BetOnline

Author Topic: Past spins question  (Read 14848 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2078
  • Thanked: 434 times
Re: Past spins question
« Reply #30 on: June 14, 2015, 12:03:01 AM »
Well Real I hope that is one promise that you do keep  .
 

BlueAngel

  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1571
  • Thanked: 239 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: Past spins question
« Reply #31 on: June 14, 2015, 02:46:43 AM »
Quote
"Regression towards the mean", "law of averages" and last but not least probability itself contradicting what you are claiming.I guess you want me to break it down in quarters for you,so here we go:1) The payouts of every game of chance have been determined by the probability of each and every bet selection to happen or not,IF THE RESULTS WERE COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT,WHICH MEANS ONE COULD ENCOUNTER LITERALLY ANYTHING,NO DETERMINATION OF THE PAYOUTS WOULD EVER BE POSSIBLE!2) After great deviations from the mean,it's reasonable to expect a gradual "return" towards the mean,deviations/fluctuations,smaller or greater are happening all the time,but this doesn't mean that the outcomes are completely independent,there are limits to every power,every law of nature and roulette is no exception.This has been proved by countless simulations and real results.You might say that this fact is not of great practical value,yes but this is another story.

Blue Angel,
Regarding the "law of large numbers' and to a lesser extent RTM...(by the way, there's no such thing as the law of averages)

Let me explain it in a way in which I hope will make sense to you.If you observe a window of 30 events, and you witness 25 reds, and only 5 blacks, can the imbalance be evened out...even if black still hits fewer times than red, in the future as well?

  The answer is: 

YES!  Here's why.  In order for the red and black to appear to even out, all that needs to take place is the sample size needs to grow!  That's it!  Since all future spins, yet to happen are far greater in size than small sample, and since the expectation moving forward is just that, expectation, the percentages of the red in relation to the black will "appear" to merge.  Even if black remains 20 spins behind!  Understand?

Now, here's what Wiki has to say on the subject: "Regression toward the mean simply says that, following an extreme random event, the next random event is likely to be less extreme. In no sense does the future event "compensate for" or "even out" the previous event, though this is assumed in the gambler's fallacy (and variant law of averages). Similarly, the law of large numbers states that in the long term, the average will tend towards the expected value, but makes no statement about individual trials. For example, following a run of 10 heads on a flip of a fair coin (a rare, extreme event), regression to the mean states that the next run of heads will likely be less than 10, while the law of large numbers states that in the long term, this event will likely average out, and the average fraction of heads will tend to 1/2. By contrast, the gambler's fallacy incorrectly assumes that the coin is now "due" for a run of tails, to balance out."

Yes,that's what I'm saying! Let's summarize,GF differs from law of large numbers only in the event's horizon,GF is expecting to balance out in the short term,while the law of large numbers indicates to happen in long term.
However,nobody plays long term within a session,therefore unpractical.
But the regression towards the mean could be exploited if someone would wait for an extreme event to occur.
I believe there is more practical way from becoming an observer rather than a winner,for example why to fight against variance when you can make it work for you??
Real you said that variance is double head axe and I totally agree,why to try taming the waves when you can ride them?! Is it a fact that variance and deviations exist? I think 99% of the gamblers are recognising this fact.
Therefore the next sensible question is how do you take advantage of the variance.
Variance and deviations are changing in terms of duration and betting selections,but always exist!
Why not to focus on how we could take advantage of something which is happening all the time?!
 

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1416
  • Thanked: 211 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Past spins question
« Reply #32 on: June 14, 2015, 04:47:16 AM »
Quote
YES!  Here's why.  In order for the red and black to appear to even out, all that needs to take place is the sample size needs to grow!  That's it!  Since all future spins, yet to happen are far greater in size than small sample, and since the expectation moving forward is just that, expectation, the percentages of the red in relation to the black will "appear" to merge.  Even if black remains 20 spins behind!  Understand?

Blue Angel,

Read the above, and repeat several times.  You're still missing the point.
 

palestis

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
  • Thanked: 496 times
Re: Past spins question
« Reply #33 on: June 14, 2015, 04:53:09 AM »

It doesn't matter if you're betting for black to only appear once, or several times, the past spins have no effect, whatsoever, on the future odds.  Your black appearance is no more likely to occur after such a series.

But please, don't take just my word for it.  Feel free to post your comment on any math forum or the wov.
Of course I don't take your word for it.
Nobody takes you words seriously here. You should know that by now.
Instead of posting my comments on a math forum,  I do much better than that.
I post it in a form of a bet on the real roulette table.
In less than a minute I get my answer, and getting paid it for it too.  .
Y in the world should I waste my time on a math forum? It's that simple.
What you fail to understand is that when it comes to roulette systems, there are immediate answers.
 Right on the table. That's a fact.
Don't confuse a roulette systems forum with a philosophy forum.
In roulette you always get an answer. Good or bad. In philosophy there aren't always answers.
 

Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 624
  • Thanked: 50 times
Re: Past spins question
« Reply #34 on: June 14, 2015, 08:09:28 AM »
The question is if in 30 spins where 25 numbers are red and 5 are black, what will happen in the next few spins. You show me a window from a live roulette set of numbers that has this condition, and then 5 more red spin out. You are not going to find it any time soon. Maybe once in the next 1 million spins.

palestis,

What you find is that the distribution of blacks and reds is the same whether or not you wait for 30 spins with only 5 blacks. Have you actually tried doing this for purposes of comparison?

The trouble is, we tend to assume that, just because we don't often see such deviations, the next few spins will see a return to normality. This is a remarkably stubborn cognitive bias. The next 30 spins WILL probably generate more than 5 blacks, not BECAUSE the previous 30 spins didn't but simply because this is a more likely event ANYWAY, regardless of past spins. You're attributing some kind of cause-and-effect to the previous 30 spins which doesn't exist.

From a philosophical point of view, GF is interesting because it's not easy to pinpoint exactly where the error lies. In my view, it's not really about independence of events, but consistency. GF is a logical error, but independence is about the world out there, and the outcomes may not be independent! (although in 99.9% of cases were are justified in believing that they are). One who commits GF is contradicting himself because he implicitly assumes that the wheel is fair, but then says that his triggers are valid. Being "fair" doesn't mean only that the wheel has a tendency to equilibrium, it also means that there is no regular pattern to the outcomes. These two kinds of unfairness (bias and dependence) can both exist and are independent of each other.

Bias: There is a tendency for outcomes to favor some events more than others.
Dependence: Outcomes are affected by previous events and therefore exhibit regular patterns.

So theoretically, a wheel could be

1. biased, dependent
2. unbiased, dependent,
3. unbiased, independent
4. biased independent

We can assume, for the most part, that no. 3 is true. One who commits GF correctly assumes that the wheel is unbiased, but he forgets about independence. So equal distribution can generally be counted on, EVENTUALLY, (but certainly not in the short term, and even this equal distribution is in regard to PROPORTIONS, not absolute numbers of even chances, dozens and so on. In fact, absolute numbers tend to DIVERGE over time, not converge to a limit).

So GF is a double whammy: the player assumes that he is dealing with a fair wheel, but doesn't take into account that this means there should be no regular pattern in the outcomes (which, if true, means that his triggers are invalid), and also he tends to assume that equilibrium will manifest in the short term, and additionally, in regard to absolute numbers, neither of which is true.
 

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1935
  • Thanked: 924 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Past spins question
« Reply #35 on: June 14, 2015, 10:06:34 AM »
I believe the main idea behind what you (inappropriately) call gambler's fallacy is this:

If there is absolute independence, then why do outcomes (taken together) conform to a specific distribution (in the not so long run)?
Read more here

Or to put it in another way:
In order for many results taken together, to conform to a specific distribution, they must somehow complement each other in a way.

Roulette is an ergodic system.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2015, 10:20:58 AM by kav »
 

dobbelsteen

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1500
  • Thanked: 479 times
Re: Past spins question
« Reply #36 on: June 14, 2015, 12:04:45 PM »
Mike compute the Ratio R/B of a 200 spins sample and draw a diagram. The valid will converge to 1.
How is that possible as the result is independent.
Draw a diagram of the balance between R and B and the result is a wave pattern around the equilibrium point number of Red minus number of blackis zero. How is that possible as the future is  indepent of the past.
Such diagrams I have already published on the forum.

GF conclusions are mostly based on the results of a single spin  or on long run theories. I am an agnost and I ignore such alligations. I believe in my short run theory.
 

Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 624
  • Thanked: 50 times
Re: Past spins question
« Reply #37 on: June 14, 2015, 12:14:48 PM »
kav,

I read the article. It seems that you're confusing "independence" with "unbiased", which is what I suspected, and why I took the trouble to explain the differences between them.

Quote
if every table game is an independent event, how can we expect any particular number to come up at all? We can't, because there would be nothing to stop the wheel from selecting a different number, every time.

There is a huge gap in your logic here. How does it follow from independence that you can't expect any particular numbers to come up? Independence means that you can't expect any particular numbers to come up GIVEN THAT SOME OTHER NUMBERS HAVE ALREADY COME UP. The whole notion of independence depends on at least TWO sets of events and the relation between them, NOT just one. Independence has no meaning the way you have put it.

Quote
There is a causative force that compels numerical events to seek their legitimate place within their assigned probabilities.

Yes, but the assigned probabilities obtained by the "laws" of probability cannot tell you in advance whether the wheel is biased or not, and there is a difference between bias and dependence. If the wheel was biased, the "causative force" would be such that the outcomes didn't seek their "legitimate" place, but some other place as dictated by the bias, in which case there would be no equilibrium of outcomes. There would still be a distribution, but it wouldn't conform to the "law of statistical propensity".

The idea that there is a law of statistical propensity is very confused. There is no such law. Instead, there are just the good old fashioned laws of physics, and these determine where the ball will land. If the physics is such that no particular sector of the wheel is favored over any other, then the distribution will conform to the standard statistics, which assume these conditions to be the case.

But none of this has anything to do with independence. A wheel could, in theory, be unbiased but at the same time outcomes may not be independent. This is very easy to see, for supposing red was always followed by black, and black was always followed by red. The outcomes would not be biased, because there would be as many blacks as there were reds, but to win on every spin you would just need to bet the opposite color!

The term "expectation" has also been misunderstood, I believe. Just because something is "expected" doesn't imply dependence. We have every right to "expect" equilibrium or a distribution which tends towards particular values as long as there is some constant governing force, and that's all that's required.
 

Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 624
  • Thanked: 50 times
Re: Past spins question
« Reply #38 on: June 14, 2015, 12:26:37 PM »
Draw a diagram of the balance between R and B and the result is a wave pattern around the equilibrium point number of Red minus number of blackis zero. How is that possible as the future is  indepent of the past.


dobbelsteen,

You refer to the future and the past. This is exactly the point made in my previous post. The whole notion of independence relies on there being a relation between past and present, specifically that the past indicates the future, but this relation is not brought out by your diagram, so independence is not relevant to it.
 

dobbelsteen

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1500
  • Thanked: 479 times
Re: Past spins question
« Reply #39 on: June 14, 2015, 12:36:48 PM »
There is no relation between a true random sequence and a roulette device. The true roulette creates a true random sequence. The features of these squences we can study  and reseurch with matematical and statistic laws or rules.
Undependent and the influence of past results are not interesting for an agnost.
 

Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 624
  • Thanked: 50 times
Re: Past spins question
« Reply #40 on: June 14, 2015, 12:46:03 PM »
Undependent and the influence of past results are not interesting for an agnost.

How can you say that when most systems rely on the so called "influence" of past results????
 

dobbelsteen

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1500
  • Thanked: 479 times
Re: Past spins question
« Reply #41 on: June 14, 2015, 01:11:10 PM »
I do not believe in relations between the past and systems.
Statistic reality and expectations are important. Conclusions based on long run test are not valid for strategies and short run sessions. All short run systems can  have a positive or negative result. Long run samples for all systems will ended negative due the HE.
 

palestis

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
  • Thanked: 496 times
Re: Past spins question
« Reply #42 on: June 14, 2015, 01:12:45 PM »
The question is if in 30 spins where 25 numbers are red and 5 are black, what will happen in the next few spins. You show me a window from a live roulette set of numbers that has this condition, and then 5 more red spin out. You are not going to find it any time soon. Maybe once in the next 1 million spins.

palestis,

What you find is that the distribution of blacks and reds is the same whether or not you wait for 30 spins with only 5 blacks. Have you actually tried doing this for purposes of comparison?

The trouble is, we tend to assume that, just because we don't often see such deviations, the next few spins will see a return to normality. This is a remarkably stubborn cognitive bias. The next 30 spins WILL probably generate more than 5 blacks, not BECAUSE the previous 30 spins didn't but simply because this is a more likely event ANYWAY, regardless of past spins. You're attributing some kind of cause-and-effect to the previous 30 spins which doesn't exist.
Mike
I am not a math philosopher.
I use EMPIRICAL EXPERIENCE TO MAKE MONEY.
Whether it complies with math theories or not,  is outside the area of my interests.
What I have witnessed in research and play over the years is far more important than theories. I take advantage of a great anomaly that exists at the moment, by betting on what is more likely to happen for at least  ONE TIME ONLY. I don't worry about EQUAL DISTRIBUTION after that or 1000 spins later.
And here is a classic example taken from Wiesbaden on yesterday's results.
We have a window of 30 spins, where the ratio of red to black is 22/8. (as seeing a ratio of 25/5 is very hard to find).
 2 spins later a black shows up. And that's good enough for me.
Mr. Dobblesteen  might take it a little further and take advantage of the 7 black in a row that came soon after.
That's his style and that's fine with me. I aim at only 1 hit and that's where my session ends.
I will look for another opportunity in another cycle whether it is identical to this or suitable for another system. The opportunities are always there.
If after the condition you see in the picture, I saw another 5-10 red in a row too often, then obviously I wouldn't play this system.
But in my long term experience I don't see it. Maybe very rarely a few times.
And since my betting involves just very few spins before I stop, there is no way that the loss due to  a rare exception, will surpass the many winning instances when it is in compliance with my way of thinking.

This is the beauty of EMPIRICAL RESEARCH. it shows you what happens hundreds of times, as opposed to what is happening very few times.
You try to provide explanations for that thru philosophizing.
I simply take advantage of it, to make money.
That's the difference between philosophy and practicality.
KEEP THINGS SIMPLE AND ACT ON EXPERIENCE.
That's the best advice I can give to prospective roulette players.

 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2078
  • Thanked: 434 times
Re: Past spins question
« Reply #43 on: June 14, 2015, 01:31:40 PM »
What you  , and others , fail to understand, Mike, is that you  consider  ALL methods to be  based on what you call The Gambler's Fallacy. This is not the case .Mine is based on elementary maths  so is really only maths in action . I use ideas given by REAL mathematicians and apply them to roulette. 
 

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1416
  • Thanked: 211 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Past spins question
« Reply #44 on: June 14, 2015, 04:43:20 PM »
Mike,

The GF is just beyond their level of comprehension.  It's a hurdle that is simply too high for them to jump over.

« Last Edit: June 14, 2015, 04:56:00 PM by Real »