Author Topic: System Players!?  (Read 4569 times)

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3318
  • Thanked: 979 times
System Players!?
« on: July 04, 2015, 07:47:06 PM »
They are far more interested in learning, playing and winning at the game of roulette to engage in arguments with people over statistical theory!



 

Harryj

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 355
  • Thanked: 158 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: System Players!?
« Reply #1 on: July 05, 2015, 12:08:28 PM »
  I like the quote Reyth.
                                   Harry
 

Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 557
  • Thanked: 23 times
Re: System Players!?
« Reply #2 on: July 05, 2015, 01:56:32 PM »
It's a great soundbite, but of course the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. You can be both one of those who can AND criticize.

What I CAN'T do is to successfully predict future numbers from past numbers, and neither can anyone else. All I'm doing is pointing out that fact and trying to explain it do those who can't understand, and I'm being criticized for this by those same people.

When someone can show me hard evidence (not just anecdotes) that virtual bets make a difference, I'll humbly get down on my knees and beg forgiveness for being a "critic".

Like I said elsewhere, it's not "statistical theory", it's just simple logic.
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1756
  • Thanked: 365 times
Re: System Players!?
« Reply #3 on: July 05, 2015, 08:53:37 PM »
It's a great soundbite, but of course the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. You can be both one of those who can AND criticize.

What I CAN'T do is to successfully predict future numbers from past numbers, and neither can anyone else. All I'm doing is pointing out that fact and trying to explain it do those who can't understand, and I'm being criticized for this by those same people.

When someone can show me hard evidence (not just anecdotes) that virtual bets make a difference, I'll humbly get down on my knees and beg forgiveness for being a "critic".

Like I said elsewhere, it's not "statistical theory", it's just simple logic.

I accept your challenge , Mike.
You and I both live in the UK . We can arrange a date later this year when I'll visit YOUR local casino - we'll invite the local press to witness their local " Roulette Expert" trash his critic. Of course , I MAY lose and have egg  on my face - but I don't think so .. Why not invite your fellow " brainboxes " on the forum you claim is better than this one ?
I say YOUR casino because mine doesn't have any "flawed " wheels.
You talk the talk  Mike but can you walk the walk ? 
You are full of SH*T , Mike .Here is your opportunity to prove me wrong.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2015, 08:56:41 PM by scepticus »
 

Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 557
  • Thanked: 23 times
Re: System Players!?
« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2015, 09:01:50 AM »
scepticus,

I expect you'll be using the birthday 9 number system as described on your web site:

Quote
After 9 different numbers appearing in 9 consecutive spins there is a 95% chance of the  tenth spin showing one of those 9.

Amazing that the casinos haven't discovered this "flaw" in the game, I just hope not too many people find out about it, otherwise that will be the end of roulette, LOL.

But seriously, you should amend your site. Some naive people might actually believe it's true and lose money.
 

Harryj

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 355
  • Thanked: 158 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: System Players!?
« Reply #5 on: July 06, 2015, 10:36:50 AM »
  Hi Mike,
           As a so called system player I realise that we approach the game from two entirely different viewpoints.
        You base your play on the fact that roulette forms a Benoulli System, and each spin is individual and is not influenced by what went before, or can exert no influence on what comes after.

        I find no fault with that,  BUT......

      While each individual spin can exert no influence on the future, it also forms part of an overall average that can often be exploited.

      As these viewpoints seem mutually exclusive it is understandable why we should differ. Your method may be more reliable than mine. (I am in no position to judge) That does not mean that mine is COMPLETELY UNRELIABLE.

         Harry
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1756
  • Thanked: 365 times
Re: System Players!?
« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2015, 12:50:08 PM »
scepticus,

I expect you'll be using the birthday 9 number system as described on your web site:

Quote
After 9 different numbers appearing in 9 consecutive spins there is a 95% chance of the  tenth spin showing one of those 9.

Amazing that the casinos haven't discovered this "flaw" in the game, I just hope not too many people find out about it, otherwise that will be the end of roulette, LOL.

But seriously, you should amend your site. Some naive people might actually believe it's true and lose money.

Stop Bulls***ting, Mike. You issued a challenge which I  have accepted . I will play what " I " choose to play so stop the mind games and  agree to arrange a date that is suitable to   both of us . .Not only will I invite your local press
but also the Professors of Maths and Physics  at you nearest University to witness your demonstration of how to win at roulette using " the physics of the wheel " determined by   your " I with my little eye " method. 
After all Mike, what have you to fear from a member of  an " Alice in Wonderland " forum ?
So come on genius , prove  for once, that you have the courage of your convictions.
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3318
  • Thanked: 979 times
Re: System Players!?
« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2015, 01:42:04 PM »
Quote
After 9 different numbers appearing in 9 consecutive spins there is a 95% chance of the  tenth spin showing one of those 9.

After 16M spins, I show a steady 1 in 4.11 chance of getting a duplicate after 9 unique spins.  This is pretty much 9 out of 37, allowing for very slight variance.



Code: [Select]
5 DIM bh(9)
7 FOR i = 1 TO 9: bh(i) = -1: NEXT i
10 RANDOMIZE TIMER: dn = -1

20 r = INT(RND * 37): IF dn = 0 THEN GOSUB 1000 ' analyze % chance of dup
30 IF bh(9) = -1 THEN 110 'go to fill

40 ' shuffle
50 FOR i = 1 TO 8: bh(i) = bh(i + 1): NEXT i: bh(9) = r

60 'check for duplicate
70 dn = 0: FOR i = 1 TO 9: FOR j = 1 TO 9
        80 IF bh(i) = bh(j) AND i <> j THEN dn = 1
90 NEXT j, i
100 GOSUB 2000: GOTO 20

110 ' fill spin history
120 ff = 0: FOR i = 1 TO 9: IF ff = 1 THEN 140
    130 IF bh(i) = -1 THEN bh(i) = r: ff = 1
140 NEXT i: GOSUB 2000: GOTO 20

1000 'track chance for duplicates
1010 sp = sp + 1
1020 FOR i = 1 TO 9
    1030 IF bh(i) = r THEN dup = dup + 1
1040 NEXT i: RETURN

2000 'output
2010 LOCATE 1, 1
2020 PRINT "Spins:"; sp
2030 PRINT "Duplicates:"; dup
2040 PRINT "% Chance:"; dup / sp
2045 PRINT "Harry J Rocks!"
2050 IF sp >= 16000000 THEN END
2060 RETURN

Does this mean AP players are right and the force of equal distribution doesn't exist!?  No.  It simply means the force of equal distribution doesn't operate as described, as proven by experiment.

I have already proven the way that equal distribution functions and how it is possible to gain an advantage over random using it, elsewhere on this site:

http://rouletteforum.roulette30.com/index.php/topic,245.msg3108.html#msg3108

Scep's system can still be salvaged using the force of equal distribution however.  One way that I have discovered is using the Royal Escort which then allows access to a Player Friendly Progressiontm:

http://rouletteforum.roulette30.com/index.php/topic,465.msg5230.html#msg5230
« Last Edit: July 06, 2015, 02:39:15 PM by Reyth »
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1756
  • Thanked: 365 times
Re: System Players!?
« Reply #8 on: July 06, 2015, 08:45:53 PM »
reyth

I think trialling 16m spins doesn't PROVE anything other than that you are industrious.

1 ) We are NEVER  going to bet 16 million spins in a live casino.

2 ) Your ONE illustration is only valid for that ONE  set of 16 m. spins and  as there are gazillions of sets of 9 in 16m your one is only like a pee in the ocean. Work out how many different sets of 9 there are in 16m and you will see what I mean . For fun , yes, but the question is  " How can we use this in trying to forecast future winning numbers ? "

As for Mike. He still doesn't understand my point that if you accept that Number 23 can be accepted as part of an existing  set of 22 then it IS logical to think that Number 8 can be accepted as part of an existing set of 7.   The maths refers to " categories "and the " categories " can be anything  - including roulette . Randomness is the culprit here - so what's new pussycat ?
« Last Edit: July 06, 2015, 09:02:13 PM by Reyth »
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3318
  • Thanked: 979 times
Re: System Players!?
« Reply #9 on: July 06, 2015, 09:02:20 PM »
Quote
Your ONE illustration is only valid for that ONE  set of 16 m. spins


How many billions, trillions or quadrillions would you like me to run?  The results will remain the same.

Quote
Work out how many different sets of 9 there are in 16m and you will see what I mean.


The system encountered 16M unique sequential sets of 9 numbers and 3,891,552 of the subsequent numbers generated were duplicates of the previous 9.

Quote
As for Mike. He still doesn't understand my point that if you accept that Number 23 can be accepted as part of an existing  set of 22 then it IS logical to think that Number 8 can be accepted as part of an existing set of 7.


I am sorry, I don't understand this.


Working with these numbers and trying figure out the the truth IS NOT EASY.  All of us, critics or otherwise, that attempt to accomplish things statistically in roulette should be encouraged as much as possible because IT IS DIFFICULT.


One of the greatest pitfalls regarding statistics and roulette is to assume that it is simple.  What is easy, is to make false assumptions and outguess oneself in analyses.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2015, 11:35:02 PM by Reyth »
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1756
  • Thanked: 365 times
Re: System Players!?
« Reply #10 on: July 07, 2015, 02:10:06 AM »
I do not agree, reyth . If you keep "spinning your wheel " I think you will stumble upon one 16m trial that will contain a repeat of the same eight  or nine all the time. Yours is an assumption . Anyway , as you agree,  the real challenge is to win money at the casino. So what can we deduce from your 16m spins that is useful in actual practice ? Or, are you indulging in  a fun scenario ?
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3318
  • Thanked: 979 times
Re: System Players!?
« Reply #11 on: July 07, 2015, 05:11:26 AM »
Well it is not easy to use the Law of the Third to our advantage. 

The best research I have done shows the optimal advantage at 11 stations (or less) when they are all over 36 spins old and will cost 2200 dollars at penny stakes to lock (grail) on progression; no matter the number of stations, you can just run the 11 station progression = PROFIT.

Apart from that, I don't think its possible to use equal distribution to give us a calculable advantage as you are trying to do with the Law of the Third.

Don't get me wrong, when I put your system into the comp, I expected and wanted it to work.

Unfortunately the wheel can and will go 37 spins without a repeater (the max loss without repeaters is 37) and there is no way to tell which numbers will repeat, show up normally (once within 37 spins) or sleep.  We can only work on what we know which is the numbers that are currently sleeping (as I have stated above).

One thing I can do is run a full loss distribution on repeaters to find out where the 95% marker is but it definitely didn't show up at 9 spins.


18 numbers = 48%

25 numbers seems to be able to approach 70% but it is a rare occurrence to even find 25 numbers.

So practically speaking, there is no way to obtain a 95% advantage using repeaters because the incline is too steep (too many numbers required & too rare of an event with too many successive hoops to jump through).

Trying to gain an advantage using repeaters feels like we are fighting the odds instead of going with them.

Another way to put this is, you are trying to get a hit with a single spin on 9 stations (i.e. on spin #10) but it is only considered one spin statistically because the 9 stations have only been in existence for 0 spins.  You could look at it from the perspective of 1 station that has had 9 spins against it but that would be even worse odds (approximately 0.02139772141127029) or 8 stations with 2 spins (around 22%) but your best odds are the 9 stations at one spin (around 24%).

I am not a statistician and so its hard for me to grasp these things.... : (


are you indulging in  a fun scenario ?


Well actually, I thought Mike was being unfair to you and I thought I would show that you actually had an advantage because it sounded more than reasonable to me. : (
« Last Edit: July 07, 2015, 07:20:05 AM by Reyth »
 

Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 557
  • Thanked: 23 times
Re: System Players!?
« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2015, 07:18:21 AM »
reyth

I think trialling 16m spins doesn't PROVE anything other than that you are industrious.


LOL, in cases of reality versus scepticus, it's always reality that's got it wrong.

Quote
1 ) We are NEVER  going to bet 16 million spins in a live casino.

If I had a penny for every time I saw this on a gambling forum, I'd be a rich man. Would testing over 100 spins give a more reliable result?

Quote
2 ) Your ONE illustration is only valid for that ONE  set of 16 m. spins and  as there are gazillions of sets of 9 in 16m your one is only like a pee in the ocean. Work out how many different sets of 9 there are in 16m and you will see what I mean . For fun , yes, but the question is  " How can we use this in trying to forecast future winning numbers ? "

Since Wimbledon is on at the moment it's appropriate to say: YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS! (a la John McEnroe). This ball is so far outside the line it might have won a point in the court next door.

Are you seriously suggesting that you would get different results for the probability if you ran multiple trials of 16M spins? If this is true, then you have successfully trashed your own assertion that "there is a 95% chance that the next spin will be one of the previous 9 numbers", and in fact it wouldn't be possible to determine the probability of ANY event, even in the long term, because each trial would return a different result. scepticus, you are seriously confused about probability. Please, read up on the subject or you will continue to make a fool of  yourself.

Quote
As for Mike. He still doesn't understand my point that if you accept that Number 23 can be accepted as part of an existing  set of 22 then it IS logical to think that Number 8 can be accepted as part of an existing set of 7.   The maths refers to " categories "and the " categories " can be anything  - including roulette . Randomness is the culprit here - so what's new pussycat ?

[SIGH]

As I've said I before (more than once), that is NOT the point that I'm not accepting. You can of course create a roulette system which is analogous to the birthday problem, but what is not valid is to regard the probability of the next spin as being equivalent to the sequence of spins taken as a whole. The chance of the 10th spin being one of the previous 9 is just 9/37, just as Reyth showed in his simulation. You are betting on 9 numbers, therefore the chance of a hit is 9/37, or 1 every 4.11 spins.

It would be the same with the birthday problem. There is a 50% chance that at least one of the people in a group of 23 share a birthday with someone else. Suppose a random group of people come into a room one at a time. When 22 are in the room but no-one shares a birthday so far, does this mean that the chance is 50% that the 23rd person (who hasn't come in yet) WILL share a birthday with one of the other 22?  NO! There are 365 possible birthdays so the probability that #23 will share a birthday with one of the 22 is 22/365. The logic is the same as in the roulette scenario.
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1756
  • Thanked: 365 times
Re: System Players!?
« Reply #13 on: July 07, 2015, 12:19:56 PM »
Yes, Mike , that IS what I am saying IF the Probability of two people sharing the same birthday within a " set" of 23 is more than 50%. I think it is a logical assumption -you don't .
btw in your post of your calculations .What were you trying to calculate ? A predetermined set of 8 ?
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3318
  • Thanked: 979 times
Re: System Players!?
« Reply #14 on: July 07, 2015, 05:23:41 PM »
If you are asking me, the system will spin a random number, check the last 8 spins for duplicates and re-spin until there are no duplicates.  Then it will check the very next spin against the last 9 spins and log the results.  It will then repeat this 1,599,999 times.