Author Topic: Systems vs AP - where do you draw the line?  (Read 1944 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Thanked: 558 times
  • roulettician.com
Systems vs AP - where do you draw the line?
« on: March 19, 2017, 02:21:29 PM »
I noticed in a recent post our resident "AP guy" Mr P said that the only difference between AP and systems is that AP focuses on the wheel and not the layout. This doesn't seem right to me because you could convert most systems to that kind of "AP" by merely converting layout bets to wheel bets.

IMO the main differences are two:

  • AP uses data based on an individual wheel, not some abstract wheel (so AP can't be applied without discrimination on all wheels).
  • AP takes into account the physics of the device and data pertaining to it, not generic statistics which apply to an idealized version of the game.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2017, 02:24:25 PM by Bayes »


 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
  • Thanked: 1278 times
Re: Systems vs AP - where do you draw the line?
« Reply #1 on: March 19, 2017, 02:23:41 PM »
Even AP has to deal with random sequences and so the two methods don't have to be related to achieve the same result?
 

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Thanked: 558 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: Systems vs AP - where do you draw the line?
« Reply #2 on: March 19, 2017, 02:27:41 PM »
I think the AP would deny that. S/He would demand that we first find out whether we're dealing with random sequences. If we are, no AP is possible.

So perhaps that's another criteria which defines AP: AP doesn't assume randomness, it looks for evidence of lack of it. Whereas the system player assumes randomness and this is no obstacle to play.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2017, 02:29:31 PM by Bayes »
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
  • Thanked: 1278 times
Re: Systems vs AP - where do you draw the line?
« Reply #3 on: March 19, 2017, 02:36:26 PM »
They must admit that randomness is at work, its BIAS that they are saying gives them a physical edge?
 

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Thanked: 558 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: Systems vs AP - where do you draw the line?
« Reply #4 on: March 19, 2017, 02:42:08 PM »
Yep, bias, but to what degree? Real says that all wheels are biased "to a certain extent". Even VB depends on bias. Randomness implies no bias.
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
  • Thanked: 1278 times
Re: Systems vs AP - where do you draw the line?
« Reply #5 on: March 19, 2017, 02:58:27 PM »
Their worldview requires a premise that it is impossible win without bias.  Only bias can allow them to win and that it is hopeless to win using just the random sequences.

You can't fault the philiosophy for its rugged survivalism.

It is impossible to prove that a system player cannot take bias into account using his system without even being aware of it.

Its the same destination but the perspectives are different whilst getting there.

Pip, pip, cheerio?
 
The following users thanked this post: Bayes

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1935
  • Thanked: 924 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Systems vs AP - where do you draw the line?
« Reply #6 on: March 19, 2017, 04:01:56 PM »
Bayes,

Since you are usually very careful with words, let me correct you by saying that bias can be random. Even a wheel in which the size of the pocket of one number is double, is still random. The probabilities for each number are not the same, but the game is random.
 
« Last Edit: March 19, 2017, 04:05:20 PM by kav »
 
The following users thanked this post: Bayes, Reyth

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Thanked: 558 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: Systems vs AP - where do you draw the line?
« Reply #7 on: March 19, 2017, 04:04:16 PM »
It is impossible to prove that a system player cannot take bias into account using his system without even being aware of it.

Agreed. In that case wouldn't it be better to design systems which take advantage of any possible bias instead of assuming no bias and designing systems around the principle that everything "evens out" or that events tend to "balance" (which is the principle that many systems are predicated on)?

@ Kav, yeah I should really have said "equally likely outcomes" (referring to pockets/numbers) instead of "random". Random is a tricky word to define. I would define a random wheel as one in which each pocket is equally likely to be hit and independent from every other pocket, both of which are assumptions for any given wheel.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2017, 04:20:12 PM by Bayes »
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Thanked: 558 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: Systems vs AP - where do you draw the line?
« Reply #8 on: March 19, 2017, 04:16:36 PM »
The probabilities for each number are not the same, but the game is random.

So how would you define a wheel which is not random?
 

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1935
  • Thanked: 924 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Systems vs AP - where do you draw the line?
« Reply #9 on: March 19, 2017, 04:23:03 PM »
A non random wheel is a wheel that is predictable.
A wheel, for which a certain outcome (spin sequence) would be impossible.

In this regard, AP guys seem victims of GF. Even if a number pocket had double size this doesn't mean in cannot sleep for 37 or 60 or even 90 spins. Considering the fact that AP involves much less advantage than double size of a number, one understands the futility of AP.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2017, 04:28:04 PM by kav »
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
  • Thanked: 1278 times
Re: Systems vs AP - where do you draw the line?
« Reply #10 on: March 19, 2017, 04:24:15 PM »
LOL.  I will stay quiet while the adults are talking. :/
 
The following users thanked this post: Bayes

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Thanked: 558 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: Systems vs AP - where do you draw the line?
« Reply #11 on: March 19, 2017, 04:28:46 PM »
hmmm... but if a wheel can be random and (to use your example) and have one pocket double the size of the others, then surely that wheel is "predictable" in a way in which a wheel with all pockets the same size, isn't. Note the contradiction.
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
  • Thanked: 1278 times
Re: Systems vs AP - where do you draw the line?
« Reply #12 on: March 19, 2017, 04:29:39 PM »
 :-X
 

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1935
  • Thanked: 924 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Systems vs AP - where do you draw the line?
« Reply #13 on: March 19, 2017, 04:32:37 PM »
In what way is it predictable?
Still any outcome is possible.
There is no spin in which you can say "Wait! I know what number will come next."

PS: This is why, the house edge is no big deal, while variance is the big deal. Probability is a description not a prediction of randomness. This is also why I say, that the math describe the problem - they are not the solution to the problem.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2017, 04:39:16 PM by kav »
 

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Thanked: 558 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: Systems vs AP - where do you draw the line?
« Reply #14 on: March 19, 2017, 04:34:07 PM »
In this regard, AP guys seem victims of GF. Even if a number pocket had double size this doesn't mean in cannot sleep for 37 or 60 or even 90 spins. Considering the fact that AP involves much less advantage than double size of a number, one understands the futility of AP.

But you're not taking into account the payouts. If the payouts remain the same I know which number I'd bet on, in spite of possible long losing sequences.  :)