Author Topic: Mechanical vs Nonmechanical systems  (Read 937 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MickyP

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 752
  • Thanked: 332 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mechanical vs Nonmechanical systems
« Reply #15 on: February 10, 2018, 05:36:50 PM »
If the tweaking is endless then you can not define it as machanical.

A system is played to win. One win may be  all that is required by the player. Like all the tools used, the system too is a tool used to attain the win.
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4186
  • Thanked: 1446 times
Re: Mechanical vs Nonmechanical systems
« Reply #16 on: February 10, 2018, 07:31:32 PM »
1) Looking at past spin results and mechanical decisions is ESSENTIAL in designing a winning system but as our critics love to point out so mechanically, it must be done properly
2) Human quality decisions occur when there are multiple "correct" choices available
3) Food for thought: AI is designed to model human intelligence, where the computer has a "character" and "desires" a particular outcome -- system design is not simple
« Last Edit: February 10, 2018, 07:35:23 PM by Reyth »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2086
  • Thanked: 1077 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mechanical vs Nonmechanical systems
« Reply #17 on: February 10, 2018, 07:36:31 PM »
Great topic Mike,

Decision making, intuition and experience can not be prohibited to use. They can help very much in certain aspects of the execution of a roulette strategy.

Anti-system members, feel that a roulette strategy is a concept that can work on autopilot. It is not. It's work. It's a fight. And you can not avoid losses. But still, by clever choice of bets and wise and disciplined money management, you can be in profit overall. Most people ask and expect a method that will produce wins on autopilot by flat betting. I do not flat bet and there is no way to win blindfolded.

A roulette strategy, that it is not purely mechanical, but requires a bit of decision making, is still a roulette strategy. In fact most good roulette strategies are like this. I understand that it would be better (for testing and for execution) if every decision could be decided beforehand. Tough in roulette there can be millions of different scenarios and little parameters, that a strategy would be impossible to account for beforehand.
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth, MickyP

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2401
  • Thanked: 521 times
Re: Mechanical vs Nonmechanical systems
« Reply #18 on: February 10, 2018, 07:59:02 PM »
I hope, kav, that you are not saying that Flat Bettors bet blindfolded .
I  use Flat Bets .
I bet robotically using the  rules . It is what is called Discipline.
As has been said the rules can allow for different circumstances. For example I " Expect  to Win "  but if a win is not forthcoming  within a set number of spins I quit at a Break-even or at a loss.
It works fine for me.
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1668
  • Thanked: 272 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mechanical vs Nonmechanical systems
« Reply #19 on: February 10, 2018, 08:01:18 PM »
Every roulette system can be coded if the system designer can adequately describe the system.
 

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2086
  • Thanked: 1077 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mechanical vs Nonmechanical systems
« Reply #20 on: February 10, 2018, 08:07:17 PM »
Scepticus,
Good for you. I don't judge how others bet. I'm saying that some of the best systems I know require a level of decision making. The flat-betting vs progression is a whole different discussion.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2018, 08:20:57 PM by kav »
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1668
  • Thanked: 272 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mechanical vs Nonmechanical systems
« Reply #21 on: February 10, 2018, 08:26:09 PM »
Quote
I'm saying that some of the best systems I know require a level of decision making.

Kav,

Can you provide an example?
 

palestis

  • Great Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
  • Thanked: 743 times
Re: Mechanical vs Nonmechanical systems
« Reply #22 on: February 11, 2018, 01:12:47 AM »

If a system is more than a "wind-up toy", what is this "more"?

Some players insist that "mechanical" systems can't win. They then stipulate that the missing ingredient is contained in the player himself, some vague and mystical element which is never defined, or if it is, only very vaguely. I'm not talking about basic self-discipline, which should be taken as given.

According to these guys, often when a system fails, it's not really the fault of the system, but the player.  ::)
Who said that?
Or is it a self proclaimed statement to strengthen your argument that follows?
Since you associate "systems" with something rigid that cannot be flexible when it has to be,
let's change  the word to STRATEGY. Or does a strategy have to be a robot too?
You are very meticulous in insulting basic human intelligence without actually  being insulting.
No, there is no undefined vague and mystical  element when it comes to strategy.
 And there is no missing ingredient that exonerates the system and  puts the blame on the player.
These are groundless philosophical jargon, that doesn't accomplish anything other than strengthening an ill fated argument.
A good strategy/system takes into account a certain roulette behavior that includes extremities.
However,  when a rare extremity reaches a high risk level, (and its obvious), there is absolutely nothing wrong with calling upon the system's defense mechanism, to take action.
A system /strategy is not all rules. There is a lot more to a system than rules.
"If this happens... then this what I do"    is very much part of a system/strategy.
It's called system's defenses and it's an integral part of a system/strategy .
 And most of the time all it does is signal  to stop betting
You call it a vague and mystical element.. Since when defense provisions are vague and mystical?
Rare extremities do happen in roulette and a system should be ready for them.
You have a way to turn it around and manipulate it to make your argument strong.
But it's not.

 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth, MickyP

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4186
  • Thanked: 1446 times
Re: Mechanical vs Nonmechanical systems
« Reply #23 on: February 11, 2018, 01:19:42 AM »
When my statistical modelling indicates that I have over a 99.9% chance of success but the current statistical situation shows that other selections have a higher chance of success, I have choices:

1) Raise to the full amount
2) Raise to a smaller amount
3) Do not raise, bet one unit
4) Do not bet

All of these decisions are "correct" in their own way.  A human level decision is required, as statistical modelling is not yet available...

Other factors exist in the decision, for instance, whether we are currently ahead or behind and by how much AND MANY OTHER THINGS that we instantly and/or subconsciously perceive, just because we are human (superior to a computer).

I already know that you understand this and so your purpose for asking isn't that you don't already know the answer...
« Last Edit: February 11, 2018, 01:25:00 AM by Reyth »
 
The following users thanked this post: palestis, MickyP

palestis

  • Great Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
  • Thanked: 743 times
Re: Mechanical vs Nonmechanical systems
« Reply #24 on: February 11, 2018, 01:36:03 AM »
That's correct.
 But someone like Mike will come along and say that this decision making process is nothing more than  proof that systems don't work. It is ludicrous to disregard basic human intelligence, and common sense, for the sole purpose to sustain an ill fated argument.   
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth, MickyP

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1668
  • Thanked: 272 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mechanical vs Nonmechanical systems
« Reply #25 on: February 11, 2018, 01:47:03 AM »
Mike is correct.

If it can't be coded then it just means that you're guessing.

Unfortunately there's way too many people playing the "if" game with their roulette systems.  "If I would have quit here, or if I increased my bet there," etc...  Curve fitting by glancing ahead just a little bit in the data or reflecting on a previous loss within the casino.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2018, 01:49:06 AM by Real »
 

MickyP

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 752
  • Thanked: 332 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mechanical vs Nonmechanical systems
« Reply #26 on: February 11, 2018, 03:26:35 AM »
I use the "IF" word but mostly when I evaluate my game after the fact. When I use it during a game it occurs before a spin when considering which of the correct rules to apply. Human intelligence is a strong tool that is crucial to system/strategy play.
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

palestis

  • Great Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
  • Thanked: 743 times
Re: Mechanical vs Nonmechanical systems
« Reply #27 on: February 11, 2018, 03:47:30 AM »
Quote
Here's another example.

When players use triggers on the ECS.  They go through their 100 or 150 spins of data, and they circle the longest losing run of the reds.  Then they go back through and say that the longest losing run is seven blacks in a row.  They then naively believe that all that have to do is wait for three in row, before they begin betting with their seven step up as you lose progression. They then believe that they have the holy grail and proof that triggers work.  All the while they're completely oblivious to their enormous system flaw.
This is not a good example to down play the use of triggers. Very weak example.
The only player that would do this is either a moron or a brand new player.
How about seeing 7+ numbers streak of the same EC and betting the opposite for 3-4 bets.
And there is a good logic behind it. Since 10 in a row is rare, seeing 7or more, there is a very good chance that in the next 3-4 spins it will turn.
After all, 10 in a row should only be happening once in about every 1000 spins.
What is the chance that every time I do that, I will be falling in the case that only happens once in 1000 spins? Would the probability change every time I bet and instead of happening once in every 1000 spins, just for me it will be happening every time I start betting? And what if it happens once?
Will it happen in the next roulette that has 8 ODD in a row?
Or will it happen in the other table that has 7 LOW?
Or the  roulette across the room that has 9 black?
What happened to common sense?
Now the question of betting from the beginning vs. waiting for the 7+ trigger.
If you start betting a pre chosen EC from the beginning you most likely run into 4+ opposite in a row
a lot sooner than running into 4+ opposite after a 7+ streak.

 
The following users thanked this post: december, Reyth

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4186
  • Thanked: 1446 times
Re: Mechanical vs Nonmechanical systems
« Reply #28 on: February 11, 2018, 05:41:25 AM »
[COMMENCE AUTOREPLY]
None of this changes the outcome because roulette is weighted at a 2.7% house edge.
[END]
 

Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 795
  • Thanked: 117 times
Re: Mechanical vs Nonmechanical systems
« Reply #29 on: February 11, 2018, 11:06:38 AM »
The point I'm trying to make, and my objection to the assertion that "systems shouldn't be played mechanically", is that the following reasons are often given by system players as to why simulations are ultimately invalid and their results can be ignored:

A. Nobody ever plays a million spins.
B. A computer lacks the "human element"; it cannot make decisions, wait out spins, move to another table, etc.

I'm mainly concerned with (B), but (A) is just a non sequitur. And in fact, it's an implicit recognition by system players that systems don't work, because it implies that it's merely the number of spins played which ultimately affects the outcome - correct!

As for (B), the system player's argument goes something like this:

1. A human often makes decisions ("on the fly") when using systems (they are not played "mechanically").
2. A computer cannot make such decisions (not being human).
3. Computer simulations always fail.

Therefore, this shows that decisions are a necessary element for a system to be profitable.


This is a bad argument. Why? In the first place, premise 2 is false. Non programmers often don't understand that a program is just a list of instructions, and that it will do EXACTLY what it's told; no more and no less. It has no initiative whatsoever, so if you don't tell it what to do, it can't do it, but it can certainly be instructed to make any "decision" a player makes at the table.

The only "system" which can't be simulated is one which uses pure intuition, or precognition. Aside from the issue of whether such things actually exist, the computer is powerless here because it can only simulate rules, triggers, etc decided on beforehand, whereas the "psychic" player uses no IF-THENs; the right decision just pops into his head.

Secondly, and this is the crux of the matter, a decision, by definition (since it's made on the fly), has no support in terms of data, so it must be arbitrary or ad-hoc. In that case, you have no idea what effect taking that decision will have on the returns of the system. The effect may be beneficial, detrimental, or neutral, but you have no idea which. In other words, the decision amounts to a pure guess.

And if it's just a guess, why take the decision at all? Just stick to the rules and triggers which you have presumably(!) worked out and researched when designing the system. These rules have some foundation because they are based on mathematical reasoning and/or empirical research, whereas the "decisions" you make during play are groundless.

And if they are groundless, how can you possibly argue that using them will add merit to the system or result in increased profits? It makes no sense. They may or they may not, but you cannot just ASSUME that they do. If you want to use them, you should test your assumptions, and then either discard them  or include them in the system's rules. If they are included, they will no longer be "decisions"; they will just be part of the system, and not arbitrary additions.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2018, 11:10:52 AM by Mike »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav