728x90 welcome bonus

Author Topic: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness  (Read 5227 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Bayes

  • Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 688
  • Thanked: 552 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
« Reply #15 on: August 19, 2016, 07:22:10 AM »
If somebody was showing me 12 of the same number in a row, like   12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12.
I would agree it is a very  rare event. If he ask me if I think it will repeat next 12 spins, I will say NO, it is extreme unlikely, and if it is a odds bet against it happens I may bet all I own.

Yes but if you really did see such a sequence - which has an astronomically small probability - wouldn't it be more sensible to abandon the default model of equally likely outcomes and assume that the wheel is biased? In that case betting on 12 to continue would be the best choice.
 

Jesper

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1141
  • Thanked: 552 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
« Reply #16 on: August 19, 2016, 07:58:30 AM »
If somebody was showing me 12 of the same number in a row, like   12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12.
I would agree it is a very  rare event. If he ask me if I think it will repeat next 12 spins, I will say NO, it is extreme unlikely, and if it is a odds bet against it happens I may bet all I own.

Yes but if you really did see such a sequence - which has an astronomically small probability - wouldn't it be more sensible to abandon the default model of equally likely outcomes and assume that the wheel is biased? In that case betting on 12 to continue would be the best choice.

I had wait for some more spins. The chanse a wheel is biased to the extent it makes 10 of a kind, is minor as well.
In practise would a casino not start an investegation, allready after say 8 of a kind? Still all 10 spins in a row has the same probability, if we write down ten numbers and spin until they show, we have to spend about the same numbers of spins regardless which number we chose, 10 the same or any other numbers.
I have myself seen four and the 5th comes close after, in all it was 8 of the same numbers i 21 spins.
 

palestis

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 629
  • Thanked: 425 times
Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
« Reply #17 on: August 19, 2016, 10:14:05 AM »

Quote
Secondly does your simulation involve randomly varying $ amounts on those bets?
Also does it take into account that after a streak of successful triggers, the player can change at will the starting chip to the lowest value, to protect his profits?

As I just explained, including these factors in the simulation would only muddy the waters and make it more complicated. It isn't necessary because if you include all this extra stuff in both simulations, the only difference would be in the fact that one strategy uses virtual bets and the other doesn't, so any differences in results will be attributed to that. All other factors such as money management etc will cancel each other out.

Quote
Because simulation is impossible if it involves "spur of the moment" decisions, and also money values that change randomly according to the player's will.

I agree that this can't be simulated, but how can a "spur of the moment" decision make any difference to your results?
Bayes
When a player walks around a casino floor observing many roulettes, there are no predetermined conditions as to what he may come across. In one roulette he may see 8 black in a row and he may decide to bet on red 4 times. Or on black, for that matter. Aiming to hit once and stop. Therefore he may not have to bet 4 times when at least one hit becomes a stipulation. Where betting black from the beginning (ignoring what came in the previous spins), means one thing and one thing only.
That all the streaks of red that you frequently see on score boards, would've been lost money. Frequent opposite streaks would mean frequent losses. At the same time most players would not be willing to continue betting with doubling against a negative streak after a few bets, for fear of losing too much. A $10 minimum start will become a $310 loss after just 5 spins (10-20-40-80-160). That would require 31 successful attempts just to recover.
In another roulette he may find 12 Odd numbers in a row, and he may bet on even 3 or 4 times, again aiming to win at least once and stop. Or continue betting on  odd 4 more times, or less if there is a hit. Another roulette may show that a dozen may be asleep for 16 spins, and he may decide to bet on that dozen 6 times, or less if there is a hit before all 6 bets are exhausted. 
It is the "at least once" following a flexible rare event  that cannot be simulated. Simulation requires similar conditions to draw important conclusions. In roulette the object is PROFIT. The amount of profit is personal for every player, as it is the amount he allows himself  to lose before he walks away.
When conditions and amounts change perpetually, only empirical observations will work.
There are no short cuts around it.
Some members have been talking about extremely rare situations in this subject post, that an ordinary player may never see in his lifetime. Yet we are missing the big picture, which is situations that we are most likely to encounter time after time.
What is most likely to happen is available and visible to all every day every time.
Thinking of what can happen after 1 million spins is misleading.
It's far more important to know what is most likely to happen after 500 preexisting conditions (or triggers), as compared to a simulation of 10 million raw spins. As the latest may reveal situations so rare, it is highly unlikely that a player will ever encounter in his lifetime.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2016, 10:20:53 AM by palestis »
 
The following users thanked this post: december, Reyth

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1853
  • Thanked: 826 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
« Reply #18 on: August 19, 2016, 10:53:11 AM »
If somebody was showing me 12 of the same number in a row, like   12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12.
I would agree it is a very  rare event. If he ask me if I think it will repeat next 12 spins, I will say NO, it is extreme unlikely, and if it is a odds bet against it happens I may bet all I own.
Yes but if you really did see such a sequence - which has an astronomically small probability - wouldn't it be more sensible to abandon the default model of equally likely outcomes and assume that the wheel is biased? In that case betting on 12 to continue would be the best choice.
I think that introducing biased wheels in the context of this discussion of extreme probability events is misleading.
 

Jesper

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1141
  • Thanked: 552 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
« Reply #19 on: August 19, 2016, 11:08:00 AM »
If somebody was showing me 12 of the same number in a row, like   12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12.
I would agree it is a very  rare event. If he ask me if I think it will repeat next 12 spins, I will say NO, it is extreme unlikely, and if it is a odds bet against it happens I may bet all I own.
Yes but if you really did see such a sequence - which has an astronomically small probability - wouldn't it be more sensible to abandon the default model of equally likely outcomes and assume that the wheel is biased? In that case betting on 12 to continue would be the best choice.
I think that introducing biased wheels in the context of this discussion of extreme probability events is misleading.

10 in a row that's a bias which would be visible for the naked eye!  "The extreme probability" Whats that?
Any who try to repeat any ten number series, face the same probability which order it ever will have. In that sense all ten numbers are very rare.
 

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1853
  • Thanked: 826 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
« Reply #20 on: August 19, 2016, 11:12:30 AM »
10 in a row that's a bias which would be visible for the naked eye!  "The extreme probability" Whats that?
Any who try to repeat any ten number series, face the same probability which order it ever will have. In that sense all ten numbers are very rare.

I described the puzzle/problem here: http://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=1142.msg16034#msg16034
There is no dispute about the probabilities. And this is not a math exam, it is a gambling dilemma - there is a big difference.
It is up to you to bet your money on a number repeating 15 times. I would choose the other bet.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2016, 11:14:19 AM by kav »
 

Bayes

  • Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 688
  • Thanked: 552 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
« Reply #21 on: August 19, 2016, 11:26:41 AM »
palestis, my question about the "spur of the moment" decisions was really a minor point. The point I would like to prove by the simulations is whether or not virtual bets have any impact on the number of losses and/or the variance.

You've offered an argument for the advantage of virtual bets:

Quote
Where betting black from the beginning (ignoring what came in the previous spins), means one thing and one thing only.
That all the streaks of red that you frequently see on score boards, would've been lost money. Frequent opposite streaks would mean frequent losses.

Yes but this completely ignores the fact that you are missing out on the short streaks (prior to your triggers of 4 or more streaks). Or, if you are aware of this, you say the virtual bets give you a greater degree of security than just betting straight away from spin 1. But as I've previously explained (and you didn't disagree), it isn't the length of the streaks which matters but the relation between any given streak and the chance of it continuing or breaking, and this is the same whatever the streak length happens to be.

I'll use your condition that you stop after the first win and use a 4 step martingale (or whatever you suggest).

There will be two simulations:

(1) Just bet on red continuously, using the same conditions. That is, I stop after the first win and reset the progression to 1 unit or continue until the progression busts. For example:

R win. stop, reset and bet R on next spin. (1)
B loss. double bet on next spin. (2)
R win. stop, reset and bet R on next spin (3)
B loss. double and bet R (4)
B loss. double and bet R (5)
R win. stop and reset progression. Bet red.

etc.

The numbers in brackets indicate the number of bets I have made.

(2) The second simulation will go like this:

R  no bet, looking for 4 blacks in a row
R  no bet, looking for 4 blacks in a row
B  ditto
B  ditto
B  ditto
B bet on red. (1)
B double and bet on red (2)
R win. reset and wait for next streak of 4 blacks.

Now of course for (2) I will have to get through many more spins because there will be a lot of no bets. I have made only 2 bets here, but for a fair comparison I will need to make the same number of bets in both simulations, agreed?

You are saying that method (2) is better than method (1), and I say they are both the same (that is the point of doing the simulation, to see who is correct).

But what does "better" mean? In statistics there are various tests you can do which determine whether two "treatments" or whatever have different effects. It can get pretty complicated, but let's keep it simple. I suggest the following: For each method I keep a count of the number of losses before I get the first hit, and also the total losses. Does that seem reasonable to you?

I'll print the detailed results to a file which I'll upload here. You can even provide the spins if you like.
 

Jesper

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1141
  • Thanked: 552 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
« Reply #22 on: August 19, 2016, 11:30:45 AM »
10 in a row that's a bias which would be visible for the naked eye!  "The extreme probability" Whats that?
Any who try to repeat any ten number series, face the same probability which order it ever will have. In that sense all ten numbers are very rare.

I described the puzzle/problem here: http://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=1142.msg16034#msg16034
There is no dispute about the probabilities. And this is not a math exam, it is a gambling dilemma - there is a big difference.
It is up to you to bet your money on a number repeating 15 times. I would choose the other bet.

Of  course  we can play how we like. Some discussion is a bit strange, and I think "triggers" may only delay the loss or win, as we play less.  Dobbelsteen use to say we can bet against any ten last spins, we do not have to wait for the run of ten of a kind. That's right, but the chance to lose ten in a row is allways the same regardless of how we bet.  Herr Dobbesteen says the loss is 1024 if a loss. But that's allways the risk playing EC, the risk  losing ten in a row is the same regardless of triggers. We can feel we lose less, but that is due to less play, and we can win less as well.
 
The following users thanked this post: Bayes

Bayes

  • Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 688
  • Thanked: 552 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
« Reply #23 on: August 19, 2016, 11:51:30 AM »
think "triggers" may only delay the loss or win, as we play less.

Exactly. There's no need to wait or walk around the casino looking for triggers. The same number of bets will produce the same results, virtual betting or not.
 

Jesper

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1141
  • Thanked: 552 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
« Reply #24 on: August 19, 2016, 12:27:58 PM »
think "triggers" may only delay the loss or win, as we play less.

Exactly. There's no need to wait or walk around the casino looking for triggers. The same number of bets will produce the same results, virtual betting or not.

We can walk around and we can look for triggers, as long we know we do it just  because it is more fun.
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3637
  • Thanked: 1136 times
Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
« Reply #25 on: August 19, 2016, 01:41:36 PM »
I prefer to follow the proven statistics and the reduced max loss thank you.
 

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1853
  • Thanked: 826 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
« Reply #26 on: August 19, 2016, 02:03:05 PM »
Bayes,
I fully agree with the video you posted


The problem is that according to experiment or experience there are limits, since none has ever observed 50 consecutive Blacks or 15 repeats of the same number on an unbiased wheel.

I believe that this video is one of the best arguments supporting the existence of limits in roulette.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2016, 02:23:25 PM by kav »
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Jesper

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1141
  • Thanked: 552 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
« Reply #27 on: August 19, 2016, 02:21:50 PM »
15 the same number repeated, I would think nobody see, as there is 37^15 possible outcomes, and 15 the same number is just one of them, which says it may happen once in a few thousend years of 1000 casinos time, with rapid spins. Yes, but that is the same for all 15 number sequences.   15 numbers in 37 is a astronomical small chance to repeat. Still rare things happen, calculate the odds of your own birth.
 

dobbelsteen

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1414
  • Thanked: 376 times
Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
« Reply #28 on: August 19, 2016, 02:39:58 PM »
Suppose we have a lotery with 512 figures. The first drawing gives the figure 321. How many drawings do we need to become two executive figures.We get one unit when a figure doesnot repeat.
 

Harryj

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 359
  • Thanked: 166 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Virtual Losses and the Limits of Randomness
« Reply #29 on: August 19, 2016, 03:31:12 PM »
    I did intend to write a long post backing my ideas. However I lost my internet connection for most of this week, and am now threatened with a power failure.

    I will only say that too much emphasis is placed on probability. Read Bernoulli's Theorem or D'Moivre's neither deal in facts. Only probabilities. Only with very large numbers can those probabilities be even close to facts.

     I feel that in roulette or any gamble probability must bow to Statistics.

         Harry
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth