728x90 welcome bonus

Author Topic: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness  (Read 4820 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

palestis

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 624
  • Thanked: 419 times
Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
« Reply #45 on: August 20, 2016, 03:03:22 PM »
“Yes, but I am willing to forgo them to lessen the bankroll needed when I do bet . And both my simulations and my actual betting confirm that “

Different strokes for different folks.

scep, you're assuming that there is a benefit to virtual losses and that this is that it lessens the bankroll needed. Why should it lessen the bankroll?

palestis is saying that it is safer to wait for a streak of 7 because "you hardly ever see streaks of 10". But having found a streak of 7, it is then no less likely that it will turn into a streak of 10 than a single will turn into a streak of 4. This is because, as I keeping saying (and people keep ignoring), the relationship between streaks of successive lengths is the same. And note that these very statistics are what Reyth keeps reminding us "naysayers" of!

So starting from bet 1, it is not more likely that you will encounter a streak of 3 against you than if you wait for a streak of 7. The chance of a streak of 3 against you has a fixed probability of 1/8, and that's it. The fallacy lies in thinking that because you often see streaks of 3 but hardly ever streaks of 10, then it must be better to start from a streak of 7. If you actually count up your wins and losses you'll see that there is no advantage.
Bayes
What you are actually trying to say is that by waiting for a 5,6,7 streak of virtual losses, I am setting myself up for a new record to be broken, or if that's too extreme to happen, I am setting myself up for an UNUSUAL increase in the number of LONG STREAKS never seen before in a table of daily results. Long enough to exceed the range of bets that I am going to place, to ensure that I will lose.
First of all I am not going to run into a new record because my range of bets is limited.
Secondly I am not going to change the landscape that we see every day, and out of the blue frequent  extra long streaks will start to emerge, something that we never saw before. 
What you see in the picture is a typical landscape that you are very likely to see every day, every time, in every roulette in this world.
How can my action of waiting for several virtual losses change this landscape and start producing pictures that we have never seen before?  Not once not twice, but quite often. I doubt that this picture can ever change, except on a very few rare occasions.
I don't compare the results of betting only after so many virtual losses to constant betting from the beginning. Because it's not a fair comparison.
Constant betting from the beginning has a certain ending. Loss at least to the HE.
If I was playing the session depicted below, and run into the 6 or 7 numbers streak, and lucky to guess the right color I would be winning $10,10,10,10,10, 10, 10. However if I picked the wrong color, I would be losing 10,20,40,80,160, 320,640. In a on line casino with 10 cents minimum, it would be no problem at all. But in that case you are playing for hobby. Not to make  money.
But in a real casino environment most players would not be able to handle this progression, either because they already lost their B/R in the first few steps, or for fear of losing too much for a benefit that's too small. Realistically, such playing style is impossible.
Playing the way I suggest even after 5 virtual losses and only 3 bets after that, would've resulted in winning all across the board. How can you ignore such a powerful fact?
I would definitely agree with you, if you showed me, a picture of daily results where streaks of 10+ numbers were just as many as  streaks of 5 numbers. But I doubt if such picture exists. Or if you find one, chances are you won't see it again any time soon.
And every time this question arises, theory proponents points us to simulations of several million spins, where it shows that new limits may exist and that old records can be broken.
What it doesn't point out is the hundreds of thousands of cases where results resemble what you see in the picture below.

« Last Edit: August 20, 2016, 03:34:27 PM by palestis »
 
The following users thanked this post: december, Reyth, juice

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2040
  • Thanked: 421 times
Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
« Reply #46 on: August 20, 2016, 03:06:41 PM »
“Yes, but I am willing to forgo them to lessen the bankroll needed when I do bet . And both my simulations and my actual betting confirm that “

Different strokes for different folks.

scep, you're assuming that there is a benefit to virtual losses and that this is that it lessens the bankroll needed. Why should it lessen the bankroll?

palestis is saying that it is safer to wait for a streak of 7 because "you hardly ever see streaks of 10". But having found a streak of 7, it is then no less likely that it will turn into a streak of 10 than a single will turn into a streak of 4. This is because, as I keeping saying (and people keep ignoring), the relationship between streaks of successive lengths is the same. And note that these very statistics are what Reyth keeps reminding us "naysayers" of!

So starting from bet 1, it is not more likely that you will encounter a streak of 3 against you than if you wait for a streak of 7. The chance of a streak of 3 against you has a fixed probability of 1/8, and that's it. The fallacy lies in thinking that because you often see streaks of 3 but hardly ever streaks of 10, then it must be better to start from a streak of 7. If you actually count up your wins and losses you'll see that there is no advantage.
Yes, Bayes, you are right -IN THEORY. But are you right in  actual practice ? I think it LOGICAL  to use virtual bets in practice .
If Palestis does  bet the way you suggest how much does he  LOSE if a win occurs early ? Nothing. How much does he WIN if a win comes early.? Nothing. Palestis is quite happy to forgo a POTENTIAL win to evade a POTENTIAL loss which would require a much larger bankroll.

If he bets your way if NO WIN comes early how much does he lose ?  And how much does he have to bet to win back his losses ? Quite a bit. Also, I don’t think you factor in the zero.
Betting his way the bankroll he needs is MUCH less than doing it your way IF A WIN DOES NOT COME EARLY !
He  prefers WAITING.
Different strokes for different folks.
His money .His Choice.
p.s,
I am prejudiced . I think the Long Run is irrelevant in actual betting and I think that is what you are relying on here.
I also think that maths geeks would not agree with your chosen method although I might.
 
The following users thanked this post: december, Reyth

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1830
  • Thanked: 801 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
« Reply #47 on: August 20, 2016, 03:26:07 PM »
Palestis,

Quote
I would definitely agree with you, if you showed me, a picture of daily results where streaks of 10+ numbers were just as many as  streaks of 5 numbers.

Bayes (and probability theory) is not saying that there are the same streaks of 5 as they are streaks of 10. They say that no matter the length of the streak, half the next spins will be Black and half will be Red.

So on average 1600 streaks would be divided likewise:

800 streaks of 1
400 streaks of 2
200 streaks of 3
100 streaks 0f 4
50 streaks of 5
25 streaks of 6
12 streaks of 7
6 streaks of 8
3 streaks of 9
2 streak of 10
1 streak of 11
You got the picture. Each time half the streaks continue and half the streaks break.
The absolute numbers decrease, but the percentage remains the same: 50%.

Put simply, theoretically most triggers just limit your losses by limiting your attempts. Limiting at the same time your opportunities to win. No real benefit. That's the theory.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2016, 03:35:40 PM by kav »
 

palestis

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 624
  • Thanked: 419 times
Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
« Reply #48 on: August 20, 2016, 04:33:31 PM »
 
Palestis,

Quote
I would definitely agree with you, if you showed me, a picture of daily results where streaks of 10+ numbers were just as many as  streaks of 5 numbers.

Bayes (and probability theory) is not saying that there are the same streaks of 5 as they are streaks of 10. They say that no matter the length of the streak, half the next spins will be Black and half will be Red.

So on average 1600 streaks would be divided likewise:

800 streaks of 1
400 streaks of 2
200 streaks of 3
100 streaks 0f 4
50 streaks of 5
25 streaks of 6
12 streaks of 7
6 streaks of 8
3 streaks of 9
2 streak of 10
1 streak of 11
You got the picture. Each time half the streaks continue and half the streaks break.
The absolute numbers decrease, but the percentage remains the same: 50%.

Put simply, theoretically most triggers just limit your losses by limiting your attempts. Limiting at the same time your opportunities to win. No real benefit. That's the theory.
Kav don't forget that in a big casino you are likely to find dozens of roulettes open and active at any given time. What I am waiting for, may not be available in one roulette, but it would definitely be available in another. What you are saying is true if I sat down in one roulette only.
When you observe many roulettes, you have plenty of opportunities to bet even under the restrictions of virtual losses. In one roulette you might not see a color anomaly but you might see an odd/even anomaly. Or H/L. Or something else, that you recognize for a certain system.
With many roulettes under observation there is no shortage of betting opportunities.
Chasing winning opportunities without consultation of previous results will lead to a definite loss.
Because regardless of how many wins I had, when I run into a 6 number streak and play the opposite, I will either lose too much to bear or quit before I execute the entire progression.
That's the problem.
Where betting after 6, or 7 or more of one thing, I expect to hit the opposite more often than not. Because to lose I have to always exceed the rare. And just because I observe many roulettes, it doesn't mean that the rare becomes common occurrence. But that's what it has to happen, in order to lose. 

It's like the Martingale or the law of the third. For example bankroll and table limits make the Martingale non-viable while it is a great idea. IF we accept that in 200 spins one can encounter no more than 135 losses, this is great to know, but very hard to devise a method to make a profit.
Taken from your own example, if in 120 spins we encountered 100 losses (even if they are virtual),  out of the 135 allowed, does that mean that in the next 80 spins (to complete the 200 spin cycle), we are likely to see another 80 losses, when the limit we know of is only 135 losses?
For me it means one thing and one thing only. If we exhausted most losses AT THE BEGINNING,(virtual or real), what remains will be many more wins.
According to Bayes if the losses happened at the beginning and all together in a long cluster,
then we are in danger of breaking the record or encounter a new event, we never saw before . And that's what I strongly disagree with
« Last Edit: August 20, 2016, 04:49:27 PM by palestis »
 
The following users thanked this post: december, Reyth

Bayes

  • Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 688
  • Thanked: 550 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
« Reply #49 on: August 21, 2016, 05:41:59 AM »
According to Bayes if the losses happened at the beginning and all together in a long cluster,
then we are in danger of breaking the record or encounter a new event, we never saw before . And that's what I strongly disagree with

palestis, that's not at all what I'm saying, as Kav has tried to tell you in his last post. I'm sorry but you're just not getting it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xgx4k83zzc

Not only that, but you won't accept any simulation as evidence either, because you think a computer can't mimic a player's style of betting, even though I explained that the style of betting isn't what's at issue, it's whether virtual losses are used or not.

 

Bayes

  • Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 688
  • Thanked: 550 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
« Reply #50 on: August 21, 2016, 06:17:49 AM »
@ Kav,

I think perhaps you're right and that I shouldn't have made this thread about the limits of randomness as well as virtual losses. It is just muddying the waters.

In fact if we accept your "practical" limits it still doesn't make a dent in my argument regarding virtual losses, because let's say that there really is a limit (for the even chances, it's 36, which is the longest recorded streak). In that case, this doesn't affect the stats and probability which say that up to a streak of 36, or even 25, it's still true that the chance of a streak continuing or breaking is 50%. That's enough to discredit the idea that starting your bets at a streak of 7 is somehow better than starting at a streak of 1.

But some who will admit that the chance of a streak ending is always 50%, deny the logical conclusion that virtual losses don't have an effect, and say it's only "theory". Oh well, I've tried, and perhaps the silent majority have "got it".

I'll write a simulation anyway.  ;)
« Last Edit: August 21, 2016, 09:25:57 AM by Bayes »
 

GameNeverOver

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 208
  • Thanked: 12 times
Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
« Reply #51 on: August 21, 2016, 06:20:55 AM »
@Palestis I'm with you on this one.
There are three phases in roulette:

1) "normal phase"
2) "destabilization phase"
3) "stabilization phase"

Waiting for a trigger is nothing but waiting for the "destabilization phase" to occur and get to or near its peak and winning is about cashing big on the "stabilization phase".

There are few approaches that result in profits in the short run and exploit the "normal phase" weaknesses but that is little risky because you never know when the wheel will enter in "destabilization phase" so I don't recommend using big money here.

Simple as that. :)

=GNO=
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Bayes

  • Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 688
  • Thanked: 550 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
« Reply #52 on: August 21, 2016, 06:22:03 AM »
Quote
We can walk around and we can look for triggers, as long we know we do it just  because it is more fun.

You could also change it up.  If you see a woman in a green dress then that could be your betting trigger.  It should produce the same results.  ;)

Real, I sent a couple of replies to your pm. Did you get them? Just asking because the pm system on this forum is unreliable.
 

Bayes

  • Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 688
  • Thanked: 550 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
« Reply #53 on: August 21, 2016, 06:27:55 AM »
@ GameNeverOver,

Waiting for a trigger is nothing but waiting for the "destabilization phase" to occur

you never know when the wheel will enter in "destabilization phase" so I don't recommend using big money here.

Those statements are contradictory. If you never know when the "destabilization" phase will occur then why use triggers which attempt to capitalize on it?

It doesn't make any sense to say "just in case", because if you don't know then you don't know. Knowing nothing isn't grounds for making one decision in favour of any other.
 
The following users thanked this post: mr j, MrPerfect.