Author Topic: It´s not about being the best.  (Read 1363 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 624
  • Thanked: 50 times
Re: It´s not about being the best.
« Reply #45 on: December 03, 2017, 09:48:24 AM »
Thomas,

I asked for a concrete example of how knowledge of previous spins indicates future spins, but instead you've given a rather long-winded attempted justification and explanation of why you believe this is possible. That's not a concrete example; care to try again?

In doing so you've felt the need to invoke esoteric physics such as strange attractors and quantum theory, neither of which has any application to roulette and therefore cannot help your argument. Poor old QM is often dragged in in an attempt to boost all kinds of absurd ideas. In particular, being applicable only in the microscopic world, its effects are not noticeable in the realm of "medium sized dry goods" such as roulette wheels. The Heisenberg uncertaintly principle (formula) can indeed be applied to any moving object, but the size of the Planck constant ensures that the resultant uncertainty is far too small to be significant if the object can be seen by the naked eye.

Quote
A spun number in roulette, is per itself a representation of a spatiotemporal event on the wheel.

Yes, but again, how does this help you? The labels on the pockets could be anything, but that doesn't change the fact of independence.. Just substitute "spatiotemporal event on the wheel" for "number" and it's still true that there is no dependence between spatiotemporal events on the wheel.

Quote
When I speak of taking into account previous numbers, I could as easily say, what you see on the scoreboard is a set of repeated actions with a variance and modulation of above-mentioned forces and factors, that given specific time produces a pattern that can be RECOGNIZED CALCULATED and approximated in terms of a most probable future outcome.

Sure you can do that, but what does this substitution give you that you didn't have already, just looking at the numbers? The same fallacy applies : that of assuming that there is a dependency between these sets of events from one spin to another. There is no such dependency. Visual Ballistics is a different animal altogether; there is no fallacy in assuming a dependence between initial conditions and where the ball lands, but this isn't what you're talking about, is it?

In fact, you're not even talking about specific numbers on the wheel. In your reply to dobblesteen (reply #20) you gave an example of how you would have played his sequence of spins on a DOZEN. Even assuming that your theory is correct, it's stretching credibility too far to suppose that your carefully calculated confluence of strange attractors etc could possibly converge to indicate that the next few spins would result in a particular OUTSIDE BET winning, lol.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2017, 10:03:42 AM by Mike »
 

Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 624
  • Thanked: 50 times
Re: It´s not about being the best.
« Reply #46 on: December 03, 2017, 09:53:23 AM »
Mike, l do not take sides, by l do in fact deny basic mathematical assumptions in roulette, because they do not represent reality. Wheels are imperfect and " perfect wheel" math model is not applicable to them.
 

Mr Perfect,

So you deny that spins are independent? The imperfections in wheels which you refer to only affect bias, not independence. It seems that even you don't understand what independence means.
 

MrPerfect.

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1375
  • Thanked: 793 times
Re: It´s not about being the best.
« Reply #47 on: December 03, 2017, 11:35:27 AM »
Mike, looks like only "independence" spins do possess is independence of players opinion about them. I know for sure there is no " independence". My data studies show so. More then 20 wheels and no such thing as independence observed.
    If l do not know what " independence " is, it doesn't affect my ability to profit despite its presence. Even if such a factor could be determined theoretically, l mind it not important and exclude it from my playing model.
    Resuming: not observed, can not be reasonably defined or measured - do not exist.
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 624
  • Thanked: 50 times
Re: It´s not about being the best.
« Reply #48 on: December 03, 2017, 11:53:01 AM »
Mr Perfect,

It's not a matter of opinion, and the definition of independence is quite straightforward:

Quote
In probability theory, two events are independent, statistically independent, or stochastically independent[1] if the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of occurrence of the other.

Again, you're confusing independence between spins (past numbers) with independence between initial conditions and the resulting outcome. I keep saying there is no independence in the latter case.

You implicity agree that there is independence between spins (no connection between one number and the next, when that is the ONLY data you have) because you criticise other posters here for using those kinds of "triggers" (virtual losses etc).

You are just confusing the issue by trying to make out that roulette is NOT a game of independent trials after all. To then accuse people of fallacies when they use virtual bets as triggers is confusing for people who don't have a good grasp of probability (which is most of them).  The fallacies are fallacies because spins are independent, but you're saying they're not! Please try to keep the distinction clear between the two applications of independence. Your denial of independence applies only to the special case of VB.
 

thomasleor

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 283
  • Thanked: 137 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: It´s not about being the best.
« Reply #49 on: December 03, 2017, 12:59:42 PM »
Thomas,

 In particular, being applicable only in the microscopic world, its effects are not noticeable in the realm of "medium sized dry goods" such as roulette wheels.

Wrong.

No object in our spatiotemporal universe can be said to be independent. There is always a measure of energy exchange, down to a subatomic level. Talking about an object being independent from an array of prevalent unceasing fundamental forces like gravitational and electromagnetic interactions  affecting its spatiotemporal position is really ridiculous insight into the basic structure of this universe, including the very room in the Casino and table where you perceive a roulette wheel.

There is nothing esoteric about this. It is sheer reality which you seem to being unable to understand.

 Your knowledge in physics is painfully embarassing and yet you persist this ridiculous thought-chain of yours about the logical independence of the roulette wheel and its numbers.


The Heisenberg uncertaintly principle (formula) can indeed be applied to any moving object, but the size of the Planck constant ensures that the resultant uncertainty is far too small to be significant if the object can be seen by the naked eye.

Wrong again. The Heisenberg formula shows that ultimately any observation of any object, affect said object in a way that leaves its future spatiotemporal position, UNCERTAIN, YET NOT uncalculable in terms of probability.

Yes, but again, how does this help you? The labels on the pockets could be anything, but that doesn't change the fact of independence.. Just substitute "spatiotemporal event on the wheel" for "number" and it's still true that there is no dependence between spatiotemporal events on the wheel.

You cannot prove independence  in the roulette wheel in its generation of number sequences mathematcially, or per any physical experiment that proves your ridiculous claim. Don´t even try to refer this to the Strong and weak law of large numbers as the latter is a mere mathematical assertion of perfect random number generation. There is no such thing as perfect random number generation in roulette.

 that of assuming that there is a dependency between these sets of events from one spin to another. There is no such dependency.

And you prove this , how? I am interested to see said experiment or mathematical theorem based on proper input data that shows this. If you were capable of doing such a thing It should at least earn you the Field medal. Yeah, that will be the day...

Let me end this reply which will be my last to your ignorant ramblings and assumptions, that in a spatiotemporal confluence of conditions, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS INDEPENDENCE BETWEEN NUMBERS/SPINS. There can neither be said that there is no confluence of conditions in this universe, and much less in approximate space you view as a roulette table, wheel and a dealer spinning said wheel.

You either get this and can verify it with the appropriate formulae, or you do not. Not my problem, or concern.

« Last Edit: December 03, 2017, 01:48:49 PM by thomasleor »
 

MrPerfect.

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1375
  • Thanked: 793 times
Re: It´s not about being the best.
« Reply #50 on: December 03, 2017, 01:47:26 PM »
Mike, l just call things by its name. Spin is spin, past results is past results. If you call past results by the name of "spins", it's absolutely logical that you get confused.
   Should l change words l use because someone can not be bothered to look their definition in book? Or adopt faulty math model that doesn't work and all bs theories based on it?  I refuse .
    Vb or any other... to understand someone need to be at same level of understanding and call things by their names. I was tolking about indenendence of past results. Anyone with Excel skills and understanding of stats can verify my statements. Anyone without these shouldn't play this game at all... it's big NO NO!!!
     Obviously to be able to recognise dependence in roulette spins and profit from it need to learn first. Well..  l teach anyone who can be bothered to learn. If someone can not be bothered to learn,  then screw them. I do not care about such individuals,  their existence do not eclipse sunshine for me... just makes it better.
    We all can coexist in this world, gamblers, players, casinos... piece & love, Bro. 
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3976
  • Thanked: 1280 times
Re: It´s not about being the best.
« Reply #51 on: December 03, 2017, 01:49:42 PM »
I don't care about independence.  I care about probability and statistics.
 
The following users thanked this post: Jesper, LiveRouletteOnlinePlayer

thomasleor

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 283
  • Thanked: 137 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: It´s not about being the best.
« Reply #52 on: December 03, 2017, 02:48:49 PM »
LOL That, Reyth, is what the Mentat Thufir Hawat, from Frank Herberts great epos Dune said to young Paul Atreides.

Are you by any chance, related?  :o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjbsXy9f0Ew&feature=youtu.be
« Last Edit: December 03, 2017, 02:52:45 PM by thomasleor »
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 624
  • Thanked: 50 times
Re: It´s not about being the best.
« Reply #53 on: December 04, 2017, 10:01:10 AM »
Thomas,

Physics at the quantum level just isn't relevant to the game of roulette - Newton's laws are sufficient, there's no need to bring in QM. That was my point.

Quote
No object in our spatiotemporal universe can be said to be independent. There is always a measure of energy exchange, down to a subatomic level. Talking about an object being independent from an array of prevalent unceasing fundamental forces like gravitational and electromagnetic interactions  affecting its spatiotemporal position is really ridiculous insight into the basic structure of this universe, including the very room in the Casino and table where you perceive a roulette wheel.

Yes there is a sense in which no object in the universe is independent of any other. Does it mean that the event of a guy at the bar burping causes the ball to fall into #13 rather than its projected trajectory of #21? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. The vast majority of these energy exchanges have no effect at all on the local system of wheel + ball + dealer. The overwhelming factor which confers independence is the simple fact that each pocket is available for the ball to fall into on every spin. Barring pathological cases such as the house using magnets selectively and regularly when certain events occur, the spins will be independent, meaning that no number or sequence of numbers can be reliably predicted from any numbers which have already been spun. Bias and VB don't affect this independence BETWEEN spins.

Quote
Wrong again. The Heisenberg formula shows that ultimately any observation of any object, affect said object in a way that leaves its future spatiotemporal position, UNCERTAIN, YET NOT uncalculable in terms of probability.

Umm.. Thomas, that's what I said, too. Try reading it again.

Quote
You cannot prove independence  in the roulette wheel in its generation of number sequences mathematcially, or per any physical experiment that proves your ridiculous claim. Don´t even try to refer this to the Strong and weak law of large numbers as the latter is a mere mathematical assertion of perfect random number generation. There is no such thing as perfect random number generation in roulette.

Well it depends what you mean by "proof". You're correct that there is no mathematical formula which directly proves independence, but is it needed when anyone can readily observe that the setup in roulette is such that spins obviously ARE independent? Given that no pocket on the wheel is blocked or removed between spins, the default and uncontroversial position to take is that the game is one of independent trials. What you're attempting to do here is shift the burden of proof to me, but I'm not the one holding the controversial position - you are. Since roulette's status as a game of independent trials is widely accepted and recogized, it's up to YOU to provide evidence that it's not. It's no good to claim that dependence is true because I can't prove that independence is false; that's a fallacy called the "argument from ignorance".

But actually, there's more. If your knowledge of probability and statistics wasn't so "painfully embarrassing", you would know that the standard probability distributions such as binomial, multinomial, geometric etc, which are good probability models for roulette (meaning that they very successfully "predict" the distribution of numbers) all assume that outcomes are independent. If roulette was NOT a game of independent trials, those models wouldn't be as good as they actually are, would they?

And Thomas, there's something which doesn't add up in all of this. Anyone reading your posts would conclude that you're using some kind of advanced AP. Maybe not conventional VB but you certainly imply that the dealer, at least, is a factor, and you dismiss the possibility of successful play on an RNG. But in your reply to dobblesteen (reply #20) there is no reference to any of these factors (indeed, there could not be, because the only data you had was that a column hit for 12 consecutive spins). On the basis of this data, you told us that the "smart" way to play would have been to bet on the column after a clear sign of a "breakout".

So anyone would be forgiven for wondering where all the high faluting physics comes in, if in practice all you do is look for "breakouts", "support lines" and so on, which don't depend on any physical parameters at all. In fact your MO seems more like a application of technical analysis techniques used in trading.
 
« Last Edit: December 04, 2017, 10:25:31 AM by Mike »
 

thomasleor

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 283
  • Thanked: 137 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: It´s not about being the best.
« Reply #54 on: December 04, 2017, 12:13:00 PM »
Mike wrote:

The overwhelming factor which confers independence is the simple fact that each pocket is available for the ball to fall into on every spin. Barring pathological cases such as the house using magnets selectively and regularly when certain events occur, the spins will be independent, meaning that no number or sequence of numbers can be reliably predicted from any numbers which have already been spun. Bias and VB don't affect this independence BETWEEN spins.

You are truly incredible. You make suppositions based on your own assumptions, unproven empirically by any known science according to the available tools of said science.

I  can't prove that independence is false; that's a fallacy called the "argument from ignorance".

I know that. And yet you persist this idiocy and hilarious reasoning not only with me but with other members of this forum.

If roulette was NOT a game of independent trials, those models wouldn't be as good as they actually are, would they?

Let me spell it out for you, and try to read slowly as you seem to be a bit slow in your thought process. There is no absolute mathematical proof, or other empirical evidence to days date, made by any known Mathematician, or Physicist,  that support your argument.

There are of course various thesis and other forms of dissertations, articles etc by undergraduates, Doctors and Professors  specialized in both theoretical and applied math,  but all they offer is based on the Binomial Distribution of a large set of number generations from pure RNGs, all referable to the Strong and Weak Law of Large numbers, but certainly not physical wheels that are subject to flaws and interference, as external environmental and internal constructional conditions.  Upon this fallacy, you have chosen to continuously assert your hilarious conclusion of the wheels number generating independence by presenting no solid fact supported by the Physics behind any roulette wheel.

As a matter of fact, all your assumptions are based on the perfectly random number generation by the various  RNG engines available in most Casinos.
Just because a Casino slaps an image of a roulette on a game and claim that to be a roulette wheel, but is guided by an RNG engine it doesn't mean you as a gambler deal with something comparable to PHYSICAL ROULETTE WHEELS and the game itself.  I know this is too much for you to grasp, but there are other readers here and much of my response is more directed to them than to you.

If not,  I wouldn´t have bothered even replying to this latest embarrassment of yours as that would be a waste of energy.

And Thomas, there's something which doesn't add up in all of this. Anyone reading your posts would conclude that you're using some kind of advanced AP.

Yes, I do and trust me when I say that it is beyond the purview of your present understanding. My private forum VRTech and the team I offer my platforms is a living empirical testament to the success of said AP platforms.

To them, your own ignorant conclusions are just as much of a laugh as they are to me. I have lost count on how many hundreds of thousands of units the team collectively have made on my platforms the past two years, as proof of their correct interpretation of the prevalent conditions around any given physical roulette wheel subject to said platforms and the science used by them to enable their extremely accurate predictions in any given session.

But in your reply to dobblesteen (reply #20) there is no reference to any of these factors (indeed, there could not be, because the only data you had was that a column hit for 12 consecutive spins). On the basis of this data, you told us that the "smart" way to play would have been to bet on the column after a clear sign of a "breakout". So anyone would be forgiven for wondering where all the high faluting physics comes in, if in practice all you do is look for "breakouts", "support lines" and so on, which don't depend on any physical parameters at all. In fact your MO seems more like a application of technical analysis techniques used in trading.

DBsteens case was a simple one, and I applied a simple technical analysis technique used by most traders both in forex and equity markets as to show how he could have handled a clear trend by a physical wheel where said trend was a clear result of repeated patterns by the present dealers, wheel  and other external and internal conditions (your non existent strange attractors LOL)  that he as a mere system player could have used in a highly simplified way to have time between bet windows to implement on said wheel. He could have used a laminated chart and a regular felt pen to make said graphs and had enough time to place his bets.

That technique doesn't work on roulette wheels on the long run because it is way too crude,  compared to the extremely refined set of tools a wheel demands to reveal its coming outcome with a high measure of probability. Another reason is that betting on the Wheel and its sectors,  rather than betting on the table with its limiting patterns of Dozen and Column play (or even Streets or quads), is far superior. Where the latter inevitably is subject to the Strong and Weak law of  Large numbers, the House Edge being another limiting factor, the former (i.e the wheel) is not limited to said laws however you yourself wish others to believe. Where applied mathematics easily concurs with your position on the former (Table betting) as it is within its purview, the latter, the wheel itself falls under the laws of both conventional and higher physics and therefore demands a completely different approach.

The mere fact that you took that simple help I offered DBsteen and used it to support your own ridiculous understanding and belief, of what you think governs any given physical roulette wheel, is a solid proof of your narrow-minded nature.

Trying to project said nature on the various members on this forum, discouraging them from approaching the game of roulette from a POV that deals with the wheel is plainly put, a form of bullying with nothing substantial backing every argument you present - the latter being nothing more but mere suppositions formed from ignorant assumptions of no empirical support. Some on this forum might yield to said assumptions and suppositions, but I bet most don´t.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2017, 12:22:22 PM by thomasleor »
 

Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 624
  • Thanked: 50 times
Re: It´s not about being the best.
« Reply #55 on: December 04, 2017, 01:20:04 PM »
Quote
There is no absolute mathematical proof, or other empirical evidence to days date, made by any known Mathematician, or Physicist,  that support your argument.

LOL. No evidence at all, apart from the straightforward observation that the roulette wheel is deliberately designed in a way which does make the spins independent, the countless failures of roulette systems based on bet selections which use past spins, the fact that any simulation shows that using past spins to predict future spins gives results which are no better than random, and the fact that the probability distributions which accurately model the game do assume independence.

What evidence is there that there IS a dependence between spins?

A few testimonials and anecdotes on gambling forums from individuals such as yourself, to the effect that such bet selections "work". That's it. And we all know how reliable such testimonials are, don't we? System sellers use them exclusively to peddle their wares. Enough said, I think.

There are of course various thesis and other forms of dissertations, articles etc by undergraduates, Doctors and Professors  specialized in both theoretical and applied math,  but all they offer is based on the Binomial Distribution of a large set of number generations from pure RNGs, all referable to the Strong and Weak Law of Large numbers, but certainly not physical wheels that are subject to flaws and interference, as external environmental and internal constructional conditions.  Upon this fallacy, you have chosen to continuously assert your hilarious conclusion of the wheels number generating independence by presenting no solid fact supported by the Physics behind any roulette wheel.

As a matter of fact, all your assumptions are based on the perfectly random number generation by the various  RNG engines available in most Casinos.
Just because a Casino slaps an image of a roulette on a game and claim that to be a roulette wheel, but is guided by an RNG engine it doesn't mean you as a gambler deal with something comparable to PHYSICAL ROULETTE WHEELS and the game itself.  I know this is too much for you to grasp, but there are other readers here and much of my response is more directed to them than to you.


Nope. The probability distributions I mentioned can all be shown to accurately model the distributions of actual spins taken from real wheels, not just RNG. You should try it sometime.  ;)   And by the way, no one can reliably distinguish a set of RNG spins, representing an average playing session, from a set of spins taken from an actual wheel. Providing the RNG is a fair one there is no difference in the distributions and characteristics, so it follows that the aforementioned distributions DO accurately model both actual spins and RNG.

Quote
Trying to project said nature on the various members on this forum, discouraging them from approaching the game of roulette from a POV that deals with the wheel is plainly put, a form of bullying with nothing substantial backing every argument you present - the latter being nothing more but mere suppositions formed from ignorant assumptions of no empirical support. Some on this forum might yield to said assumptions and suppositions, but I bet most don´t.

You clearly have a problem reading or understanding what I've written, because nowhere have I in any way implied that systems which focus on the wheel are to be discouraged. The exact opposite is the case. I maintain that the only way to beat this game in the long term is by identifying biased wheels or using visual ballistics.
 

MrPerfect.

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1375
  • Thanked: 793 times
Re: It´s not about being the best.
« Reply #56 on: December 04, 2017, 01:22:42 PM »
Mike, your statement about :
    , the spins will be independent, meaning that no number or sequence of numbers can be reliably predicted from any numbers which have already been spun. Bias and VB don't affect this independence BETWEEN spins."
   
You probably never run such a study on your own and what you say is just an assumption from your part.
    Bias is the thing to affect this independence directly. Vb is just a way to predict wich rotor position will be in some point into the future and affects nothing.
   No need to mix beef and fly... these are incompatible. 
« Last Edit: December 05, 2017, 12:36:39 AM by Reyth »
 

Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 624
  • Thanked: 50 times
Re: It´s not about being the best.
« Reply #57 on: December 04, 2017, 01:48:26 PM »
Mr P,

Sorry, but you don't understand independence. Bias and independence are not mutually exclusive; they can both exist on the same wheel at the same time as separate phenomena. I will be starting a separate thread to explain this later because it's so widely misunderstood.  ;)
 

thomasleor

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 283
  • Thanked: 137 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: It´s not about being the best.
« Reply #58 on: December 04, 2017, 01:52:02 PM »

LOL. No evidence at all, apart from the straightforward observation that the roulette wheel is deliberately designed in a way which does make the spins independent

I could of course continue my explanations, but evaluating you from an energy input vs. feedback value POV, tells me it´s a waste of time not only for myself, but for most members here.

My conclusions of your persistent proclivity to create endless erroneous suppositions, based on your distorted understanding of the game, and the fallacious assumptions you keep producing, is that you simply put are Case Closed.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2017, 12:39:21 AM by Reyth »
 

Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 624
  • Thanked: 50 times
Re: It´s not about being the best.
« Reply #59 on: December 04, 2017, 01:57:55 PM »
My conclusions of your persistent proclivity to create endless erroneous suppositions, based on your distorted understanding of the game, and the fallacious assumptions you keep producing, is that you are a simply  Case closed.

Translation : "I can't offer any rebuttle to Mike's arguments or raise any further objections, so I'll just insult him". 

Thomas,

Grow up. In a civilized society we don't resort to mere name calling and mud-slinging as a substitute for reasoned discussion. Get over it and stop being a troll.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2017, 12:41:11 AM by Reyth »
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth