Author Topic: average ec's  (Read 1236 times)

spins

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
  • Thanked: 17 times
average ec's
« on: July 05, 2016, 08:15:27 AM »
is there an average with ec's or the most common in a row, there is a law of averages with anything that's tested, so what is roulettes, lets say its 7, shouldn't betting just before 7 and just after increase the chances of getting a hit     


 

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 579
  • Thanked: 438 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: average ec's
« Reply #1 on: July 05, 2016, 09:52:46 AM »
I think the answer is about 2 for the average streak length, but you can work it out using the formula for expectation:

Sum of (Probabilities X Values)

i.e. 0.5 * 1 + (0.5)2 * 2 + (0.5)3 * 3 + (0.5)4 * 4 + ...

Quote
shouldn't betting just before 7 and just after increase the chances of getting a hit     

Sadly, no. The odds of a hit are constant.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2016, 09:54:44 AM by Bayes »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, december, Reyth

Harryj

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 342
  • Thanked: 128 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: average ec's
« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2016, 10:58:57 AM »
I think the answer is about 2 for the average streak length, but you can work it out using the formula for expectation:

Sum of (Probabilities X Values)

i.e. 0.5 * 1 + (0.5)2 * 2 + (0.5)3 * 3 + (0.5)4 * 4 + ...

Quote
shouldn't betting just before 7 and just after increase the chances of getting a hit     

Sadly, no. The odds of a hit are constant.

   Hi Bayes,
             I have no wish to be contentious, But I feel that your post lacks one important Phrase. "IN THE LONG RUN".

I.M.O. Based on more than 70 years of study and play. The average player only encounters the "Long Run" after perhaps hundreds or even thousands of sessions. Long term testing doesn't qualify because each short session is interrupted by hundreds if not thousands of unseen spins. The mathematics of probability do not allow for this as they do not take into account "Irregular Variations".

     I believe, as do a number of others, that this is an important factor. That tends to produce sessions that are either rich, or more rarely poor, in long and short streaks.
      I am no mathematician so can offer no equations in support of this theory. Only personal observation.

     Again I.M.O.

     [1] The player has an odds advantage in avoiding the dangerous, and rare, sessions that are rich in long streaks.
     [2] The player can abort those sessions which seem unfavourable. UNLIKE THE CASINO HE IS NOT COMPELLED to ACCEPT THE RESULT OF EVERY SPIN !!
« Last Edit: July 10, 2016, 12:06:27 PM by kav »
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, december, Reyth

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 579
  • Thanked: 438 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: average ec's
« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2016, 12:04:09 PM »
Hi Harry,

The problem with projecting the "long run" into the distant future, as system players tend to do, is that it doesn't correspond to any reality. There isn't any demarcation line beyond which "Here Be Dragons" in the form of the long run, which from there on will relentlessly assert its terrifying retribution on the hapless roulette player, thereby wiping out all previous profits.

It's a gradual incremental process. You can certainly quantify it though, as I showed in one of the articles on my site. If you play around with the calculator at the end of the article, you will see that the "long run" doesn't take nearly as long as you might think, depending on the parameters.

Another difficulty with assuming that the long run is something that players will never actually encounter is that it leads to a devastating contradiction for players who use probability and statistics to help them design their systems (and I'm one of them!).

This because what you're saying is the following:

1. Formulas, probabilities, and statistics are only valid for the long run.
2. The roulette player only plays in the "short run".

From which we can conclude:

3. Therefore, formulas, probabilities, and statistics are of no help in designing systems!

You can't have it both ways. Perhaps you're aware of this inconsistency, which is why you wrote:

Quote
Long term testing doesn't qualify because each short session is interrupted by hundreds if not thousands of unseen spins. The mathematics of probability do not allow for this as they do not take into account "Irregular Variations".

Unfortunately there's no justification for this. The maths of probability can take into account any number of irregular variations or assumptions you care to make, you just have to make them explicit.

How exactly do the "unseen" spins make any difference to the results?
 
The following users thanked this post: Dane

Dane

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 264
  • Thanked: 116 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: average ec's
« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2016, 04:16:54 PM »
How exactly do the unseen spins make any difference to the results?
Good question! In theory we can start a test, take a break, wait ten years and come back in order to continue the test.
Unfortunately we are unable to transcend TIME in that way.
 
The following users thanked this post: BlueAngel

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1666
  • Thanked: 309 times
Re: average ec's
« Reply #5 on: July 10, 2016, 11:51:17 PM »
Strange post, Bayes. You say that classical maths does say that The Long Run is towards infinity and wonder why we claim that is what the maths says ? If, as you say , that it depends on context then that means that the classical view is untrue - and that the Long   Run  can actually be measured . Is this the accepted view of the maths community or your personal opinion ?
 To me The Long Run argument only ( ? ) means that the gambler faces unfair odds and there is no way that he can overcome those  odds and so will  be a loser over time. Anything else is conjecture .What determines whether or not we win is what we actually bet . By “win “ I mean profit.

I would like to believe your calculation for Ecs  for I have far exceeded the 5483 spins you mention and they show an overall profit at level stakes. That does, though include about 12 months betting 100/111 spins twice  weekly over two periods - one of about 5 months and one of 7 months. With a betting bank of 20 £ 1 units  I tried to reach £ 5 bets so increased  my bets each time I won 20 units. I reached the target and lost on the very first table .I then decided to increase stakes when I reached an additional 40 units - enough to withstand two losses of £ 5. After about 7 months I reached my goal and again lost at the first table. I went back the next evening and stupidly decided to bet the opposite of what I had been doing and lost. As there were no zeros that time I would have recouped my first loss and , who knows, might still have been playing today ! Our emotions  sometimes intrude .
I often use this now with a 15 unit bank  but stop when I reach a certain win target or break - even . I don’t hang about for the  Long Term. If I am still at the table for more than 37 spins I am on a recovery mission. Like Reyth, though, I try a lot of WHAT  Ifs. Much more fun !
Incidentally, did you have a look at UK 21’s site and if you did what was your impression ?
 

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 579
  • Thanked: 438 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: average ec's
« Reply #6 on: July 11, 2016, 07:28:06 AM »
Strange post, Bayes. You say that classical maths does say that The Long Run is towards infinity and wonder why we claim that is what the maths says ? If, as you say , that it depends on context then that means that the classical view is untrue - and that the Long   Run  can actually be measured . Is this the accepted view of the maths community or your personal opinion ?
 

scep,

"Towards infinity" is just mathematician speak meaning that the empirical results will tend towards the theoretical probability as you take more trials. It's really talking about variance; there will be more variance over 10 spins than 20, more over 20 than 40, more over 40 than 80, and so on. Yes the long run can be measured and this certainly isn't my opinion; the formula I give in my article is derived from the law of large numbers, and anyone can check the results for themselves: don't take my word for it.

I was just pointing out that you can't consistently assert that statistics and probability only applies in the long run (meaning "infinity") and at the same time use statistics and probability as guide to betting when your play is over the short term. The formula I gave shows that you have to take into account both the probability of interest and the interval within which the probability will converge to, in order to make a meaningful "prediction". And that prediction will also be subject to uncertainty, which can also be quantified.

It's just not true that probability is useless as a guide to betting, nor does it mean that you're necessarily committing the gambler's fallacy if using it. In particular, it's useful for assessing the risk involved when applying money management or progressions.

Suppose someone visits a casino for the first time and has no idea of the roulette odds and probabilities. He has $100 and decides to bet $5 on number 17, thinking that he has a fair chance of getting a hit before his money runs out. So he can make 20 bets before this happens. His chances of winning are 42%. Now whether you call that a "fair" chance or not is beside the point, but it would be nice to have known the chances before betting, don't you think?

Most systems I see posted on forums, especially those using progressions, are far too optimistic. They don't take into account probabilities at all. Another example: a system was posted recently which suggested betting on streets with a D'Alembert progression (+1 on loss, -1 on a win). This progression was designed for the even chances. Knowing that, and also that it fails because eventually the stakes get too high when there's a strong imbalance, wouldn't it be more prudent, when using the progression on streets, to not increase the stake after every loss, but after multiple losses? But how many?

This is where probability can help. Since the progression is for the even chances, what number of bets on a street will result in probability of 0.5 that you get at least one win? Using the binomial distribution, the answer is 8. So betting on a street, if you increase your stake by 1 after 8 lost bets, you are far less likely to hit a run from hell, because your staking plan is more appropriate for the bet.

I'm not saying this is necessarily what you should do, that's up to your individual risk preferences, and maybe other factors. What I'm saying is that using probabilities gives you more options and enables you to take calculated risks, otherwise you're just gambling.

Quote
Incidentally, did you have a look at UK 21’s site and if you did what was your impression ?

No I haven't looked at it. Do you have a link?
« Last Edit: July 11, 2016, 07:36:19 AM by Bayes »
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3025
  • Thanked: 812 times
Re: average ec's
« Reply #7 on: July 11, 2016, 11:12:10 AM »
Well, if there is a real wheel, it will spin while a person is gone and if it is a high quality RNG wheel, the criteria used (weather white noise etc) will fluctuate.

My theory would be that if a person's downswing is rare enough, leaving the table would allow it to "pass" in favor of the common swings.

Obviously a person can re-enter the rare bad swing again when they return and do so successively but the chances are reduced because the rare bad swing is rare.

« Last Edit: July 11, 2016, 11:37:32 AM by Reyth »
 

Dane

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 264
  • Thanked: 116 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: average ec's
« Reply #8 on: July 11, 2016, 01:54:11 PM »
"It don´t mean a thing if it aint got that swing".
Many years ago I read German roulette books. "FIKTIVSPIEL" was mentioned. One fascinating idea:
Play only in theory in order to avoid downswing in real play. And when you believe that the times they are a-changin´, start betting for real. Maybe just another version of GAMBLERS FALLACY?

Another  "ROULETTE-GESETZ" ("Roulette Law"): "DAS GESETZ DER UNENDLICHKEIT DER PERMANENZ". It is about INFINITY IN TIME AND SPACE! If the spins are truly random, you should not be linked to the very NEXT spin! We should feel free to take a break, leave the table, to continue the experiment another day, another year - and change roulette tables as we like. According to this socalled law we are allowed to  study only spin No. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, to read the lists backwards or
manipulate the "HISTORY" of spins in more random ways. Basicly it should not differ from the "true"
order". Such a transcendence of TIME and SPACE might make us dizzy, trappet in TIME and SPACE.
Each and every spin might be independent of all other spins in the Whole Wide Universe, but we are not as independent.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2016, 01:55:50 PM by Dane »
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1666
  • Thanked: 309 times
Re: average ec's
« Reply #9 on: July 11, 2016, 01:57:40 PM »
Bayes
I didn't say that probabilities only apply to long runs. On the contrary , I am saying that long run trials don't provide any better evidence than short run trials .Whichever method you prefer you still have to make a judgement .Yes, long run simulations are used in medicinal trials etc. but they don't have the same possibilities as roulette -37x37x37 etc. give mind boggling possibilities .
My Nine Block and 5 in 7 ideas are not my creation but were created by professional mathematicians .I only apply them to  roulette which has the additional problem of a "zero" .
These give reductions of variance without the need for long run samples. I would appreciate if someone would - if they could- simulate the 5 in 7 over whatever many trials they think are needed to give confidence . If you care to give it a look you will understand what I mean.
To repeat-  I don't do progressions . I am not dissing your approach , it is just that I don't think it necessary .
for UK's site just Google it .
 

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 579
  • Thanked: 438 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: average ec's
« Reply #10 on: July 11, 2016, 01:58:16 PM »
We should feel free to take a break, leave the table, to continue the experiment another day, another year - and change roulette tables as we like.

That's right. And doesn't the theory of "personal permanence" rely on the independence between spins?

It can't be any other way. No matter how you interrupt the random stream you will end up with the same characteristics and probabilities.
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3025
  • Thanked: 812 times
Re: average ec's
« Reply #11 on: July 11, 2016, 02:20:28 PM »
That is of course correct, but it doesn't mean we have to be betting when those characteristics manifest.
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1666
  • Thanked: 309 times
Re: average ec's
« Reply #12 on: July 11, 2016, 02:22:59 PM »
www.uk-21.org
a site for " degenerate gamblers " ?
 

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 579
  • Thanked: 438 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: average ec's
« Reply #13 on: July 11, 2016, 04:22:36 PM »
I didn't say that probabilities only apply to long runs. On the contrary , I am saying that long run trials don't provide any better evidence than short run trials .Whichever method you prefer you still have to make a judgement .

Agreed. All I'm saying is that probability and statistics can inform your decisions; they don't have to be completely subjective.

Quote
Yes, long run simulations are used in medicinal trials etc. but they don't have the same possibilities as roulette -37x37x37 etc. give mind boggling possibilities .

I have to disagree. Natural processes such as the weather, and many engineering systems have far more variables than roulette, and therefore yield many more possibilities, but they are successfully simulated. In any case, the number of possibilities is a red herring because we don't bet on some one or another possibility in the sense you're talking about, but on a proportion, or "tendency".

Quote
To repeat-  I don't do progressions . I am not dissing your approach , it is just that I don't think it necessary .

But probabilities are relevant to betting in general, even if you don't use progressions. Risk of ruin and all that stuff. Most gambler's are severely underfunded for the systems they use.

scep, I have to admit I'm at a loss as to the point you're trying to make here. Since you claim to have done rather well, and (I assume), you're not attributing it purely to luck, then why do you think you've been winning?

Numerology? A rabbit's foot? Remote viewing?  ::)

I think the disagreements we have (if any) are based largely on semantics.

By the way, thanks for the link to UK's site. I'll take a look.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2016, 04:26:08 PM by Bayes »
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1666
  • Thanked: 309 times
Re: average ec's
« Reply #14 on: July 11, 2016, 05:50:52 PM »
Why do I think that I have been winning ?
Takeyour pick.
1  ) By taking more money from the casino than  I have been giving.
 2 )  I don't know is the honest answer , I just know that I do. It may be due to my using the line with four correct and deducing that since I  now have 3 chances while other lines have two at most this has given me an advantage .Maths geeks would say , of course, that any set of three has an equal chance.
So far as I am concerned  reality trumps hypothesis. If you assume that I have been telling thetruth here you must agree that it has been validated by your calculations. Whyisit then that I am the Doubting Thomas  ? Because I don't think you can trust any simulation .Actual experience is the only arbiter so we are only guessing - guessing blindly or having an educated guess . I think I do  the latter although there are some ( many ? ) in the forum who think I don't.
Incidentally, have you read Von Mises book " Probability, Statistics and Truth " ? and his reference to Karl Mabe's  " Uniformity in the World " ? This may be of interest to Harry J and Palestis. 
BTW let me know if you agree with me that  UK21 thinks that we are degenerate gamblers.