It works - RNG

[cht]

But as I predict, system junkies will never learn.

Are you aware how many systems betting ideas that were tested that ended tits up?

Ofc we learn, we learn the thousands upon thousands systems that don't work.

Are you aware how many times we gave up to admit that it's impossible to get around the math?

I was such a person. Me.

That's why I take the trouble to post what don't work. Not that these guys don't know. Just that when it comes from their kind it's easier for them to believe, I speak their language. Nothing new to them. Just a confirmation of what they already know.

I also post what might work. To direct their effort in the right place. I posted the math and science videos. Next question from them is, how? We don't get it.

Here's the further help I provide.

You have to think in terms of math and science. You must discard this attraction and addiction of fancy patterns. If you are still addicted to patterns with no basis it makes you a junkie.

Back to school. What math and science structures in the videos that can be adapted to roulette spin outcomes to guide your design? Test it if it works.

Example, 2LoTD on entropy.
What does entropy mean?
Do this entropy characteristic exist in roulette spins?
According to science that's the natural state of nature.
Do you recognise it?
Use your eyes and brain.
You're the expert who have honed your pattern recognition skills.
If I did it, so can you.

Step by step guys.
Small tiny step at a time. No hurry.
And don't assume nonsense that's not math and science again.
We all have been down that road a million times.
Don't make that mistake again.
That's junkie stuff and you know it.

[nichedelico]

MAYBE i understood, can i share here an example?

[cht]

MAYBE i understood, can i share here an example?

No you shouldn't.

It's for your personal consumption.
You deserve it. 

There's enough info on this thread and my posts for those who are truly interested to help themselves.

I shared on this forum to help people like you.

The same way what others before us have helped us. Let's keep it this way.

I am happy to hear that someone benefitted that the earlier people and now my effort did not go to waste.

Cheers

[Moxy]

No you shouldn't.

It's for your personal consumption.
You deserve it. 

There's enough info on this thread and my posts for those who are truly interested to help themselves.

I shared on this forum to help people like you.

The same way what others before us have helped us. Let's keep it this way.

I am happy to hear that someone benefitted that the earlier people and now my effort did not go to waste.

Cheers

Get out on field, Chief.  What's left to do now? 

Waiting for that Trip Report.

[Joe]

ares289, I'll respond to your comments one by one.

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.

No, it's not a magical force, but if you're choosing your bets based on past numbers alone, and each number is equally likely from one spin to the next, why should past outcomes matter? You could say that it's an assumption that numbers are equally likely, but that's why I said 'past numbers alone'. In that case there is physical independence; there is no physical connection between successive spins, and where there is physical independence there is always statistical independence.

While it's true that you can't prove independence, there are lots of cases where it's intuitively obvious. I would argue that roulette is one such case because there is clearly no connection between one spin and the next, assuming normal conditions. But if it isn't intuitively obvious, there are statistical tests such as the Chi-square test for independence which you can use for any events A and B. If you can find a dependence between them and it's strong enough, you have your holy grail.

the lack of complete independence of each individual event.

Again, this is a poor understanding of 'independent'. An event cannot be independent on its own. You must always specify another event with respect to which the event is independent from, otherwise it has no meaning.

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.

Actually, I partly agree with you here in that I probably overemphasized the ambiguity of the word. The main fallacy isn't so much that there is a difference between 'independent' as used normally, and 'statistically independent' as used in the context of probability, but that Ellison has ignored (either intentionally or because he was careless) the fact that independence is a relation between two events. Nowhere in his article does he refer to this; he just talks about the single 'event' of outcomes conforming to a pattern or distribution:

If every tabIe game resuIt is an independent event, how can we ever expect any particuIar number to come up at aII? We can’t, because there wouId be nothing to stop the wheeI from seIecting a different number, every time. And yet, the same peopIe who say that these numericaI events are immacuIateIy independent, expect the numbers to conform with the probabiIities. But if such events were truIy independent, there wouId never be a moment, or even a sustained period, when any number couId be expected to show up.

It doesn't even make sense to say that 'If every table game result is an independent event', because independence is a relationship between two events. But on the other hand, if he said : 'if events A and B in roulette are independent, how can we expect any particular number to come up at all?', even though now the first part is correct, it makes the second part nonsense, because if A and B are independent, of course it doesn't stop any particular number coming up.

What he's actually talking about is The Law of Large Numbers, which he has conflated with independence. Outcomes conform to probabilities because of the LLN.

The Law of Large Numbers :

In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value and will tend to become closer to the expected value as more trials are performed.

(Wiki)

So Ellison seems to be making a valid point, but it's only because he has misinterpreted the concept of independence, and as a result has confused it with the law of large numbers. But these concepts don't depend on each other. Events A & B can be independent, meaning that there is no connection between A & B, and outcomes can also conform to probabilities in the long run.

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.

No, 'if' doesn't indicate an assumption here, because the statement is a definition and could be written without using 'if'. e.g.

Two events being independent, statistically independent, or stochastically independent means that the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of occurrence of the other.

Or as :

For two events to be independent, statistically independent, or stochastically independent, the occurrence of one must not affect the probability of occurrence of the other.

The 'if' only separates the two parts of the definition, and the purpose of a definition is to explain the meaning of a term which may not be very clear in terms of more familiar terms which are understood.

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.

No, not really. There is no law of small numbers.

It is important to remember that the law only applies (as the name indicates) when a large number of observations is considered. There is no principle that a small number of observations will coincide with the expected value or that a streak of one value will immediately be "balanced" by the others (see the gambler's fallacy).

(Wiki)

Ellison has used the fact that the LLN means you can 'predict' that a certain pattern or distribution will form in the long term to argue that this is really the same as saying that outcomes aren't independent. But it's a fallacious argument. The pattern isn't that you can predict the position of a certain outcome in a sequence (as would be the case if successive outcomes or events were dependent), but that you can predict the distribution of outcomes in a sufficiently large sample.

link:s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

[cht]

ares289, I'll respond to your comments one by one.

No, it's not a magical force, but if you're choosing your bets based on past numbers alone, and each number is equally likely from one spin to the next, why should past outcomes matter? You could say that it's an assumption that numbers are equally likely, but that's why I said 'past numbers alone'. In that case there is physical independence; there is no physical connection between successive spins, and where there is physical independence there is always statistical independence.
Where there's physical independence can there be statistical dependence ?


While it's true that you can't prove independence, there are lots of cases where it's intuitively obvious. I would argue that roulette is one such case because there is clearly no connection between one spin and the next, assuming normal conditions. But if it isn't intuitively obvious, there are statistical tests such as the Chi-square test for independence which you can use for any events A and B. If you can find a dependence between them and it's strong enough, you have your holy grail.

The evidence is out there. I "see" them in every spin.

The evidence contradicts what the math says as you wrote it.

That's the problem now.

So the only conclusion to bridge the 2 is the sample is not large enough.
So, this sample result from multiple sources is misleading.

What if we set aside this assuming a big data test remains consistent with this probe sample ? What next ? HG ?

Work has started in this direction.

I am confident since I recognise eventsA and B, and will know soon.
I want to be the first to know.

[winkel]

...
You could say that it's an assumption that numbers are equally likely, but that's why I said 'past numbers alone'. In that case there is physical independence; there is no physical connection between successive spins, and where there is physical independence there is always statistical independence.

Same Casino, same dealer, same wheel, same ball, same day, same guests.
Is that enough physical connection?

there are statistical tests such as the Chi-square test for independence which you can use for any events A and B.

You know that CHI-Sqare is very very slow and it has to be an enormes deviation?

[Joe]

Same Casino, same dealer, same wheel, same ball, same day, same guests.
Is that enough physical connection?

Winkel, that's why I said past numbers alone. If you're not taking into account those physical variables you mention, why should they matter? System players generally look only at past numbers.

Even if you're an AP and take into account wheel speed etc, the dependence isn't between successive spins, it's between the initial conditions and where the ball lands. Event A = initial conditions, Event B = where ball lands. There is a physical connection there between A and B, but the events are with reference to the same spin.

Physically independent events are always statistically independent.

[winkel]

System players generally look only at past numbers.

You mean the systemplayers that you think are the "systemplayers"!

For me that is not true!

[cht]

System players generally look only at past numbers.

Perhaps there should be another category of math&science non-AP players.

Earlier I also wrote at length that if the physical attributes are taken into account the outcome is more certain.

So far I posted results from rsim which is RNG and since I recognise eventsA and B easily I am able to recognise the spins are not optimal.

[Joe]

You mean the systemplayers that you think are the "systemplayers"!

For me that is not true!

Isn't your GUT system based on past numbers only?

You know that CHI-Sqare is very very slow and it has to be an enormes deviation?

There are alternatives to Chi-Sq.

[gizmotron2]

All this discussion about the independence of spins based on 37 slots is sort of a straw man argument. The Roulette wheel is nothing more than a mechanical machine that produces random outcomes.  It is either fair or it is biased. But these days it is mostly fair.

So each spin has an equally good chance of selecting a random outcome. This process on its own is independent. But a sequence of spins can be a win streak or a losing streak. Are these streaks independent? Why would it be important to care if these kind of streaks were independent or not? I don't think it matters.

For an example in the next 100 spins I'm going to have three win streaks that last more than ten spins in a row in their respective sequences. I'm also going to have three or four losing streaks with similar duration. Do these outcomes depend on independence?  I don't think they do. They are the cause and effect of bet selections and randomness. They could have been blind bet selections that came up with the exact same results.

Does independence prevent a player from seeing win or loss sequences? This question explodes in the minds of those that are sure that all spins are independent. They can't move to the idea that all streaks must be independent also. My past win streak is independent of my now occurring losing streak.

I make sense and you guys that insist that past spins don't matter are afraid to answer the questions that I have asked in these comments. Why do you always go silent when I make a valid argument that forces you to think beyond what you insist is the only possible meaning? Are there too many questions? Do you need them in a list of questions?

[winkel]

Isn't your GUT system based on past numbers only?

No, it isn´t

[Moxy]

All this discussion about the independence of spins based on 37 slots is sort of a straw man argument. The Roulette wheel is nothing more than a mechanical machine that produces random outcomes.  It is either fair or it is biased. But these days it is mostly fair.

Them are fighting words.

[Ares289]

No, it's not a magical force, but if you're choosing your bets based on past numbers alone, and each number is equally likely from one spin to the next, why should past outcomes matter?

In the reality where we exist, there is no way that "each number is equally likely from one spin to the next" because ALL numbers are FORCED to strive towards a statistical balance, so in practice this means that every number that is a continuation of the distribution of numbers, must obey the rules prevailing in this reality, so this means that each such number is only part of a larger whole which in the final effect always must show a specific "picture", which in this case is the STATISTICAL BALANCE.

I would argue that roulette is one such case because there is clearly no connection between one spin and the next, assuming normal conditions.

The assertion that there no any connection between one spin and the next is illogical from a mathematical point of view, because all numbers must constantly strive to maintain a balance with each other, which may be disturbed ONLY temporarily, but in the end ALWAYS MUST BE A STATISTICAL BALANCE, which could not exist without this "dependence", because there is no effect without a cause. (Of course, this does not mean that the next spin will be depend on the previous spin, because in this case the connection between these two events will be only partial/indirect)

No, 'if' doesn't indicate an assumption here, because the statement is a definition and could be written without using 'if'. e.g.

Two events being independent, statistically independent, or stochastically independent means that the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of occurrence of the other.

You misunderstood me, the point was that IN THE CONTEXT we are talking about, this part of the text "the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of occurrence of the other" - is only an ASSUMPTION, because it has never been proven, so if it does influence in any degree, it means that it CANNOT BE independent.

No, not really. There is no law of small numbers.

It doesn't matter, because in this case it is enough to use the method of deduction to reach the appropriate conclusions: "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." - "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."