It works - RNG

[Ares289]

Even more obvious is the fact that the number of pockets on the wheel doesn't change between one spin and the next. 

The number of pockets on the wheel is not a magical force forcing a particular result, and even if it were, it would only mean that then there would also be no "independence", so the conclusion from this is that the constant number of pockets DOES NOT in any way contradict the theory that says about the lack of complete independence of each individual event.

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'.

The problem is only in your head because the word of INDEPENDENT doesn't change its meaning depending on the context (no matter what you say), so all you do is introduce unnecessary conceptual chaos without discovering anything new.

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

EXACTLY, so instead of misinterpret just learn the meaning of the word "IF", because used in this definition only indicates that everything written after it is only a form of ASSUMPTION and nothing more.

The distribution is predictable in the long run and as an aggregate but knowing the past order of spins will not help to predict the future order.

It is only your unfounded inference, which you are not able to prove in any way, besides, if something is "predictable in the long run", it only makes it possible to deduce that it must be ALSO predictable in the short run, just to a lesser degree.

[cht]

This is my stand about this on-going debate.

I know what the math says.

I also have evidence which says differently.

So which is correct from a theoretical standpoint?

I cannot deny the evidence before me.

At the same time I am not schooled well enough to explain for this dichotomy.

Can both co-exist?

Based on most literature, no.

I have practically used this evidence

Beyond this line there's nothing further I can offer to be of value to move this forward.

Best to take a back seat as a spectator.

[precogmiles]

To Cht and anyone else who believes you can beat roulette by using a rule based system.

Stop trying too hard. It is not that complex.

If you honestly believe there is a rule based system which can beat roulette then just get someone to code an AI algorithm to play roulette. If it starts to win consistently then you can carry on your search since you now know there is a system which can win.

However, what you will find is that the AI won't be able to win. Simply because roulette outcomes are not based on any rules what so ever.

Roulette produces chaotic results, that is why systems fail.

How many more decades are system junkies going keep wasting before this simple concept goes into their heads? 

I can actually predict this one without any precognition. I predict this futile obsession with systems will never end until roulette as a game has ceased to exist.

[Moxy]

This is my stand about this on-going debate.

I know what the math says.

I also have evidence which says differently.

So which is correct from a theoretical standpoint?

I cannot deny the evidence before me.

At the same time I am not schooled well enough to explain for this dichotomy.

Can both co-exist?

Based on most literature, no.

I have practically used this evidence

Beyond this line there's nothing further I can offer to be of value to move this forward.

Best to take a back seat as a spectator.

Would love a field trip report similar to those vegas message boards.  I mean that's the meat and potatoes drama right there + casino chips porn.  That is the point to all this, right?

Nothing really to gleam off of it but plain entertainment value.  I also actually love the math geeks and the programmers having civil discourse for a change. 

Cool beans.

[Moxy]

To Cht and anyone else who believes you can beat roulette by using a rule based system.

Stop trying too hard. It is not that complex.

If you honestly believe there is a rule based system which can beat roulette then just get someone to code an AI algorithm to play roulette. If it starts to win consistently then you can carry on your search since you now know there is a system which can win.

However, what you will find is that the AI won't be able to win. Simply because roulette outcomes are not based on any rules what so ever.

Roulette produces chaotic results, that is why systems fail.

How many more decades are system junkies going keep wasting before this simple concept goes into their heads? 

I can actually predict this one without any precognition. I predict this futile obsession with systems will never end until roulette as a game has ceased to exist.

Which finger am I holding up?





























Wrong.  It's the thumbs up.  You had a naughty thought, didn't you.  So much for precog.

[cht]

If you honestly believe there is a rule based system which can beat roulette then just get someone to code an AI algorithm to play roulette. If it starts to win consistently then you can carry on your search since you now know there is a system which can win.

And you are not aware that there are coders together with systems bettors hard at work behind the scene doing that?

Are you naive or stupid? 

[Moxy]

And you are not aware that there are coders together with systems bettors hard at work behind the scene doing that?

Are you naive or stupid? 

Do you know any rich investors?  Asking for Gizmo.  He's too shy to ask.

[cht]

Do you know any rich investors?  Asking for Gizmo.  He's too shy to ask.

Let me help

#BluewhalewantedforGizmoparty

[gizmotron2]

Do you know any rich investors?  Asking for Gizmo.  He's too shy to ask.

I already went down that road. Did you get left out?  It's really kind of fun. You get to dream big. You sure had better be ready though. It's really something when a total stranger gives you money. It's like in the movies. It's makes the story on you even more interesting. It happened to Ed Thorp who wrote 'Beat the Dealer' back in the early 60's.

[Moxy]

I already went down that road. Did you get left out?  It's really kind of fun. You get to dream big. You sure had better be ready though. It's really something when a total stranger gives you money. It's like in the movies. It's makes the story on you even more interesting. It happened to Ed Thorp who wrote 'Beat the Dealer' back in the early 60's.

🎶Dream a little dream.  Dream dream dream.🎶

[precogmiles]

And you are not aware that there are coders together with systems bettors hard at work behind the scene doing that?

Are you naive or stupid? 

Forget about their amature attempts.

Casino's hire teams of professional data analysts who conduct these tests on a daily basis. It is their job!

Roulette is still available as a game. It is quite obvious why.

It is only for your own sanity that I advice you conduct the tests yourself so you can stop wasting your time with systems.

But as I predict, system junkies will never learn.

[gizmotron2]

But as I predict, system junkies will never learn.

They learn. It's just part of the phases of growing as an experienced player. First it's the progressions. Next it's the magical thinking period. Then comes the Money Management systems period. If someone gets this far without giving up then they have learned what does not work. So to win they must evolve and try things that other gamblers have said would work. I settled on bet big when you are winning and bet small any other time. Some others have settled on ESP. Still others have settled on some form of physics based methodology. But Roulette is still there to entice the daring.

[winkel]

It is only for your own sanity that I advice you conduct the tests yourself so you can stop wasting your time with systems.

Who gives you the authority and the right to advice other people what to do and what not to do?

[Moxy]

They learn. It's just part of the phases of growing as an experienced player. First it's the progressions. Next it's the magical thinking period. Then comes the Money Management systems period. If someone gets this far without giving up then they have learned what does not work. So to win they must evolve and try things that other gamblers have said would work. I settled on bet big when you are winning and bet small any other time. Some others have settled on ESP. Still others have settled on some form of physics based methodology. But Roulette is still there to entice the daring.

🎶Why cant we be friends?  Why cant we be friends?🎶

[gizmotron2]

🎶Why cant we be friends?  Why cant we be friends?🎶

You know what they say in Washington DC?

They say if you want a friend, get a dog.