BetOnline

Author Topic: Long term fallacies  (Read 2990 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BlueAngel

  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1570
  • Thanked: 234 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: Long term fallacies
« Reply #75 on: June 06, 2017, 09:02:36 AM »

BA
Nice example of Money Management  but  20 times the Bet is ,I think, sufficient .
Thanks again.

Most would consider it quite low, 33 times the base bet is insufficient for the majority because they don't have any edge over the game.

That's why they try to stay alive with hit n run and much more money than what they are hoping to win.

Just imagine them as ineffective generals who completely rely on sheer luck and numbers in order to survive...
 

MrPerfect.

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1031
  • Thanked: 586 times
Re: Long term fallacies
« Reply #76 on: June 06, 2017, 12:01:09 PM »
 BA , if your edge do not come from VB, you are bias player , right? It's even more easy to see. I can send you data on bias wheel , so you create a model. Data will be on days with high atmospheric pressure and you are required to predict what gonna be on rainy days.
   Or even more easy. Show where your edge comes from. Bias players need data to play. You say you get more then 10k samples. Why wouldn't you send me one ?
   Something tells me that this challenge is "insignificant " as well...
   As you can see, l offered all reasonable ways to prove your tolk. What you gonna do?
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2055
  • Thanked: 426 times
Re: Long term fallacies
« Reply #77 on: June 06, 2017, 01:12:09 PM »

Betting the way I do, Angel , I have found 20 times my bet sufficient - so far anyway. And I do play a version of Hit and Run .
Incidentally, the 20 times the bet  is the view of some in  Horse Race Betting circles .They also think that  we should not risk  any more than 5% of our bank on any one bet . Our Progression fraternity might like to ponder on that advice.   
Most Authorities think that you cannot create an Edge with Modern Wheels.   
IMO  you can only create an Edge by using an assumption so  this is only a perceived Edge . . We gamblers should be aware that the casino HAS an advantage that can only be overcome by us using assumptions but be aware that these assumptions are subject to the variance in spins  - AS  IS  THE  CASINO !
There is no Easy Money in gambling and newcomers (newbies ) should not be encouraged to think that there is..
First I knew that you were a Roulette Professional . Congrats !

 

BlueAngel

  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1570
  • Thanked: 234 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: Long term fallacies
« Reply #78 on: June 06, 2017, 04:28:10 PM »
@ mr Perfect, like I said before, you may assume whatever you want, whether it reflects reality it's another thing.

@ Scepticus,
Implementing sports betting techniques to roulette I consider it inappropriate because you have to take into account almost all those ''small things'' which make each gamble different from the rest.

There is no generic solution like ''one size fits all'', you've to specialize your method(s) according your knowledge and experience.
Consider in detail almost every characteristic of your game(s) and combine them in one unified strategy.

If you can do well with such compact budget then you are one of the very few who achieved it!
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2055
  • Thanked: 426 times
Re: Long term fallacies
« Reply #79 on: June 06, 2017, 05:32:05 PM »

I am not "implementing sports techniques " . They are   " maths techniques " and these are transferable .. You obviously don't understand this so you shouldn't dismiss so lightly something you don't understand ,
Thanks for the compliment . If it was meant as a compliment  !
 

BlueAngel

  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1570
  • Thanked: 234 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: Long term fallacies
« Reply #80 on: June 06, 2017, 08:54:40 PM »
Scep, you have to understand that the odds for horse races are not based on fixed odds such as on roulette.

The odds for horse racing are being influenced by a number of direct and indirect factors, which makes the whole situation more complicated.
Additionally, you don't have available horse races to bet on 24/7.
Therefore, what's good for sports betting doesn't make it good for roulette too and vice versa.

Now I'm going to make a bold claim which is against the traditional and mainstream math theory of roulette.

Fixed odds are based on the assumption that at any given time, any number has equal chance to hit.
If that was true then please explain me why everytime I play roulette a few numbers have 4 to 6 hits while a few others are missing for 111 plus spins, why?
Is it because every number have equal chance?
You might argue that every number eventually will balance, when exactly is going to happen ?
Even if we'd accept it as de facto, is it practical to wait if/when this would happen?

But who am I to argue with math professors and the whole history of the game, as the hardcore roulette physics lobby is preaching.
I'm noone, I know nothing, you should keep doing what you already doing without a glimmer of doubt.

Good luck!
 

MrPerfect.

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1031
  • Thanked: 586 times
Re: Long term fallacies
« Reply #81 on: June 06, 2017, 10:45:20 PM »
BA, what's so bold about your statement?  Its a  banality. If numbers had same chance to hit at any given spin, AP wouldn't exist.
    It's one for these " long term fallacies" .
 
The following users thanked this post: BlueAngel

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2055
  • Thanked: 426 times
Re: Long term fallacies
« Reply #82 on: June 07, 2017, 12:54:58 AM »
Cheese and Rice,  Blue Angel. , you still don’t get it  !
Yes, the Nine Blocks and the 5 in 7 for Even Chances were designed for football but they are maths concepts .They  can be used in any situation involving 3 items and 2 items such as Dozens ( 3 ) , Columns(3 ) and the Even Chances (2 ) in roulette. They are not exclusive to sports .
As for  each  number not having an equal chance all that is meant here is that no one knows which number will hit and , in that sense , they all have an equal chance of occurring .
You don’t have to preach to me about blindly  accepting the Maths Guys claims of certainty. They don’t have much of a clue either as to what the next winning numbers will be.
Perhaps those unfortunates who lost house, home, marriages should sue the pontificators who smugly and arrogantly preach that they were likely to lose 2.7% of their money plus any winnings that they may have made.
We should all be aware that we may  lose all of our betting money and that there is no Easy Money in any gambling environment . .
Incidentally, what is your average weekly profit betting roulette  professionally ?
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2055
  • Thanked: 426 times
Re: Long term fallacies
« Reply #83 on: June 07, 2017, 12:59:05 AM »

Mr. Perfect
You claimed that you  profited from betting roulette but you was not a professional  . What would you regard as an amount that would make anyone a roulette professional if they chose to do so
 

BlueAngel

  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1570
  • Thanked: 234 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: Long term fallacies
« Reply #84 on: June 07, 2017, 11:04:55 AM »
Incidentally, what is your average weekly profit betting roulette  professionally ?

First let me get one thing straight, what we call a ''whale'' in gambling language is not a professional.
A ''whale'' is gambling large amounts of money without any advantage over the game, while a professional player makes his/her living solely by betting not necessarily huge amounts.

There is also a distinction between the one who is in positive balance over the long term but the profit cannot support his/her lifestyle because it's insufficient, this is what I call the part-timer.
Amateurs and part-timers make up for the 90% of all gamblers, while the rest 10% are the ''whales'' and the pros.

I'm aiming to win 100 up to 400 units per session, my bets have a net return from 3% up to 20% per session.
I play approximately 5 sessions per week and my average net profit is approximately 700 to 1000 units.
 

dobbelsteen

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1413
  • Thanked: 375 times
Re: Long term fallacies
« Reply #85 on: June 07, 2017, 11:10:11 AM »
There is a big difference between the chance and the occurrence of an event.  There is a  relation between the largeness of a variance and the number op spins.The features of the short run event is more interested than what happens in a one million event
 
The following users thanked this post: BlueAngel

MrPerfect.

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1031
  • Thanked: 586 times
Re: Long term fallacies
« Reply #86 on: June 07, 2017, 04:47:57 PM »

Mr. Perfect
You claimed that you  profited from betting roulette but you was not a professional  . What would you regard as an amount that would make anyone a roulette professional if they chose to do so
If you get enough money to live from your work - you are professional.  Amount is personal,  some need more, some less. Normally people start to breathe free with 3 average wages. For UK 2k / week is acceptable. 
 

BlueAngel

  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1570
  • Thanked: 234 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: Long term fallacies
« Reply #87 on: July 13, 2017, 01:41:10 PM »
On the beginning of this topic I'm suggesting to calculate every distance between the last 2 points, the distance measurement from point A to point B is in pockets.
Thus we add each new distance to the total and then divided it in order to find the mean/average.

However, this is just one way but we could test similar variations such as aggregating spins in 2 categories/totals, 1 for ClockWise direction and a separate for CounterClockWise direction.
Therefore you'd bet 3 adjacent pockets per spin instead of 6 which being recommended on the first post of this topic.

The difference between these variations is that the original method calculates the derivatives and bets from the ongoing point that distance in both directions (CW & CCW) simultaneously, additionally bets the immediate neighbors (right & left side) for both of the points, thus 3 + 3 pockets bet equals 6 numbers/units per spin/bet.

The second variable bets either 3 pockets towards CW or CCW direction, that's 3 numbers/units per spin/bet.
The direction of the calculated distance depends from the direction of the ball on forthcoming spin.

There is also a third variation, instead of adding every new distance we would subtract distances from an arbitrary total, this total is 666.
For example we have the following results:

29

36

31

22

8

36

27

26

5

The distances between these points are the following:

POINTS        DISTANCES

29             
                  20 CW / 17 CCW
36
                  13 CW / 24 CCW
31
                  2  CW / 35 CCW
22
                  25 CW / 12 CCW
8
                  34 CW / 3 CCW     
36
                  35 CW / 2 CCW     
27
                  25 CW / 12 CCW       
26
                  20 CW / 17 CCW     
5

We begin by subtracting 666-20=646, this was from the first distance, next step is to divide the remaining total, in this case 646 by the number of remaining steps, in this case 35, thus 646/35= 18.46 which means to bet the 18 and 19 distance from current point, as the ongoing point floats the same distances will pinpoint different numbers, it's a dynamic process.

You might wonder why 666 total and why 36 steps?
If you add all possible distances, which are 37, you'd find the 666 total, so by dividing this total by the number of all possible distances which are 36 (disregarding 0 distance) you arrive to 18 which is the mean/average distance.
In wheel's layout perspective distance of 18.5 or 18 to 19 pockets away means the number which is directly across the other side of the wheel, at the antipode.
Therefore if we had a symmetrically balanced distribution of balls/distances we would witness the mean to be 18 to 19 pockets distance, or very close to it.
That's why 666, 36 and 18 are not accidentally being chosen.
I'm aware that such number brings unintentionally connections with the pits of hell, pit-bosses...etc!;-D

If you'd like to study further the principles of the described methods then here are 2 good links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divided_differences

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_polynomial
                       
« Last Edit: July 13, 2017, 01:43:31 PM by BlueAngel »
 
The following users thanked this post: scepticus

BlueAngel

  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1570
  • Thanked: 234 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: Long term fallacies
« Reply #88 on: July 14, 2017, 04:23:59 PM »


I believe roulette is a microcosmos of the real world, a reflection of our life which is mostly diverse and paradoxically achieves balances through imbalances.

Roulette is like a mirror in which everyone sees different things, a fallacious mirage if you will.

By trying to learn the secrets of roulette, I've gained a deeper understanding of myself...
By learning the value of loss I became eventually a winner.

Some more related links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagonal_matrix

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace_distribution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_of_unity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circulant_matrix