Author Topic: Testing Actual Spins vs RNG  (Read 13949 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1828
  • Thanked: 800 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Testing Actual Spins vs RNG
« Reply #30 on: March 23, 2016, 10:47:54 PM »
Scarface,
How did you track the unhit numbers? It is not very easy to constantly keep track of the cold numbers. Because cold numbers hit and warm numbers get cold etc.
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3511
  • Thanked: 1081 times
Re: Testing Actual Spins vs RNG
« Reply #31 on: March 23, 2016, 11:40:19 PM »
Sometimes warm numbers are still cold too! :D
 

Scarface

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 60
  • Thanked: 47 times
Re: Testing Actual Spins vs RNG
« Reply #32 on: March 24, 2016, 12:05:32 AM »
Scarface,
How did you track the unhit numbers? It is not very easy to constantly keep track of the cold numbers. Because cold numbers hit and warm numbers get cold etc.

The casino I play at shows a history of the last 20 numbers to hit.  I just start by picking 6 splits that haven't hit. For example,  I bet 1-2, 35-36, 17-20, 27-30, 0-00, 28-29.

Spin 1 - 8 (no hit)
Spin 2 - 12 (no hit)
Spin 3 - 18 (no hit)
Spin 4 - 17 (hit)
**Now I would continue playing the same splits except 17-20....since 17 just hit I would play the single number 20**
Spin 5 - 21 (no hit)
Spin 6 - 20 (hit)
**hit the single number 20.  Now I would just look at the marquee and pick a new split that hasn't hit in the last 20 spins

Not really any tracking involved

 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1828
  • Thanked: 800 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Testing Actual Spins vs RNG
« Reply #33 on: April 02, 2016, 05:27:28 AM »
 

Harryj

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 359
  • Thanked: 166 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Testing Actual Spins vs RNG
« Reply #34 on: April 02, 2016, 03:06:27 PM »
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YWk1kvCvzvk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

    Kav I enjoyed your little cartoon, because that is exactly what the math guys do. They present a series of calculus equations which they say proves their point. Completely ignoring the fact that the answer depends on how you view the question.

        Let's take a simple point. In your articles you state that the house edge on the American table is 5.4%. ie. There are 2 zeros to the European 1. therefor the advantage is twice as much. or we can say that the advantage is the % difference in payout. You get 36 instead of 38 or 94.74% of a fair payout. That's a 5.26% advantage.

    We can do the sum another way. the casino has an advantage of 2 pockets in 38. This also gives us 5.26%. Is this the right way to calculate it ? Surely the casino advantage is 2 pockets against 36, which is 5.56%.

     That is not really true either because when we bet an EC we are playing 18 pockets against 20. That gives the house an advantage of 10%. Is this completely true ? the house has a 2 pocket advantage over our 18. That works out to over 11%

       AIN'T MATHS GRAND ?

     
[/size]Harry
[/size]
 

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1828
  • Thanked: 800 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Testing Actual Spins vs RNG
« Reply #35 on: April 02, 2016, 03:31:34 PM »
Yes, Harry, you are correct.
The American House edge is 5,26%, it is less than double the European.
 

Harryj

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 359
  • Thanked: 166 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Testing Actual Spins vs RNG
« Reply #36 on: April 02, 2016, 03:59:43 PM »
   
   Kav, I was not being critical I was just trying to demonstrate that a different viewpoint gave a number of different answers. The complexities of probability and chance cannot be solved by any single math equation.

     I have stated on many occasions that maths has no control over chance. A math formula might be an intelligent guess, but it is still a guess,

       Harry.
   P.S.  With all the critics resigning, I would just like to say that I find this a very fair and well moderated forum.
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3511
  • Thanked: 1081 times
Re: Testing Actual Spins vs RNG
« Reply #37 on: April 02, 2016, 04:02:39 PM »
lol sorry.
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2027
  • Thanked: 417 times
Re: Testing Actual Spins vs RNG
« Reply #38 on: April 02, 2016, 07:06:42 PM »
   
   Kav, I was not being critical I was just trying to demonstrate that a different viewpoint gave a number of different answers. The complexities of probability and chance cannot be solved by any single math equation.

     I have stated on many occasions that maths has no control over chance. A math formula might be an intelligent guess, but it is still a guess,

       Harry.
   P.S.  With all the critics resigning, I would just like to say that I find this a very fair and well moderated forum.

I agree with you here , Harry.
1 ] Choose any 3 of the ECs and you have 2x2x2 =8 equal chances of all 3 being correct.Odds of 7/1
By choosing any 1 of 4 particular chances you have only 4 numbers which will be all-correct.
Say HOB.Betting those 4 numbers give odds of 8/1 .
So making virtually the same bet you get different odds - even allowing for zero.

2} By betting an EC chance you are betting on 18 numbers which  are  opposed by 19 numbers which is a deficit of 5.26% and not 2.74%.  So the rebate of 50% is justified when betting an EC
chance and zero occurs.

 Sometimes it really does depend on your perspective !
« Last Edit: April 05, 2016, 08:33:16 PM by scepticus »
 

Harryj

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 359
  • Thanked: 166 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Testing Actual Spins vs RNG
« Reply #39 on: April 07, 2016, 08:41:35 AM »
   In being fixated with the concept that every spin is completely independent. The math guys ignore the differing probabilities of various groups of numbers.

   A fact that gamblers can exploit to their advantage !

      Harry
 

Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 557
  • Thanked: 23 times
Re: Testing Actual Spins vs RNG
« Reply #40 on: April 07, 2016, 08:53:51 AM »
Harry,

It's not a question of being "fixated". The differing probabilities have nothing to do with independence of outcomes. What difference does it make whether the probability is 1% or 99% when the RETURN is the same?
 

thomasleor

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 212
  • Thanked: 82 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Testing Actual Spins vs RNG
« Reply #41 on: April 07, 2016, 11:01:37 AM »
   In being fixated with the concept that every spin is completely independent. The math guys ignore the differing probabilities of various groups of numbers.

   A fact that gamblers can exploit to their advantage !

      Harry

Every spin is not independent. All phenomena in this universe are in fact interdependent on a subatomic level. These math guys here,  as you call them, are primarily dealing with pure math, whereas some other deal with applied math.

The difference is obvious and crucial when it comes to a deeper understanding of a chaotic pattern generator like roulette. For example, the branch of mathematics known as number theory, was once considered one of the most useless, but now plays a vital part in computer encryption systems .

You could also think about how applied math relates to other subjects and to the real world.

Applied math tries to model, predict and explain things in the real world: for example, one area of applied mathematics is fluid mechanics, which analyses how fluids are affected by forces. Meteorology and prediction of storm fronts is another example of applied maths which very much might be compared to probability theory.

Pure math, on the other hand, is separate from the physical world. It solves problems, finds facts and answers questions that don’t depend on the world around us, but on the rules of mathematics itself. It has no actual value for the avid roulette player.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2016, 11:06:42 AM by thomasleor »
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Sheridan44

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 273
  • Thanked: 232 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Testing Actual Spins vs RNG
« Reply #42 on: April 08, 2016, 01:09:44 AM »
I agree Thomasleor. In Frank Barstow's book "Beat The Casino", he states....

"If you believe in the theory of "unequal distribution" you assume that the life expectancy of any thing or phenomenon must become progressively shorter as the thing or phenomenon grows older or lasts longer. Dice and the wheel are inanimate, but if their behavior were not subject to some governing force or principle, sequences of 30 or more repeats might be commonplace, and there could be no games like craps or roulette, because there would be no way of figuring probabilities and odds."
« Last Edit: April 08, 2016, 01:14:57 AM by Sheridan44 »
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 557
  • Thanked: 23 times
Re: Testing Actual Spins vs RNG
« Reply #43 on: April 08, 2016, 08:03:21 AM »
Thomas,

What do processes on a subatomic level have to do with roulette? What does fluid mechanics and meteorology have to do with it? Looked at from a physics perspective, all you need are the good old laws of mechanics, and from the point of view of probability,  the entire field grew out of gamblers wanting practical answers to their gambling activities. Probability is a practical subject and its predictions actually do come to pass in the real world. That is not "pure" math.

The fact that "everything is connected" doesn't mean that from past spins you can predict future spins. It's simply incoherent to say that you can and just means that you don't understand the meaning of statistical independence.

Sheridan,

What you say has nothing to do with independence, it's about the law of large numbers. Don't make the same mistake as R.D. Ellison who came up with his absurd "law of statistical propensity" on the basis of his misunderstanding of independence. He thinks that independence means "free from influence". It doesn't. It just means that from past results you cannot predict future results.

 

Harryj

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 359
  • Thanked: 166 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Testing Actual Spins vs RNG
« Reply #44 on: April 08, 2016, 09:44:40 AM »
   HI Mike,
 Glad to see that you changed your mind.

STATISTICAL PROPENSITY: I am not a large fan of Ellison. Although some of his ideas are OK.  Like most of you I had to look "propensity" up. In simple terms it means "a bias or leaning toward". I think we have to accept that as valid. Even if the term "LAW" is a little too strong.

     I think you must accept that every group of random numbers can be statistically matched to past results. The "law of large numbers" depends upon this fact. That does not mean that statistics will produce exact carbon copies. Anymore than a biased wheel will produce the same result every time. STATISTICS is the science of classifying and interpreting numerical information. As such it can be used in situations where there is insufficient data for the "law of large numbers" to apply.

    Harry
« Last Edit: April 08, 2016, 01:13:44 PM by kav »