Author Topic: Mission Impossible  (Read 2840 times)

Bayes

  • Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
  • Thanked: 547 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: Mission Impossible
« Reply #30 on: July 23, 2016, 10:09:39 AM »

@ Bayes,

No, I said for the 1st sequence to be from Skycity.

That's right, but the first sequence is RNG.

Quote
I was reading 1 of your posts and I've a question;

You said by choosing to stay with the same EC ALL time, you didn't find big difference than by changing the target, although you did mention that the same EC had extended loses, I assume more than changing EC target, right?

I'm of the opinion that adjusting the target could be better than staying all the time on the same, do you agree?

Yes that's my impression, but I haven't done any rigorous tests which confirm it.

A maths "purist" would say it makes no difference because whatever you change to has just as much chance as throwing up losses as wins and that the chance is determined by the odds and nothing more, but I'm not so sure about that.

Right, what should the criteria be? What I do if some BS (a shame that BS could mean bet selection or  Bull Sh*t, and some would argue they mean the same thing  ;D ) isn't working, I switch to another. It seems to me that doing this throws up fewer and less extreme losing streaks than sticking rigidly to one BS. But then it depends on how flexible and dynamic the BS is.

I did some tests years ago on the standard EC bet selections like FTL and DBL, and although they all result in the same long term house edge, there was some evidence that DBL resulted in fewer "runs from hell". Maybe because it attempts to catch two types of pattern (choppy sequences and streaky sequences) whereas the others only capture one or the other.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2016, 10:27:15 AM by Bayes »
 

Bayes

  • Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
  • Thanked: 547 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: Mission Impossible
« Reply #31 on: July 23, 2016, 10:24:52 AM »
Since I look at the wheel when I play, I have a better feeling how the outcomes develop on the wheel. This is not something very solid or clear, its more like an "acquired intuition". And it has to do with how one "reads" the results, the mental layout of roulette one has in mind, be it the wheel, the dozens, the streets etc. Nothing to do with "physical attributes" per se.

Since I most often play the EC's I spend a lot of time looking at the patterns which arise, and it does seem that RNG throws up more "clumps" than a real wheel. There may be some subtle differences which you only notice if you play a particular wheel / RNG a lot, or on the other hand it could be a cognitive bias. Something which may account for the perception of difference is the fact that you get a lot more spins per hour on an RNG, so "rare" sequences may appear to be more common than they would be playing on an actual wheel. They may not be any more frequent in terms of how often they come up, but because you get through so many spins on an RNG it may seem that they are.

Louis G. Holloway expresses this nicely in his book "Full Time Gambler":

Quote
What happens is this: When you get a "hunch" and it proves correct, you get a big positive charge. This positive charge is much stronger than the negative discharge you get each time your hunch proves wrong. The end result is that you believe in your hunches.
 

BlueAngel

  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1531
  • Thanked: 213 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: Mission Impossible
« Reply #32 on: July 23, 2016, 10:30:28 AM »


Quote
(a shame that BS could mean bet selection or  Bull Sh*t, and some would argue they mean the same thing  ;D )

That's a good 1!
Kav removed it from a post of mine to another member, probably he doesn't know that BS=Bet Selection.

Quote
A maths "purist" would say it makes no difference because whatever you change to has just as much chance as throwing up losses as wins and that the chance is only determined by the odds and nothing more, but I'm not so sure about that.

So according to maths purists randomly choosing what to bet is as good as any other bet selection?!
I prefer to think otherwise...

Quote
I did some tests years ago on the standard EC bet selections like FTL and DBL, and although they all result in the same long term house edge, there was some evidence that DBL resulted in fewer "runs from hell". Maybe because it attempts to catch two types of pattern (choppy sequences and streaky sequences) whereas the others only capture one or the other.

By DBL you mean Different Before Last?
If yes, that was something which I was just curious about, you may find all patterns on EC's (same as last, same before last, opposite of last, alternating 1 for the one side and then for the other, always the same side, follow the least shown, follow the most shown) BUT no one ever  published  that pattern (opposite before last) why??

The same as last might catches streaks from both sides but misses every 1st chop and series, all the firsts are as much as all streaks of 2 or more, unless we have a bottomless barrel...
« Last Edit: July 23, 2016, 10:48:57 AM by BlueAngel »
 

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1686
  • Thanked: 715 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mission Impossible
« Reply #33 on: July 23, 2016, 10:34:05 AM »
Bayes,

I'm reading again this exact book (Louis G. Holloway "Full Time Gambler") these days. It is amazing how many useful points he makes in just a few pages relevant to roulette. I'm tempted to post some of his suggestions here for further discussion.

Too bad he doesn't explain his bet selection.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2016, 08:13:01 AM by kav »
 

Bayes

  • Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
  • Thanked: 547 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: Mission Impossible
« Reply #34 on: July 24, 2016, 08:06:04 AM »
By DBL you mean Different Before Last?

DBL = Decision Before Last. Bet the same as the outcome before the last one. Wins on all chops and streaks longer than two. The nemesis is "the terrible twos". All bet selections have their nemesis.

Kav,

Quote
Too bad he doesn't explain his bet selection.

He favours hot numbers and I think you've posted his criteria for "hot" for various bets here on the forum. Can't remember where it is though.
 

Trilobite

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 314
  • Thanked: 103 times
Re: Mission Impossible
« Reply #35 on: July 25, 2016, 06:03:05 AM »
I said ONE of you is correct (Trilo said SkyCity). It was a joke.  :-\


Actually I said RNG.

So that's 100% correct for me...who said hit and run won't work?

 ;D
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

dobbelsteen

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1267
  • Thanked: 307 times
Re: Mission Impossible
« Reply #36 on: July 25, 2016, 10:23:21 AM »
Number random sequenses can not be coupled to a RNG or a real roulette. It is impossible to determine the direction  of the wheel from the sequence.
If you study the sequences you can not find a connection with a doubkle zero sequence My conclusion is that all sequences belongs to  a random occurence  of 0-36.
All speculations about Rotary direction or kind of Random Number Generator is nonses 
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Jesper

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1141
  • Thanked: 549 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mission Impossible
« Reply #37 on: July 29, 2016, 12:16:33 PM »
Number random sequenses can not be coupled to a RNG or a real roulette. It is impossible to determine the direction  of the wheel from the sequence.
If you study the sequences you can not find a connection with a doubkle zero sequence My conclusion is that all sequences belongs to  a random occurence  of 0-36.
All speculations about Rotary direction or kind of Random Number Generator is nonses

I agree, it the ball goes with the clock or opposite has no impact at a random result (How could it?). Random is the unpredictable. We can still do things, as random (despite predictable) has properties.
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3318
  • Thanked: 980 times
Re: Mission Impossible
« Reply #38 on: July 29, 2016, 03:57:49 PM »
I've been thinking alot lately about the wheel being another felt domain like a double street divided into 6 sectors and the zero.  I think a full appreciation of the game of roulette MUST take into account these sectors as well.

So if I was to write software that would monitor felt sectors (double streets, columns, dozens etc) I would feel obligated to include at least 6 wheel sectors or even as many as 12 to get the "full picture".

These wheel sectors matter regardless of whether it is a live wheel or a RNG wheel.  The amazing thing is that I didn't used to think wheel sectors mattered for RNG wheels but of course they do!  Wheel sectors operate just like double streets or streets do on the felt.

There is another category in roulette which I will call the invisible sectors.  These are basically naked groupings of numbers that have no necessary "geographical" relevance to the felt or the wheel.  It is simply pure sequence analysis.

Looking at all of these as a homogeneous whole makes me think that the "pure" way of roulette analysis is the invisible sectors and the visible ones on the felt and wheel are simply artificial and inefficient. :D

I mean why wait for the numbers sequence to comply and finally match up with a geographical sector?  Why not just analyze the actual number groupings directly? :D
« Last Edit: July 29, 2016, 04:07:27 PM by Reyth »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav

BlueAngel

  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1531
  • Thanked: 213 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: Mission Impossible
« Reply #39 on: July 29, 2016, 05:35:20 PM »
Do those numbers know that belong to a group...?

Let me put it this way, if for example you see the 1st street that numbers 1 and 2 have hit, does it automatically means that it's the turn for number 3 to come?

It might hit, it might not.

Write down 12 numbers today from an RNG, 12 numbers tomorrow and 13 numbers the day after tomorrow, do you think "law of thirds" would be valid for this sample?

Goto a casino and gather 12 numbers from 1 table, 12 numbers from another and 13 numbers from a third table, do you think "law of thirds" would be valid to this sample?

Ask 37 different persons to tell you a number from 0 up to 36, would "law of thirds" be valid for that  sample?

A day has 24 hours, one third of this is sleeping like the 1 third of "sleepers"...

What is the invisible power behind all these apparently non related events...?

Think deeper!