It works - RNG

[Moxy]

I take you are the hall monitor handing out demerits?  It must be so rewarding to have a command post to rule the day and the night.

I can say with good authority: you are a little cuckoo.

A little dab of honesty will do ya.

[Richard Meisel]

I don't place outside bets as hedge bets.
All bets are inside numbers 100%
[/quote]
Your past post stated that you don't place outside Bets, just inside Bets.
Then here in your rule #2 you place Even Chance Bets.

Rules for your random selection bets are,
1. Flatbet,
2. even chance bet,
3. Bet every spin.
4. continuous betting for 18spins per session,
5. 3 sessions,
6. account name - my54randombets

[cht]

I don't place outside bets as hedge bets.
All bets are inside numbers 100%

Your past post stated that you don't place outside Bets, just inside Bets.
Then here in your rule #2 you place Even Chance Bets.

Rules for your random selection bets are,
1. Flatbet,
2. even chance bet,
3. Bet every spin.
4. continuous betting for 18spins per session,
5. 3 sessions,
6. account name - my54randombets

Even chance bet means the net effect of my inside bets produce a even chance payout as seen in the win and loss which is the same except for the extra zero. The graph confirms this.

I made a post to explain why even chance bet is a loser.

[cht]

For the benefit of your betting, if you place bets on the following they are confirmed losers in the long run unless you use specific math methods to help you time* your selection,

1. Outside bets,
2. Unhits - sleepers,
3. Hits,
4. Peaters - hotties

All these bets are offered by the casino together with hot and cold numbers analysis. They are all losers.

*One way to time your even chance bet is the ichicloudroulette analysis I posted.

[cht]

Timing the bets at optimal spin series that's analysed by specific software can significantly change the result.

If you compare the 10sessions in my first post and this latest 3sessions that starts based on the spin sequence analyser, you see a clear difference where the results hit profit target in shorter number of spins and the drawdowns are smaller.

[cht]

This is a must watch video with the application of markov chain on roulette. The math is a little difficult to grasp but once you get the handle you can use it to calculate for your betting model to make better decisions.

link:s://youtu.be/afIhgiHVnj0

[Moxy]

This is a must watch video with the application of markov chain on roulette. The math is a little difficult to grasp but once you get the handle you can use it to calculate for your betting model to make better decisions.

link:s://youtu.be/afIhgiHVnj0

First entropy, now Markov's? 

[cht]

First entropy, now Markov's?

2LoTD video is a lot more to chew.
Even Engineering students find it hot to handle.

This math and science discussion is way better than the usual voodoo systems and money management magic.

[Joe]

Total bets made 4121
Total bets won 1478
Average numbers per bet 18.

cht, something wrong here. With 1478 wins your average can't be 18, it must be less. Even assuming you have NO edge, the proportion equates to betting about 13 numbers. ie:

Win Rate = 1478/4121 = x/37

=> x = 1478 * 37/4121 = 13.27

But since you have an edge, the actual numbers bet must be less than this.

[cht]

cht, something wrong here. With 1478 wins your average can't be 18, it must be less. Even assuming you have NO edge, the proportion equates to betting about 13 numbers. ie:

Win Rate = 1478/4121 = x/37

=> x = 1478 * 37/4121 = 13.27

But since you have an edge, the actual numbers bet must be less than this.

I don't know what's the correct answer for the variable you require.
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=27403.msg244382#msg244382

Since according to your calculations must be less than 13 then let's assume the average is 12.

Base on the numbers provided is the result luck or there's a real edge?

Pls show the actual calculation.

[Joe]

Since according to your calculations must be less than 13 then let's assume the average is 12.

Ok, assuming 12 numbers bet, the theoretical proportion of wins should be 12/37 = 0.32432. The ACTUAL (observed) proportion is 1478/4121 = 0.35865. The question is, is the difference between these proportions statistically significant? You got a higher proportion than the expected value, but could it just be variance?

To find out you can do a Hypothesis test for one proportion. You can look up Hypothesis tests on youtube for details but the basic idea is that you assume your results are due to chance (this is called the 'Null Hypothesis'), and then do the test, which computes a probability. If this probability is very low (the convention is less than 5%), then you reject the Null Hypothesis, ie the the result is NOT due to luck, but something else (in this scenario, it means you probably do have an edge). The detailed calculations aren't important and are tedious, but there are lots of calculators online which do them. I picked one here :

link:s://:.scistat.com/statisticaltests/test_one_proportion.php#

These are the values I put in for your scenario :



In the results section it says that P = 0.6983, which is the probability that your result is due to chance. Since it's more than 5%, the result isn't significant.

So now you should be able to do your own tests using different values.

[cht]

Ok, assuming 12 numbers bet, the theoretical proportion of wins should be 12/37 = 0.32432. The ACTUAL (observed) proportion is 1478/4121 = 0.35865. The question is, is the difference between these proportions statistically significant? You got a higher proportion than the expected value, but could it just be variance?

To find out you can do a Hypothesis test for one proportion. You can look up Hypothesis tests on youtube for details but the basic idea is that you assume your results are due to chance (this is called the 'Null Hypothesis'), and then do the test, which computes a probability. If this probability is very low (the convention is less than 5%), then you reject the Null Hypothesis, ie the the result is NOT due to luck, but something else (in this scenario, it means you probably do have an edge). The detailed calculations aren't important and are tedious, but there are lots of calculators online which do them. I picked one here :

link:s://:.scistat.com/statisticaltests/test_one_proportion.php#

These are the values I put in for your scenario :



In the results section it says that P = 0.6983, which is the probability that your result is due to chance. Since it's more than 5%, the result isn't significant.

So now you should be able to do your own tests using different values.

Thanks, learnt something here again.

Now we know the result isn't significant.
Playing on tables with variance favouring the bets.
Too bad.

[cht]

Ok, assuming 12 numbers bet, the theoretical proportion of wins should be 12/37 = 0.32432. The ACTUAL (observed) proportion is 1478/4121 = 0.35865. The question is, is the difference between these proportions statistically significant? You got a higher proportion than the expected value, but could it just be variance?

To find out you can do a Hypothesis test for one proportion. You can look up Hypothesis tests on youtube for details but the basic idea is that you assume your results are due to chance (this is called the 'Null Hypothesis'), and then do the test, which computes a probability. If this probability is very low (the convention is less than 5%), then you reject the Null Hypothesis, ie the the result is NOT due to luck, but something else (in this scenario, it means you probably do have an edge). The detailed calculations aren't important and are tedious, but there are lots of calculators online which do them. I picked one here :

link:s://:.scistat.com/statisticaltests/test_one_proportion.php#

These are the values I put in for your scenario :



In the results section it says that P = 0.6983, which is the probability that your result is due to chance. Since it's more than 5%, the result isn't significant.

So now you should be able to do your own tests using different values.

How to interprete z-statistic ?

How to interprete "95% CI of observed proportion" ?

[gizmotron2]

All these bets are offered by the casino together with hot and cold numbers analysis. They are all losers.

Actually at times they are losers and winners. If you stay on them for a very long time then they are losers in the aggregate. If you defund them at times then they exist as losers without consequences. What is hard to believe in is an ability to chose when to defund them without a capability of a mathematical power of prediction. Since we know that you can't have a mathematical power of prediction you must use another form of prediction. I liken this to a kind of inertia. A pattern remains in motion until it doesn't. It's not acted on by an external force. It just stops. But while it is in motion it will display a process of continuing to be in motion. This inertia is an observable state. It will start and stop by no mathematical force applied to it. It's just coincidence, variance, or luck. Where is the computer app for that?  What are the statistics on the observation of a continuing coincidence?  The ability to chose when to fund a bet must be included in this style of gambling or there is some kind of mathematical heresy that dictates conditions that must happen. I say there is missing and undiscovered math.

[cht]

The ability to chose when to fund a bet must be included in this style of gambling or there is some kind of mathematical heresy that dictates conditions that must happen. I say there is missing and undiscovered math.

This part I agree with you.

Systems betting falls under this hidden segment.

This missing and undiscovered math shouldn't stray too far from mainstream math.
It should provide the framework and guide to retain the structure.