Theories, Myths, Facts And Ideas

[Tinsoldiers]

Thank you all for participating.  You can continue without me.

I am not sure how many times you have quit, but yet you come back. Personal attacks on you - you cry, yet you do the same to Falkor in the other post. This is how most of these topics are filled with dissension, Just saying.

Once I again I say this, I have nothing personal against you or your methods. I am just here to have interesting conversations with individuals on themes that am interested in and the non-randomness and chaos theory are two of them. I am very glad that you started this topic, even though few posts in here are didactic. I am here to understand things better and by the looks of you coming back again after quitting, I think you are keen to pass on what you have learnt. My request is to keep patience while some fervent discussions are going on here, as we are dealing with a opinionated audience. Now that we have that out of the way, few notes from my side for the pad.

If you go down LH column the LLN affects you.
If you go down the Lines column the LLN affects you.
Now let’s say you played only lines but you were using the combined idea... the LLN will not affect you because there is a limit based on the EC that only takes 3 spins.
But the fact is LLN will not affect you because the spins are not long enough.

I am referring to the example cited here. I would like to do a simple exercise, that was earlier mentioned in this post. In this example you are betting on lines. There are six natural lines that are possible. You write down those in 6 columns. You are playing a number of sessions and each session is a self imposed limit of 3 spins. For some sessions you are placing bets, some sessions you are not placing bets, or may be every session you are placing bets - I do not know as you have not mentioned your betting decisions. However, I ask you to write down the bet numbers against every line bet that you have made in a session in one row. You keep playing these sessions upto infinite sessions. So on rows you are having sessions and on columns you are having win losses on bets made on each natural line.

If I go by your claims in this example - you are saying my sessions are limited by the EC, so my individual rows are never in the negative. But your columns are the natural line bets and they are subject to LLN as you play many times your winning sessions. So the sum of rows are positive while the sum of the columns are negative expectation. See the contradiction?

Again, I am just stating what is mathematically a fact. This whole exercise will not hold good only if LLN is not applicable on the columns as well, whereas we all know that LLN is a proven fact in a fixed betting position with enough number of spins.

I used randbetween(1,36) to get results and then converted to lines.  No zero used.
3-10 zeros in the 94 spins still wouldn’t make much difference on the results.
People always find a way to focus on the wrong things.
I already shared ideas on zero in my old posts and you also can take the loss and continue. Zero isn’t your biggest enemy!

I agree with you that zero is not the biggest enemy. I reiterate, I AGREE WITH YOU that zero isnt the biggest enemy in roulette. However you were using this example to make a point and in this example zero will impact the opposite bets. I am being led to believe that Falkor is correct in saying that what doesnt work forward doesnt work backward, and what works forward will work backward - And zero makes it worse when you do the opposite bets. Your experience might be different, but lets not side track the conversation and get back to LLN that we were discussing. I like getting clarity on one point before moving to other.

Let’s say you have 24 straights that came out. The repeat will be in the last 18 which are the more recent 19-24 are still part of the birthday paradox but aren’t considered recent anymore.

No one is trying to attack you here my friend. We dont have any personal agenda against you as you might assume We are all having a better conversation than those climate junkies. Are you intending to say repeat will be in the last 18? Or are you saying it will be nearly always in the last 18. Just thought of clarifying, as I want to make sure it isnt a oversight. Here again i think ati is right in saying both are the same.

blueprint will tell us the right interpretation

Please blueprint help us with teh right interpretation, as I see a point in what you are saying and Joe might be missing the point - Herby could kindly help us with his empirical results with the right interpretation.

Which examples were those? I thought we had already discussed the two kinds of dependencies; either a dependency between spins (not possible) or dependency between two events in the same spin (possible but of no value).

Are you able to prove that a dependency between two events in the same spin is of no value? This was one of the example. The second example was the dependency between the order of spin stream and the actual spin stream. These were the two examples.

And that's about how much I'm willing to post on forum.

Its a shame you arent willing Luckyfella. I for one would be very keen to explore on this further.

[MoneyT101]

I will attempt to reply to everything you said tinsoldiers

I’ll start off with yes I did quit.  Then I saw a post from one of the members in reply to someone and it seems some ppl are understanding.  Not fully but at least the information is sort of getting across

Then at the same time I  feel I am revealing to much information that I personally have worked very hard to achieve.  So it makes it difficult to just give.   Many of your specific questions if I share a solution directly it will indirectly show you what to do.  If I show you proof using spin results it can be reengineered.  So I’ve shared what I can and in a way that shows enough to get my point across.  If you understand then happy I can help move you along.

I personally enjoy the search. So I’m always thinking how can I make things better or apply differently to get new results.  I enjoy the topic of random and non random and predictability.  So the forum is the only outlet I really have to sort of discuss a bit. 

Now let me try to get to some of your questions...

[MoneyT101]

If I go by your claims in this example - you are saying my sessions are limited by the EC, so my individual rows are never in the negative. But your columns are the natural line bets and they are subject to LLN as you play many times your winning sessions. So the sum of rows are positive while the sum of the columns are negative expectation. See the contradiction?

The example was to make a point...

LLN will not affect it because the session isn’t long enough.

Again this is example...

If I’m playing double street in 3 spins and always win before the 3 spins are over even if the win is 0 and not negative.

How is LLN affecting you?

Its either you end positive in 3 spins or you end at 0

Line 1
Line 1 and line 2
Line 1 and line 2 and line 3

-1
-2
-3.......if by this result you win you break even its not negative.

Again this is for my example demonstrated using ec and lines.

Now using the live results.  I didn’t use the same exact idea because I didn’t use EC but my sessions were limited to betting decisions.  Which I kept winning no later then 8th decision.   Also my cycles were based on my wins.

Whether that was 1,2,3,4 lines played. Mostly 1,2 tho....But the example was just trying to show you decisions can be limited and sort of controlled.

Then I showed the opposite bet which was positive flatbet.

The thing is I share something to make a point.  It’s the easiest way to understand.  But the ideas need to evolve a bit for better use.

[MoneyT101]

I reiterate, I AGREE WITH YOU that zero isnt the biggest enemy in roulette. However you were using this example to make a point and in this example zero will impact the opposite bets. I am being led to believe that Falkor is correct in saying that what doesnt work forward doesnt work backward, and what works forward will work backward - And zero makes it worse when you do the opposite bets. Your experience might be different, but lets not side track the conversation and get back to LLN that we were discussing. I like getting clarity on one point before moving to other.

Yes zero would affect this session.  The zero could also have came when I didn’t bet. I believe I had 23 NB

Also I can play two games at the same time both consisting of Double streets.
Remember every bet placed is an individual bet whether across the board or at different time.  Each bet is independent.

I can play more games and use the profit of those results to cover zero every single spin.  Look at the results if I can win in a specified number of spins and I can add two or three different games to all win in a specified number of spins.  All independent games.  I can use one to cover zero.

I can have all my bets at 4 units and cover zero with .50 units every spin.

But yes if your looking for me to say would zero have affected this session shown and I didn’t cover it.  Yes the results would be different.  I agree...

[MoneyT101]

Are you intending to say repeat will be in the last 18? Or are you saying it will be nearly always in the last 18. Just thought of clarifying, as I want to make sure it isnt a oversight. Here again i think ati is right in saying both are the same.

Yes repeats can come from 19-36 spins back.  But they don’t...  sometimes you will run into the situation.  But more then 95%( I don’t know the exact number) of the time it comes from last 18.

I posted a table showing proof that repeats come from last 18.  Also herby posted proof using percentages a few post back.

To get these results.  Each time a repeat happens you start the count until the next repeat.

So 123456781... means repeat happened 8 spins back.

Now from this repeat we count until the next repeat.

I attached herby image and the one I posted below

[luckyfella]

This topic has moved into the area of joint, marginal and conditional probability.

10.26 onwards is about the topic of independent which is relevant to the discussion here.
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=SrEmzdOT65s

If you conduct large data test, you will find the probability will converge to it's expected value, therefore confirming independent outcomes.

[luckyfella]

This video is focused on probability measure of independent events.

[luckyfella]

Its a shame you arent willing Luckyfella. I for one would be very keen to explore on this further.

Random state vs chaotic state

Assumption 1 - chaotic state based on the physical nature of dealer, ball and wheel.
(you have the right to disagree)

Fact 1 - Binomial distribution.

Although theoretically any sequence of outcome is possible, how possible is this sequence to appear in our casino lifetime ?
0
0
0
0
0

Fact 1 - binomial distribution applies to our roulette lifetime, and this is relevant to our bets.

Fact 2 - If we keep the time short within current condition, the prediction can be of useful accuracy.

Fact 3 - the bets can be conditional, for improved accuracy the outcome has to be dependent.

[luckyfella]

I can't really comment on MoneyT's latest example because in all my testing "normal" and "opposite" bets always result in break even, so I couldn't possibly fathom his partial test results let alone hypothesis.

Regarding my earlier observation I thought I would give an actual example - nothing hidden here:



Under standard number repeats I encountered CL10,3,5 and finally 15.
However, under principle C number repeats I countered 2 x CL12s prior to the 15.

Therefore, CL25 is the maximum for normal number repeats - but if we carry over all uniques after every cycle (principle C) then we can encounter cycle lengths higher than CL25!

This could mean something along the lines of: cycle length+position of the current cycle is dependent on the order+position of the previous cycle.

There are two points to take note -

1. For conditional probability, the dependent conditions should ideally be not connected. Subset condition only serve to provide the details.

2. When order is taken into account the permutations has grown exponentially.

[falkor2k15]

In the end I never encountered any number cycles above CL26 on the principle C side - nowhere near 36 unique numbers - but 23-25 were nevertheless much more prevalent compared to the normal principle A re-tracking mechanism.

[Tinsoldiers]

Fact 1 - binomial distribution applies to our roulette lifetime, and this is relevant to our bets.
Fact 2 - If we keep the time short within current condition, the prediction can be of useful accuracy.
Fact 3 - the bets can be conditional, for improved accuracy the outcome has to be dependent.

Then at the same time I  feel I am revealing to much information that I personally have worked very hard to achieve.  So it makes it difficult to just give.

Completely understand. Let us focus only on information that is public which is pure mathematics.

But they don’t...  sometimes you will run into the situation.

This is what i was saying as contradicting. You say they dont and then say sometimes it can happen However, i got what you meant. A couple of questions for you, why 18, why not 17, why not 16 as the stop, why do you say it is 18, what is magical about it? At the end of the day, it is pure probability laws.

But the ideas need to evolve a bit for better use.

I will tell you what is difficult for everyone to get. You are saying LLN doesnt impact you, as you win every session you play within a certain number of spins. The argument from everyone is such a system doesnt exist which can win every session you play. Your example doesnt make sense as it is not the right one and as you say it needs to evolve. So when you are shaking the basic assumption of LLN to say that you are able to control your sessions to win every session, either we need better examples or we need better mathematic representations like i was showing in columns/rows. You think you might be able to try that? Else, you will not achieve your objective of sharing what you know.

[Joe]

The exact distribution for roulette is the binomial probability  distribution.

Herby, this is a bit confused. It doesn't make sense to say the binomial is the 'exact' distribution for roulette. Roulette doesn't 'have' a single distribution; it has many depending on which aspect of the game you're looking at and how it is best modeled. It could be the uniform distribution (all probabilities are equal) or the geometric distribution (number of failures until first success), or the multinomial distribution (chance of multiple mutually exclusive outcomes in a series of trials), etc.

[Joe]

Are you able to prove that a dependency between two events in the same spin is of no value? This was one of the example.

Tin, no 'proof' is needed because it's self-evident. Obviously you have to bet before the next spin, but if the dependency exists only with regard to one and the same spin - for example, probability of the first dozen given red - what is given here (namely, red), is no more predictable than the first dozen itself. Yes you can calculate the probability, but the given isn't really 'given' until you know the result. 

The second example was the dependency between the order of spin stream and the actual spin stream. These were the two examples.

I don't understand what you mean. What's the difference between the 'order' of the spin stream and the actual spin stream?

[Joe]

Fact 1 - Binomial distribution.
Fact 1 - binomial distribution applies to our roulette lifetime, and this is relevant to our bets.

Fact 2 - If we keep the time short within current condition, the prediction can be of useful accuracy.

Fact 3 - the bets can be conditional, for improved accuracy the outcome has to be dependent.

lucky, Fact 1 is inconsistent with Fact 3. One of the Binomial distribution's assumptions is that trials are independent. If roulette wasn't a game of independent trials the binomial distribution wouldn't be a good model for the distribution of hits and misses (success or failure, win or loss, etc).  Yes you can create 'conditional' bets, but that doesn't make the outcomes dependent. If the trials were dependent the binomial would be a lousy model and its predictions would be poor, but they are very good.

[Steve]

The only dependence, or more specifically "link", between winning number, is what causes numbers to win.tm This is the physical variables like rotor speed. What else would it be? The number of reds?

Statistics is just past. It doesnt influence the future, but still holds clues. Distinguish between irrelevant and relevant statistics.