Author Topic: The Reverse Engineering Curse  (Read 1394 times)

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2995
  • Thanked: 786 times
The Reverse Engineering Curse
« on: April 27, 2016, 10:01:17 PM »
I am sure that some of you roulette players out there know what I am talking about when I use the phrase "reverse engineering" in connection with the concept of a curse.

To make it plain for everyone, reverse engineering is when you take a series of wheel spins and analyze it for an optimal bet selection and then place that bet based on the analyzed series.

There is a curse associated with that process because when we deliberately hunt sequences that defy normally expected wheel odds, we end up "standing the odds on their head" and making what is statistically rare to be common and THAT is where the curse comes in.

Because when what is statistically rare becomes common, we get things like massive Monte Carlo Moments(TM) or at least extreme twists of the odds far more frequently than we would normally see them.

So why do I take the trouble to mention all of this?  Because I have a new theory.  I believe that playing roulette and leaving one's chips in one position is a form of the Reverse Engineering Curse (TM). 

Because we are playing with a wheel that is truly random (for all intents and purposes), when we fix an immovable bet in place, we are cursed as if we have a bullseye painted on our backs.  Its like we are resisting the natural flow of the universe.

I say the only way to flow with random is to be as random as random is.



In fact, I ran my own test of this theory and I produced a 16% improvement in max consecutive loss demonstrated over leaving the chips in one place, by simply reassigning all of them randomly after each and every hit. 


I have this feeling that this is not common knowledge even though I have seen ONE person in this forum indicate that they seemed to know this...
« Last Edit: May 04, 2016, 02:32:29 PM by Reyth »


 
The following users thanked this post: kav, december

Jake007

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
  • Thanked: 188 times
  • "Topcats often start out as underdogs."
Re: The Reverse Engineering Curse
« Reply #1 on: April 27, 2016, 10:16:38 PM »
Interesting. So you are saying leaving the bet in one position is the only way to be as random as random is?

 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2995
  • Thanked: 786 times
Re: The Reverse Engineering Curse
« Reply #2 on: April 27, 2016, 10:22:20 PM »
No, I believe it is the opposite.  If we leave our chips in one place we will suffer a "penalty" that we can avoid by randomly moving them. 

We cannot avoid this penalty entirely because it is also my theory that the act of simply placing a bet incurs this curse (at least potentially) BUT we can make it significantly more statistically rare because we relocate our bets.

In other words, by randomly re-assigning our bets, we are flowing with the wheel as closely to "purely natural" as possible; it cannot be perfect because we ARE actually betting with intention but its as close to that perfect flow as we can get, in my opinion.

So I guess my point is that the true strength of a bet selection is its distributions in cost, payout & payout chances relative to those distributions, without being attached to specific numeric allocations. :)

Of course this theory does not take into account any factors that will alter the true random flow of numbers (reasonably speaking) from the wheel.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2016, 10:38:22 PM by Reyth »
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1666
  • Thanked: 307 times
Re: The Reverse Engineering Curse
« Reply #3 on: April 27, 2016, 11:53:32 PM »
I agree with you here  Reyth.
I have always believed that our bets should change with the changing of prior numbers. That is what the Nine Block and the Five in Seven does - goes with the flow -  and they were conceived by mathematicians not me.
I am at present trying the "Track the Wheel "  but differently from our AP friends. As I  don't have there "gift" I need , obviously,  to do it more simply than them !
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

UK-21

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 115
  • Thanked: 38 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Reverse Engineering Curse
« Reply #4 on: April 28, 2016, 06:28:23 AM »
Just so I'm clear on this approach .  . . you're saying that if you bet on, say, two black and it doesn't win, there's less of a chance of it occuring on the next spin so it's best to bet on another number subsequently - and if that doesn't win to change the bet again as the odds on both of the past numbers coming up are less than the other 35?
 

dobbelsteen

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1190
  • Thanked: 249 times
Re: The Reverse Engineering Curse
« Reply #5 on: April 28, 2016, 07:59:23 AM »
Reyth can you explain me what an optimum bet selection is?
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2995
  • Thanked: 786 times
Re: The Reverse Engineering Curse
« Reply #6 on: April 28, 2016, 09:50:21 AM »
Just so I'm clear on this approach .  . . you're saying that if you bet on, say, two black and it doesn't win, there's less of a chance of it occuring on the next spin so it's best to bet on another number subsequently - and if that doesn't win to change the bet again as the odds on both of the past numbers coming up are less than the other 35?

No.  I forgot the results of my test regarding that approach but I am assuming that there is no demonstrable difference. EDIT: You get slightly worse than random results.

My approach is to limit the effect of the curse as much as possible which, according to my theory, is accomplished by changing the bet selection from 2 BLACK to a random selection (even if it is 2 BLACK) AFTER IT HITS.

This approach produces demonstrable improvement across different bet selections.  I have tested it on inside bets (corner, split, DS) and outside bets (dozen).
« Last Edit: November 03, 2016, 07:09:29 AM by Reyth »
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1666
  • Thanked: 307 times
Re: The Reverse Engineering Curse
« Reply #7 on: April 28, 2016, 02:14:48 PM »
Just so I'm clear on this approach .  . . you're saying that if you bet on, say, two black and it doesn't win, there's less of a chance of it occuring on the next spin so it's best to bet on another number subsequently - and if that doesn't win to change the bet again as the odds on both of the past numbers coming up are less than the other 35?
No, UK . As I understood it he is saying that  we should not  continue betting the same number/s all the time but should change them .
And I agree with him here.
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2995
  • Thanked: 786 times
Re: The Reverse Engineering Curse
« Reply #8 on: April 28, 2016, 03:41:56 PM »
Reyth can you explain me what an optimum bet selection is?

Well I am no expert but I guess that it is a mix of factors that all work together, such as:

1) Raw payout chances
2) Modified payout chances (based on bet distribution)
3) Losing cost
4) Winning profit

The bet selection will always be the foundation of any strategy and it must be the strongest possible.  Apart from that there are other factors such as money management, betting frequency/triggers, variable bet amounts etc. that also fit into the picture regarding an optimal bet selection.

HOWEVER, I see you MAY be referring to my use of the phrase "optimal bet selection" in the OP and THERE it probably means betting sleepers or otherwise configuring a bet so that it would be expected to have the maximum possible odds of hitting; i.e. trying to reverse engineer the odds instead of letting them flow naturally.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2016, 03:46:35 PM by Reyth »
 

Harryj

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 335
  • Thanked: 107 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Reverse Engineering Curse
« Reply #9 on: April 29, 2016, 01:20:30 PM »
   Hi Reyth,
                I think you will find that many of the members will agree that constantly changing the target is a good idea. Unfortunately, thanks to Aristotle we are trained to think linearly. ie. From A to B to C. Only recently have we come to realise that it is good to "think out of the box". Even so random thoughts tend to rapidly fall into a pattern.

      Pales' is a past master at producing a string of random numbers. When we first corresponded he came up with a host of ideas based on that concept. The problem was I couldn't think so randomly. My mind went around in circles and produced obvious patterns. I even tried to use a Die(Dice) to randomize my results. In the end I went back to my old standby......Empirical statistics !
    Despite my failure at random thought I still like to keep changing my target.

     Harry............ P.S.  My understanding of "reverse engineering" is to use the same test series to improve  a progression. Only to find that the improvements fail in general play, and only work on that or similar series.

    To overcome this I test my systems with several real sessions that are as different as possible. It's a bit of a bore running through test sessions to make sure they are completely different, but it pays in practical results.

    By the way Today I reached Four Score ! Next target a ton !

« Last Edit: April 29, 2016, 01:32:08 PM by Harryj »
 
The following users thanked this post: december, Reyth

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2995
  • Thanked: 786 times
Re: The Reverse Engineering Curse
« Reply #10 on: April 29, 2016, 04:27:28 PM »
I watched a math teacher in middle school use his timer on his wristwatch to generate random numbers by starting the watch and then stopping it and then dividing the result by the proper amount to generate the random number.

If we need a number from 0 to 36 that is the same as 1-37 and so we multiply the number by 5 and divide by 3 which will yield a number from 1 to 100 which we then convert to .01 - 1 and multiply with 37.

So lets say the stopwatch yields 42, *5=210/3=70=.7*37=26 (always round up) and then we subtract the 1 since we added 1 for convenience in the first place which yields the number 25.

Pretty kewl huh?

Obviously this would be too cumbersome to generate a large number of these on the spot and so I think the best strategy is to generate like 10,000 numbers from Random.org in advance and use them for your numbers, crossing them off as you go. :D 



The amazing paradox when the very spin prior, the number 17 makes you 50 units but the next spin its a miss instead and advances the trigger, even though the exact same bet selection is being used!

« Last Edit: April 30, 2016, 06:22:48 PM by Reyth »