E   V   E   N   T   3

Event 3 depends on the outcome of event 1/2.

I am currently investigating a similar thing in the context of MLE since the classic example is EC, Dozen, Line, Street, Number cycle, and at a more basic level is spin vs. cycle.

There's certainly no edge at the basic level from just a few spins vs. a single cycle, but I continue to investigate...

[MoneyT101]

Also another subject i want to speak of is this rule that we need to play roulette according to someones standard!

its not wrong if i want to play cycles and you want to play FTL.  Each gameplay will be affected the same but show different results based on your gameplay.

This Game has no rules!!! only the laws of math apply to it as a whole.

So if i take every 5th spin and make a method.  All the 5th spin i took together will give me the same random result as if i played every spin. 

So i believe its a MYTH to think i have to play according to how the numbers come out and i cant be creative.