It works - RNG

[gizmotron2]

It's on like donkey kong.  Where shall we meet?

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

[Moxy]

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

I'll be right over.  Where's a good place to eat.  I love Asian food.

[Ares289]

"The prevaiIing wisdom among gaming experts and mathematicians is that every tabIe decision (at games Iike rouIette or craps) is an independent event. The opposing view (that a number can be “due”) is derided as being a fooIish viewpoint and is referred to as the premise of the GambIer’s FaIIacy.

As it turns out, this so-caIIed faIIacy is in itseIf faIse. The foIIowing are the in congruencies of this ‘independent events’ issue that the experts have not addressed:

At American RouIette, for exampIe:
Experts agree that every number has a 1 in 38 chance of appearing on the next spin.
This 1 in 38 chance is aIso known as that number’s statisticaI expectation.
If an entity has or takes on any kind of expectation, it ceases to be independent.

If these numericaI events did not have an inherent predictabiIity, there wouId be no way to assign a statisticaI expectation to them. And anything that has a predictabIe quaIity to it cannot be “independent.”

As Frank Barstow said in his book, Beat the Casino, “Dice and the wheeI are inanimate, but if their behavior were not subject to some governing force or principIe, sequences of 30 or more repeats might be commonpIace, and there couId be no games Iike craps or rouIette, because there wouId be no way of figuring probabiIities and odds.” This, of course, goes against the thinking and teachings of aII other gaming authors, but that, in itseIf, does not prove that statement to be wrong.

This truth becomes more cIear when one considers that the ‘independent events’ premise gaming experts embrace actuaIIy contradicts itseIf. TabIe resuIts at rouIette are in an ongoing state of conforming to their probabiIities, but anything that is truIy ‘independent’ does not conform. Many gaming authors contradict themseIves as weII, by advising their readers to hoId out for a specific tabIe condition (Iike the “five-count” at craps).

But if aII tabIe resuIts were as independent as they cIaim, it wouId not make the sIightest difference when a pIayer pIaced his bets. Anything that occurred in the past wouId have no reIevance whatsoever.

Gaming authors, statisticians and math experts aII agree that the numbers wiII conform to the probabiIities given a Iarge enough sampIing. What they’re saying is that numbers conform in Iarge groups but not in smaII groups. Another contradiction.

An accumuIation of smaII groups wiII form a Iarge group; therefore, anything that appIies to a Iarge group wiII aIso appIy to a smaII group, in a smaIIer way. So, the statisticaI pressure for numbers to conform to their probabiIities wiII be feIt in aII numbers that form any smaII group, just as they do for a Iarge group.

For Iack of a better expression, each number is a tiny part of a greater "conspiracy" that wiII uItimateIy reveaI itseIf as the triaIs accumuIate.

It comes down to this: in a controIIed environment that invokes a statisticaI certainty, there has to be a cause, and an effect. The effect is that the numbers conform to their statisticaI expectation. The ‘other guys’ wiII teII you that there is no cause; that the effect is the resuIt of wiIIy-niIIy random chance that conforms through unabated coincidence! And the entire worId has been buying this iIIogicaI horsepuckey for a hundred years...

Truth is, these numbers are infIuenced by the equivaIent of a countdown that adjusts itseIf with every spin, which is programmed into the device itseIf. The more precise the manufacturing technique of that device, the more accurate (unbiased) the tabIe decisions wiII be.

How did so many experts arrive at such an erroneous concIusion? Their viewpoint rested IargeIy on the seemingIy incontrovertibIe argument that “the wheeI has no memory.” Hard to argue with that, because it does sound Iike the rantings of a madman to cIaim that the wheeI can remember what has happened, then compensate accordingIy.

That impIies that the wheeI possesses some form of inteIIigence! Ah, but what they overIook is the fact that man does possess the technoIogy to create a baIanced device that distributes the numbers evenIy. And that is aII the wheeI is doing when it performs this artificiaI “thinking” task that they aII say is impossibIe!
So, the rouIette wheeI does not actuaIIy ‘think’, but it lS constructed to perform the equivaIent task, insofar as the fair distribution of numbers is concerned. It was designed, through precision crafting, to produce numbers that match the probabiIities.

The iIIusion of memory is an inherent part of the construction. So, in effect, it does have a memory. In effect, it ‘knows’ when number 5 is underperforming, and, given enough time, it wiII compensate for that. It is seIf-correcting.

This Iogic appIies to anything that has been formaIIy assigned a statisticaI expectation. At craps, the dice are precision ground to within 1/10,000th of an inch. The dice don’t need to have a memory to act as if they did; they are just doing what they were constructed to do.

The numbers that are generated wiII automaticaIIy pursue a state of baIance among themseIves. What this means is that a craps or rouIette number can be technicaIIy “due,” after aII. Its appearance may be sidetracked by an opposing trend, but that is just a temporary deIay of the inevitabIe.

WeII then, if these events are not independent, shouIdn’t gaming systems work? Not necessariIy. There are two forces at pIay: statisticaI propensity (the Iaw of averages), and trends. At times, these two work in concert with each other; at other times they cIash. But in any such contest, trends have the strategic advantage.

Think of statisticaI propensity as the underIying constant, which wiII frequentIy be disrupted by trends, which don’t take orders from anyone!

AII those experts, aII these years, have been wrong. And it took the 3qA, which defies expIanation by those same experts, to bring this new reaIity to Iight. This is the true reaIity. This is the one expIanation that wouId not cause the scientific community to stutter and grope for meaning when trying to expIain why the numbers do what they do."

[/b]

[Moxy]

"The prevaiIing wisdom among gaming experts and mathematicians is that every tabIe decision (at games Iike rouIette or craps) is an independent event. The opposing view (that a number can be “due”) is derided as being a fooIish viewpoint and is referred to as the premise of the GambIer’s FaIIacy.

As it turns out, this so-caIIed faIIacy is in itseIf faIse. The foIIowing are the in congruencies of this ‘independent events’ issue that the experts have not addressed:

At American RouIette, for exampIe:
Experts agree that every number has a 1 in 38 chance of appearing on the next spin.
This 1 in 38 chance is aIso known as that number’s statisticaI expectation.
If an entity has or takes on any kind of expectation, it ceases to be independent.

If these numericaI events did not have an inherent predictabiIity, there wouId be no way to assign a statisticaI expectation to them. And anything that has a predictabIe quaIity to it cannot be “independent.”

As Frank Barstow said in his book, Beat the Casino, “Dice and the wheeI are inanimate, but if their behavior were not subject to some governing force or principIe, sequences of 30 or more repeats might be commonpIace, and there couId be no games Iike craps or rouIette, because there wouId be no way of figuring probabiIities and odds.” This, of course, goes against the thinking and teachings of aII other gaming authors, but that, in itseIf, does not prove that statement to be wrong.

This truth becomes more cIear when one considers that the ‘independent events’ premise gaming experts embrace actuaIIy contradicts itseIf. TabIe resuIts at rouIette are in an ongoing state of conforming to their probabiIities, but anything that is truIy ‘independent’ does not conform. Many gaming authors contradict themseIves as weII, by advising their readers to hoId out for a specific tabIe condition (Iike the “five-count” at craps).

But if aII tabIe resuIts were as independent as they cIaim, it wouId not make the sIightest difference when a pIayer pIaced his bets. Anything that occurred in the past wouId have no reIevance whatsoever.

Gaming authors, statisticians and math experts aII agree that the numbers wiII conform to the probabiIities given a Iarge enough sampIing. What they’re saying is that numbers conform in Iarge groups but not in smaII groups. Another contradiction.

An accumuIation of smaII groups wiII form a Iarge group; therefore, anything that appIies to a Iarge group wiII aIso appIy to a smaII group, in a smaIIer way. So, the statisticaI pressure for numbers to conform to their probabiIities wiII be feIt in aII numbers that form any smaII group, just as they do for a Iarge group.

For Iack of a better expression, each number is a tiny part of a greater "conspiracy" that wiII uItimateIy reveaI itseIf as the triaIs accumuIate.

It comes down to this: in a controIIed environment that invokes a statisticaI certainty, there has to be a cause, and an effect. The effect is that the numbers conform to their statisticaI expectation. The ‘other guys’ wiII teII you that there is no cause; that the effect is the resuIt of wiIIy-niIIy random chance that conforms through unabated coincidence! And the entire worId has been buying this iIIogicaI horsepuckey for a hundred years...

Truth is, these numbers are infIuenced by the equivaIent of a countdown that adjusts itseIf with every spin, which is programmed into the device itseIf. The more precise the manufacturing technique of that device, the more accurate (unbiased) the tabIe decisions wiII be.

How did so many experts arrive at such an erroneous concIusion? Their viewpoint rested IargeIy on the seemingIy incontrovertibIe argument that “the wheeI has no memory.” Hard to argue with that, because it does sound Iike the rantings of a madman to cIaim that the wheeI can remember what has happened, then compensate accordingIy.

That impIies that the wheeI possesses some form of inteIIigence! Ah, but what they overIook is the fact that man does possess the technoIogy to create a baIanced device that distributes the numbers evenIy. And that is aII the wheeI is doing when it performs this artificiaI “thinking” task that they aII say is impossibIe!
So, the rouIette wheeI does not actuaIIy ‘think’, but it lS constructed to perform the equivaIent task, insofar as the fair distribution of numbers is concerned. It was designed, through precision crafting, to produce numbers that match the probabiIities.

The iIIusion of memory is an inherent part of the construction. So, in effect, it does have a memory. In effect, it ‘knows’ when number 5 is underperforming, and, given enough time, it wiII compensate for that. It is seIf-correcting.

This Iogic appIies to anything that has been formaIIy assigned a statisticaI expectation. At craps, the dice are precision ground to within 1/10,000th of an inch. The dice don’t need to have a memory to act as if they did; they are just doing what they were constructed to do.

The numbers that are generated wiII automaticaIIy pursue a state of baIance among themseIves. What this means is that a craps or rouIette number can be technicaIIy “due,” after aII. Its appearance may be sidetracked by an opposing trend, but that is just a temporary deIay of the inevitabIe.

WeII then, if these events are not independent, shouIdn’t gaming systems work? Not necessariIy. There are two forces at pIay: statisticaI propensity (the Iaw of averages), and trends. At times, these two work in concert with each other; at other times they cIash. But in any such contest, trends have the strategic advantage.

Think of statisticaI propensity as the underIying constant, which wiII frequentIy be disrupted by trends, which don’t take orders from anyone!

AII those experts, aII these years, have been wrong. And it took the 3qA, which defies expIanation by those same experts, to bring this new reaIity to Iight. This is the true reaIity. This is the one expIanation that wouId not cause the scientific community to stutter and grope for meaning when trying to expIain why the numbers do what they do."

[/b]

But why male models?

[gizmotron2]

At times, these two work in concert with each other; at other times they cIash. But in any such contest, trends have the strategic advantage.

Think of statisticaI propensity as the underIying constant, which wiII frequentIy be disrupted by trends, which don’t take orders from anyone!

I think it's more important to focus on timing than on trying to figure out if trends work in concert with the law of averages or not.

So when is the sales pitch going to start?

[cht]

"The prevaiIing wisdom among gaming experts and mathematicians is that every tabIe decision (at games Iike rouIette or craps) is an independent event. The opposing view (that a number can be “due”) is derided as being a fooIish viewpoint and is referred to as the premise of the GambIer’s FaIIacy.

As it turns out, this so-caIIed faIIacy is in itseIf faIse. The foIIowing are the in congruencies of this ‘independent events’ issue that the experts have not addressed:

At American RouIette, for exampIe:
Experts agree that every number has a 1 in 38 chance of appearing on the next spin.
This 1 in 38 chance is aIso known as that number’s statisticaI expectation.
If an entity has or takes on any kind of expectation, it ceases to be independent.

If these numericaI events did not have an inherent predictabiIity, there wouId be no way to assign a statisticaI expectation to them. And anything that has a predictabIe quaIity to it cannot be “independent.”

As Frank Barstow said in his book, Beat the Casino, “Dice and the wheeI are inanimate, but if their behavior were not subject to some governing force or principIe, sequences of 30 or more repeats might be commonpIace, and there couId be no games Iike craps or rouIette, because there wouId be no way of figuring probabiIities and odds.” This, of course, goes against the thinking and teachings of aII other gaming authors, but that, in itseIf, does not prove that statement to be wrong.

This truth becomes more cIear when one considers that the ‘independent events’ premise gaming experts embrace actuaIIy contradicts itseIf. TabIe resuIts at rouIette are in an ongoing state of conforming to their probabiIities, but anything that is truIy ‘independent’ does not conform. Many gaming authors contradict themseIves as weII, by advising their readers to hoId out for a specific tabIe condition (Iike the “five-count” at craps).

But if aII tabIe resuIts were as independent as they cIaim, it wouId not make the sIightest difference when a pIayer pIaced his bets. Anything that occurred in the past wouId have no reIevance whatsoever.

Gaming authors, statisticians and math experts aII agree that the numbers wiII conform to the probabiIities given a Iarge enough sampIing. What they’re saying is that numbers conform in Iarge groups but not in smaII groups. Another contradiction.

An accumuIation of smaII groups wiII form a Iarge group; therefore, anything that appIies to a Iarge group wiII aIso appIy to a smaII group, in a smaIIer way. So, the statisticaI pressure for numbers to conform to their probabiIities wiII be feIt in aII numbers that form any smaII group, just as they do for a Iarge group.

For Iack of a better expression, each number is a tiny part of a greater "conspiracy" that wiII uItimateIy reveaI itseIf as the triaIs accumuIate.

It comes down to this: in a controIIed environment that invokes a statisticaI certainty, there has to be a cause, and an effect. The effect is that the numbers conform to their statisticaI expectation. The ‘other guys’ wiII teII you that there is no cause; that the effect is the resuIt of wiIIy-niIIy random chance that conforms through unabated coincidence! And the entire worId has been buying this iIIogicaI horsepuckey for a hundred years...

Truth is, these numbers are infIuenced by the equivaIent of a countdown that adjusts itseIf with every spin, which is programmed into the device itseIf. The more precise the manufacturing technique of that device, the more accurate (unbiased) the tabIe decisions wiII be.

How did so many experts arrive at such an erroneous concIusion? Their viewpoint rested IargeIy on the seemingIy incontrovertibIe argument that “the wheeI has no memory.” Hard to argue with that, because it does sound Iike the rantings of a madman to cIaim that the wheeI can remember what has happened, then compensate accordingIy.

That impIies that the wheeI possesses some form of inteIIigence! Ah, but what they overIook is the fact that man does possess the technoIogy to create a baIanced device that distributes the numbers evenIy. And that is aII the wheeI is doing when it performs this artificiaI “thinking” task that they aII say is impossibIe!
So, the rouIette wheeI does not actuaIIy ‘think’, but it lS constructed to perform the equivaIent task, insofar as the fair distribution of numbers is concerned. It was designed, through precision crafting, to produce numbers that match the probabiIities.

The iIIusion of memory is an inherent part of the construction. So, in effect, it does have a memory. In effect, it ‘knows’ when number 5 is underperforming, and, given enough time, it wiII compensate for that. It is seIf-correcting.

This Iogic appIies to anything that has been formaIIy assigned a statisticaI expectation. At craps, the dice are precision ground to within 1/10,000th of an inch. The dice don’t need to have a memory to act as if they did; they are just doing what they were constructed to do.

The numbers that are generated wiII automaticaIIy pursue a state of baIance among themseIves. What this means is that a craps or rouIette number can be technicaIIy “due,” after aII. Its appearance may be sidetracked by an opposing trend, but that is just a temporary deIay of the inevitabIe.

WeII then, if these events are not independent, shouIdn’t gaming systems work? Not necessariIy. There are two forces at pIay: statisticaI propensity (the Iaw of averages), and trends. At times, these two work in concert with each other; at other times they cIash. But in any such contest, trends have the strategic advantage.

Think of statisticaI propensity as the underIying constant, which wiII frequentIy be disrupted by trends, which don’t take orders from anyone!

AII those experts, aII these years, have been wrong. And it took the 3qA, which defies expIanation by those same experts, to bring this new reaIity to Iight. This is the true reaIity. This is the one expIanation that wouId not cause the scientific community to stutter and grope for meaning when trying to expIain why the numbers do what they do."

[/b]

My thoughts exactly. And why my betselection performs as it does, at a rate higher than the odds.

Joe's stat calculator shows the null hypothesis is rejected.

This means the results I posted of my typical sessions are not due to luck. That random betselection cannot produce similar results. That's the reason why I posted the rsim results with graphs of individual sessions.

Last important point, I place 37units inside bets by looking at the the updated to last spin 37spins history. This means my betselection is dependent on history spins.

[Moxy]

My thoughts exactly. And why my betselection performs as it does, at a rate higher than the odds.

Joe's stat calculator shows the null hypothesis is rejected.

This means the results I posted of my typical sessions are not due to luck. That random betselection cannot produce similar results. That's the reason why I posted the rsim results with graphs of individual sessions.

Last important point, I place 37units inside bets by looking at the the updated to last spin 37spins history. This means my betselection is dependent on history spins.

Is there an after party?

[Ares289]

I think it's more important to focus on timing than on trying to figure out if trends work in concert with the law of averages or not.

If during game, I take your roulette wheel and replace it with another, will you then have to start all over again, or maybe will you be able to continue your game as if nothing had happened..?

[cht]

If during game, I take your roulette wheel and replace it with another, will you then have to start all over again, or maybe will you be able to continue your game as if nothing had happened..?

If any system bet can continue as if nothing happened then there is no need for history data.

Let me explain.

Let's say there are 10 roulette wheels arranged in a row that have spun 37spins.

Your question is,

If this single betselection that has no connection to any of those wheels,

And if the betselection is played exactly the same on all wheels, will these wheels yield the same winning result on average?

The answer has to be no.

[Ares289]

If any system bet can continue as if nothing happened then there is no need for history data.

Let me explain.

Let's say there are 10 roulette wheels arranged in a row that have spun 37spins.

Your question is,

If this single betselection that has no connection to any of those wheels,

And if the betselection is played exactly the same on all wheels, will these wheels yield the same winning result on average?

The answer has to be no.

So does this mean that, in your opinion, this kind of historical data cannot be only the result of the "observer effect" ..?

[cht]

So does this mean that, in your opinion, this kind of historical data cannot be only the result of the "observer effect" ..?

I believe this process of collating historical data followed by analysis has at no time interacted actively in the data generation.

[Joe]

That little essay by R.D. Ellison copy & pasted by Ares289 (Ellison?) is a masterclass in sophistry.

cht,

My thoughts exactly. And why my betselection performs as it does, at a rate higher than the odds.

But you agreed with my previous post when I said the fact that you don't see 'impossible' sequences has nothing to do with independence. Have you changed your mind already?

The main fallacy in Ellison's argument is the ambiguity of the terms 'independent', and 'expectation'. Some words have different meanings in different contexts, which the case here. In everyday discourse, the word 'independent' means 'free from control or outside authority', or 'having the power to do what it likes'. So, logically, if roulette events are independent, doesn't that mean that anything can happen at the table? But we don't see just anything happen; outcomes are predictable to some extent (at least in the longer term). Therefore (Ellison argues), roulette events are not independent. Same for 'expectation'. If something is 'expected', it must in a sense be 'due'. And if it's due, it makes no sense to say it's independent (in the sense just defined).

The problem is, these terms are not used in the same sense in the context of probability and statistics. In probability theory, 'independence' refers to statistical independence, which is defined as :

Two events are independent, statistically independent, or stochastically independent if the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of occurrence of the other.

Or, more precisely, as

Two events A and B are independent if and only if their joint probability equals the product of their joint probabilities:
P(A & B) = P(A) * P(B)

There is nothing in either of these definitions which says anything about events being free from outside authority or being able to do what they like.

Similarly with expectation. What's 'expected' or 'due' in usual speech doesn't have the same meaning as mathematical expectation or 'expected value' in probability. The definition of expected value is purely mathematical (a weighted average) :

EV = x₁p₁ + x₂p₂ + x₃p₃ + ... + x_np_n

Where the xs are outcomes (values) and the ps are their corresponding probabilities.

So if you understand those terms as they're intended to taken in the context of roulette (as technical terms), Ellison's argument falls apart, because his entire thesis depends on their equivocation (ambiguity).

Then he talks about 'statistical pressure'. He's right of course that there has to be a cause, but the cause is the geometry and physics of the roulette 'system' as a whole, which includes all the physics relating to the wheel, ball, dealer and environment. It's the physical symmetries and regularities of the system which causes the corresponding regularities in the outcomes, not some nonsensical statistical pressure.

Don't fall for it guys. It's utter bullshit, but it probably helped to sell more of his books!

[Joe]

Joe's stat calculator shows the null hypothesis is rejected.

cht, yes it did. But you have to be careful. Although 4.7 standard deviations above the mean is a high z-statistic, it's still in within the interval of 'chance'. I would advise you to get more data. When you test and retest and try system after system for years on end (as I assume you've been doing  ), eventually you're going to find what seems to be an amazing system, but in reality, you've just hit an exceptional run of positive variance. So I wouldn't go out and put a deposit on that Ferrari just yet. 

[INTERCEPTOR]

If during game, I take your roulette wheel and replace it with another, will you then have to start all over again, or maybe will you be able to continue your game as if nothing had happened..?

Every serious gambler will say Yes, if I play on 10 wheels it will be 10 different bet selections.

[cht]

cht, yes it did. But you have to be careful. Although 4.7 standard deviations above the mean is a high z-statistic, it's still in within the interval of 'chance'. I would advise you to get more data. When you test and retest and try system after system for years on end (as I assume you've been doing  ), eventually you're going to find what seems to be an amazing system, but in reality, you've just hit an exceptional run of positive variance. So I wouldn't go out and put a deposit on that Ferrari just yet. 

I agree with this.

If you think a little further, it wouldn't be a problem for me to code this then test it with large live data ?

The ferrari has to wait.
More work ahead but the path is clear as daylight.

I have upgraded this betselection into multidimensional to make it transient in nature.

Ofc with the added complexity this bet has to be placed by a team of bettors or automated online bot.

So the casino will never suspect the bets were mathematical calculated because of the chaotic manner of the bets.
No way to reengineer the bets even if someone sees it.