Deposit Bonus 200% up to $1000

Author Topic: Long term fallacies  (Read 4228 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BlueAngel

  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1571
  • Thanked: 239 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Long term fallacies
« on: May 29, 2017, 08:20:06 PM »

The whole concept of the House Edge is based on the fallacy that everything should balance in some vague distant future.

I'm asking you, have you ever track numbers for 1,000 spins, for 10,000, for 100,000?
If you did, have you found at any given time the 37 numbers to balance?
Even close to it?
I don't think you did and you never will because there are are always leaders and followers.

Since all of the bet sections at the felt are group of numbers being categorized randomly you'll always have hot and cold numbers no matter what section you might choose to bet.

Even a cold EC doesn't include only cold numbers, the same goes for the opposite...EC's, as the largest group of numbers, include more hot but also more cold numbers which leads to conclusion that by betting more numbers doesn't improve ROI simply because we carry some dead weight along the way.

So if table's layout proximity is irrelevant, does wheel's layout is relevant?
You might think that wheel's sectors are more relevant to proximity since the ball is distributed along those 37 slots, but guess what, every sector has cold and hot numbers and what used to be above average now it's below par.
This is what I hate on this game, almost nothing is clear and straightforward, there are millions of ways to be wrong and only few to be right, that's why casinos profit, because they don't try to get it right but every time someone is wrong they win.

If we categorize numbers by the amount of balls received we could easily end up like dogs chasing our tails because it's not clear when a number becomes hot and for how long will remain this way.

Therefore we could discard categorizations by layouts and hits (regardless of how many).
What does it left to predict with?
No, physics is not the answer because we would have to face considerably many practical issues, I've mentioned them on other posts.

Think about Law of the Thirds for a minute, if after 37 spins I pick the cold numbers then how many of them would show up on next 37 spins?
2/3
If after 37 spins I pick the hot numbers then how many of them would show up on next 37 spins?
2/3
If after 37 spins I pick the average numbers then how many of them would show up on next 37 spins?
2/3

Conclusion, I get no advantage no matter what I choose!
If those 37 slots were colors or letters instead of numbers would that made any difference? No
By interpreting a random sequence in ''meaningful'' patterns makes only difference within our heads, assigning meaning to non rational random processes is a dead end.

There is the ancient Kabala which transforms letters to numbers and vice versa, you could code whole files into one form or the other.
If we'd interpret every number as a letter then clumps would form words and clustered words would form sentences...
But those messages are not from the dealers, neither the wheels, the dealers and wheels are only means to an end...
What insight such message could provide, can you even imagine?
Here is an example:
"Hell-000!1'm J0hn Huxley, my age 1s 37 rev0lut10ns around the rim...unf0rtunately there are n0t many reds, but are plenty of greens c0ming up..."

Now think really hard when you are in the bathroom, really hard, if in 37 spins 24 numbers show up why to expect balance in 370, or 3,700, or 37,000 or even 370,000??
37 is a microcosmos of 370,000, totals change but not the proportions!
37 is a part of 370,000 and many 37's combine in one 370,000, anyone who argues this indisputable fact he lives in denial!

If we ever witnessed 37 uniques in 37 successive spins their total would be 666, but the same total could be achieved by more 37 numbers permutations, 666 is just the average total.
What does this mean?
It simply means that if we had more high numbers then the total would be higher than 666 and if we had more low numbers then the total would be lower than 666.
Just imagine 666 as the thin red line which everything passes by but nothing stands on it...

If numbers have a theoretical probability to occur within any given time then skips have the exact same probability!
Skips in CW and CCW are a league of their own, for example:
Write down the distance the ball traveled from previous pocket to the next from spin to spin.
A skip/distance is the accumulation of the ball's and wheel's movements, thus by tracking differences in distances we measure the changes of the ball and the rotor from spin to spin.
When we are talking about distribution of results we actually talking about distribution of the ball.
Let the first two numbers be 16 and 32 for the example's sake, their distance is 17 pockets, next number is 8 and the ball traveled 15 pockets from previous number 32.

Add these two distances 17+15=32 and divide the total by amount of elements, in this case 2, thus 32/2=16
Count 16 pockets CW and 16 CCW from last number 8, bet those 2 numbers plus their right/left neighbors for a total of 6 numbers bet.

Let's assume that the next number is 33, 6 pockets CW from 8, add it to the previous total 6+32=38, divide the sum by 3, 13 is the closer whole number therefore count 13 pockets CW and 13 pockets CCW from last number 33.
Bet those 2 numbers pus their right/left neighbors.


 
The following users thanked this post: kav

iar000

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: Long term fallacies
« Reply #1 on: May 29, 2017, 09:54:15 PM »
----  Let's assume that the next number is 33, 6 pockets CW from 8, add it to the previous total 6+32=38, divide the sum by 3   -----

Why you divide by 3 and not 2 , explain me please and give other example

Thanks
 

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1416
  • Thanked: 211 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Long term fallacies
« Reply #2 on: May 30, 2017, 01:44:03 AM »

Quote
The whole concept of the House Edge is based on the fallacy that everything should balance in some vague distant future.-BlueAngel

No it's not.  It's based on a payout that's short of what the odds dictate as being fair.  For example if you bet all of the numbers you will find you're paid back less than what you bet.  After only one spin, you're right at expectation.

Quote
I'm asking you, have you ever track numbers for 1,000 spins, for 10,000, for 100,000?-BlueAngel

Yes, I have one of the largest archives in the world of live spins from real wheels.  Have you ever tracked more than a few hundred numbers from a specific wheel?  (By the way, Speilburg..etc doesn't count, since it's actually a collection of several wheels rotated in and out of the same position.)

-Real

 

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: Long term fallacies
« Reply #3 on: May 30, 2017, 05:04:51 AM »
Why you divide by 3 and not 2 , explain me please and give other example

Simply because the divisor is not a fixed number, as the total of skips/distances grows the same happens for the divisor.
You begin by dividing by 2 the first 2 distances and when you have a third skip/distance you'll divide by 3, when you've 4 skips/distances you'll divide by 4...etc
In other words you are updating the average with each and every spin.
 

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: Long term fallacies
« Reply #4 on: May 30, 2017, 05:49:07 AM »
The first leg of your double-fold response is half-correct because something is missing...in order the slightly reduced payouts to affect us in a meaningful way 2 things have to happen:

1) We've to play long enough (I'm not talking about the duration of a single session)
2) After long play a few could still be ahead even with reduced payouts, that's because their bets return more money than the money lost on the way.
There is no contradiction in the above statement, if after a significant amount of results someone is ahead nothing could force him/her lose regardless of what's his/her betting method is.
I'm going to give a very simple example:

Nick flat bets red for 10,000 spins and finds himself ahead by 596 units.
Jane flat bets on black for the same spins and she's down by 620 units.

Nick is satisfied with his bottom line and decides to change nothing for the upcoming 10,000 spins.
Jane considers her drawdown as temporal and decides to stick with her selection because it's due and slightly raises her unit value from 1 to 2 (double).
After 10,000 spins, red dominates once again and Nick extends his lead by 213 units more.
While Jane realizes that black wasn't due after all and digs her hole even deeper.

Whether you understand it or not, the whole concept of the House Edge is based that events eventually should balance, but there is nothing which forces events to balance (except if the game is crooked).
At least in theory, we could back always winners, we could bet everything which can happen and end up with more profit than loss.
Long term is the accumulation of many sessions and a session is the accumulation of many bets, if you take care your short term then long term would follow.
There is nothing more absurd than the claims of those who consider short term and long term as irrelevant, they've decided to stick their sit-head in the sand, they've chosen to live in denial, they are the long term losers and I'm not feeling sorry for them.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2017, 09:59:00 AM by kav »
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2078
  • Thanked: 434 times
Re: Long term fallacies
« Reply #5 on: May 30, 2017, 08:59:34 AM »

REAL
Why do you keep posting on a site you claimed was no longer in existence ?
 

iar000

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 28
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: Long term fallacies
« Reply #6 on: May 30, 2017, 11:24:57 AM »
Why you divide by 3 and not 2 , explain me please and give other example

Simply because the divisor is not a fixed number, as the total of skips/distances grows the same happens for the divisor.
You begin by dividing by 2 the first 2 distances and when you have a third skip/distance you'll divide by 3, when you've 4 skips/distances you'll divide by 4...etc
In other words you are updating the average with each and every spin.

And this method work ??
 

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: Long term fallacies
« Reply #7 on: May 30, 2017, 11:34:58 AM »
Results might vary from one player to the next, therefore you should contact your own analysis and draw your own conclusions.

A strategy/system to be successful on testing and real play must be based on valid principle(s).
This is what I've done here, spoke about betting principles instead of saying something like: ''hey guys, I've tested this for 1000 spins and wins!''

You are not speaking with a rookie.

 
The following users thanked this post: MrPerfect.

MrPerfect.

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1363
  • Thanked: 787 times
Re: Long term fallacies
« Reply #8 on: May 30, 2017, 09:10:54 PM »
 Betting on average is almost always betting in the hole between 2 good picks on graph. At least it's valid when it's about distances. Many teams lost money because of average distance.
    It's always good to look them ( distances), but only 2 valid aproaches are:
   1. Distance that repeat the most
    2. Cover entire dispercion.
  Wich one of 2 is more uplicable in every individual case is for player to decide ( based on chart he does).
 
The following users thanked this post: BlueAngel

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: Long term fallacies
« Reply #9 on: May 31, 2017, 11:03:38 AM »
Betting on average is almost always betting in the hole between 2 good picks on graph. At least it's valid when it's about distances. Many teams lost money because of average distance.
    It's always good to look them ( distances), but only 2 valid aproaches are:
   1. Distance that repeat the most
    2. Cover entire dispercion.
  Wich one of 2 is more uplicable in every individual case is for player to decide ( based on chart he does).

This is only comprehended by savvy players, the rest could gamble on ''due'' chances and Martingales.

It is amazing to me the fact that after more than 2 centuries till today people keep re-discovering the doubling ups and the ''due'' bet selections!

After all these years their mind frame cannot progress even in the slightest towards a proper direction.

Just think about it, if Martingales and ''due'' chances were the solution they would have found the "holy grail'' 2 centuries ago and there would be nothing else for all of us to discover and reap.

This is not a subjective opinion, but an indisputable fact.
A fool is born every day (or should I say hour?), this explains partially why the same ole useless information are being recycled for centuries.

But hey, the game needs losers too...
 
The following users thanked this post: MrPerfect.

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: Long term fallacies
« Reply #10 on: May 31, 2017, 12:44:29 PM »


- The Betting Plan -

On the initial post I've analysed some betting selection criteria, here I'm going to propose a betting scheme based on the ''Pendulum'' from Charles Devil Wells (the man who broke the bank multiple times)

Since we are betting 6 numbers every time their cycle are 6 spins (6*6=36).
Our base bet will be 10 units on each of the 6 numbers, thus 60 units total.
The ''Pendulum'' is based on d'Alembert but acts within a given range, in other words has predetermined limitations.

We might use this betting tool as negative progression (up as you lose) or positive (up as you win).
It's relatively mild therefore effectively spreading the risk in more spins/results.

Let me first describe how you may apply the negative version.
After 6 lost bets of 6 numbers each I'm raising the units to 11 on each number and the total bet becomes 66 units.
Let's say I'm losing 6 spins more, I'd raise to 12 units on each number, thus 72 units total.
On the 3rd bet one of my numbers hits and the gross return is 12*36=432 units
Since I won I'm reducing to 11 units on each number but my next bet is the 4th of this 11 units cycle, therefore if I'd lose my next 3 bets (4th,5th and 6th) I'd raise again to 12 units.
Let's assume I'm losing the next 3 bets and now raise to 12 units on each number.
On the 2nd bet of the 12 units cycle I win for second time and the total becomes:

(2*432)-[(6*60)+(6*66)+(3*72)+(3*66)+(2*72)]=
[864-(360+396+216+198+144)]=
864-1314= -450 units

Since I've won the 2nd bet of the 12 units cycle my next bet will be the 3rd of the 11 units cycle.
Let's say I'm winning the 6th bet of the 11 units cycle and my total becomes:

(11*36)-
[(66*4)+450]=
[396-(264+450)]

396-714= -318 units

Since I've won the 6th bet of the 11 units cycle my next bet will be the 1st of the same 11 units cycle.
I'm winning the 2nd bet and the total becomes:

(11*36)-[(66*2)+318]=
[396-(132+318)]=
396-450= -54 units

I've won
the 2nd bet
of the 11 units cycle and the next bet is the 3rd of the 10 units cycle.

The idea is to keep a continuous count while you are increasing/decreasing units between 6 spins cycles.

Where to stop, obviously one way is to reach 1 unit cycle and win that cycle too, or to reach 19 units cycle and lose that cycle too.
In other words, 9 winning or losing cycles.
But this could happen rarely (if ever), thus a much less time consuming target would be to stop at any profit.

The positive version is using the exact same counting technique among 6 spins cycles but instead of increasing after a loss it increases after a win.
Example:

After 6 lost bets of 6 numbers each I'm reducing the units to 9 on each number and the total bet becomes 54 units.
Let's say I'm losing 6 spins more, I'd decrease to 8 units on each number, thus 48 units total.
On the 3rd bet one of my numbers hits and the gross return is 8*36=288 units
Since I won I'm increasing to 9 units on each number but my next bet is the 4th of this 9 units cycle, therefore if I'd lose my next 3 bets (4th,5th and 6th) I'd reduce again to 8 units.
Let's assume I'm losing the next 3 bets and now reduce to 8 units on each number.
On the 2nd bet of the 8 units cycle I win for second time and the total becomes:

(2*288)-[(6*60)+(6*54)+(3*48)+(3*54)+(2*48)]=
[576-(360+324+144+162+96)]=
576-1086= -424 units

Since I've won the 2nd bet of the 8 units cycle my next bet will be the 3rd of the 9 units cycle.
Let's say I'm winning the 6th bet of the 9 units cycle and my total becomes:

(9*36)-[(54*4)+424]=
[324-(216+424)]
324-640= -276 units

Since I've won the 6th bet of the 9 units cycle my next bet will be the 1st of the same 9 units cycle.
I'm winning the 2nd bet and the total becomes:

(9*36)-[(54*2)+276]=
[324-(108+276)]=
324-384= -60 units
I've won the 2nd bet of the 9 units cycle and the next bet is the 3rd of the 10 units cycle.

I strongly recommend to try the selection first with flat bets and then decide about the betting plan.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2017, 01:34:54 PM by BlueAngel »
 
The following users thanked this post: Jake007, MrPerfect.

MrPerfect.

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1363
  • Thanked: 787 times
Re: Long term fallacies
« Reply #11 on: May 31, 2017, 01:44:28 PM »
Very good point, Blue Angel.
     Flat bet is what players should base their strategy upon.  If it doesn't work with flat bet, it's very difficult to solve with progressions.
    This is what l normally tend to do:
  Find bet selection that works with flat bet. Optimise bet selection to straight up the bank grow line . Find proper way of betting to optimally explore opportunity. 
    Exactly in the order mentioned above... it's a perfect algorithm of action.
 
The following users thanked this post: BlueAngel

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: Long term fallacies
« Reply #12 on: May 31, 2017, 02:42:04 PM »
@ mr Perfect,

Are you from Kiev?
I've been at Ukraine for several months during 2008 and 2012, guess why...;-)
I've played at casinos of Nikolaev, Odessa, Kiev and Kharkov.
In general I've been at Lughansk,Poltava and Izmail too.
I recall once when I was at the big complex of Kharkov (don't remember name) it had restaurants,bars,club,bowling and of course casino with full table games and slots.
I played a bit of blackjack just for fun and was left with just 1 chip and I thought 'let's get rid of it too'', but I start winning and eventually went to the cashier with hands full of chips:-)
The same situation has happened at a relatively small casino at Odessa (don't remember name).
At a small one inside hotel ''Mir'' at Kharkov, when I asked dealer ''what if I get triple 7?'' (was kidding) replied seriously ''maybe champaign and prive dinner for 2'' (on the house).
Was doing pretty well till an Englishman pop up out of the blue and he begin betting 500 pounds per hand on my decisions...unnecessary to say that since then action turned southwards...
A bit later I left with reduced but modest profit and the 2 doormen stered at me like I was a thief, while I was walking away I felt their glazes peircing on my back...!
At Kiev I had a few great nights at "River palace" and ''Arena''.

Since then, unfortunately, the gambling law changed, also several other things changed at Ukraine and it's not such good tourist destination anymore.

What's the situation with casinos now?
If they operate without license they could screw you up...
« Last Edit: May 31, 2017, 02:45:32 PM by BlueAngel »
 
The following users thanked this post: Jake007

MrPerfect.

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1363
  • Thanked: 787 times
Re: Long term fallacies
« Reply #13 on: May 31, 2017, 03:33:42 PM »
I'm not from Kiev. 
   Situation there is anarchy. 
 

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: Long term fallacies
« Reply #14 on: May 31, 2017, 03:54:14 PM »
I'm not from Kiev. 
   Situation there is anarchy.

Is there any licensed casino now or all underground?