Author Topic: The Long Run  (Read 4169 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Bayes

  • Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 688
  • Thanked: 558 times
  • roulettician.com
The Long Run
« on: May 08, 2016, 01:01:54 PM »
Thanks to Kav for giving me this space - thanks Kav!  :)

The next article is now online:

The Long Run

Any comments or feedback welcome.



 
The following users thanked this post: kav, december, scepticus, Reyth, Sheridan44

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2078
  • Thanked: 434 times
Re: The Long Run
« Reply #1 on: May 08, 2016, 02:59:35 PM »
Thanks to Kav for giving me this space - thanks Kav!  :)

The next article is now online:

The Long Run

Any comments or feedback welcome.

My view on The Long Run is that you must first insert  the number of trials over which your calculation is to be made .
How many is enough to be of any use ? The classical view is “ towards infinity “ which is clearly nonsense  when our betting lifetime in not “ Infinite “.
Advocates must then  themselves choose a number but I think they must also give the justification for their choice.
I have seen no justification for any of  those I have seen  chosen.
So far anyway ,
 

Sheridan44

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 273
  • Thanked: 232 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Long Run
« Reply #2 on: May 08, 2016, 03:32:08 PM »
Great work Bayes!

Very informative. Thank You!
 
The following users thanked this post: Bayes

Bayes

  • Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 688
  • Thanked: 558 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: The Long Run
« Reply #3 on: May 08, 2016, 03:33:38 PM »
Hi scepticus,

I agree with your points and think I have addressed them in the article.

@ Sheridan - thanks!
 

dobbelsteen

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1502
  • Thanked: 482 times
Re: The Long Run
« Reply #4 on: May 08, 2016, 03:40:47 PM »
Bayes see also my tread about the long rub theory.

In a simple spreradsheet I have pointed out that the long run  of the ECs starts about 150 spins. The long run number of spins of all chances are is much larger than a normal session of a player.

My statement is that every player normally plays short run sessions. The result of systems can be positive or negative. Only a good strategy can be profitable on long terms.

For the high educated members your paper is very interested.

 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2078
  • Thanked: 434 times
Re: The Long Run
« Reply #5 on: May 08, 2016, 03:57:47 PM »
Hi scepticus,

I agree with your points and think I have addressed them in the article.

@ Sheridan - thanks!
Yes , but since my bets are forever changing ,depending on past results, just how can statistical analysis be of any help in determining when I will meet my Doom ? Except by analysing my own past results ? When I am told that past results are useless for analysis .
 
 

Sheridan44

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 273
  • Thanked: 232 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Long Run
« Reply #6 on: May 08, 2016, 04:19:09 PM »
Once I've adopted a particular method to play....I've placed myself into my own personal "sine wave", unique to my methodology. Where I start on this wave is the question. The crest, trough or the middle? Sometimes I sink like a rock right from the get-go. Other times, I'll rocket up rapidly. More often than not....I usually meander around zero - occasionally in slight profit / slight loss, before a definitive trend develops. Going with my gut feelings seems more predictive (or hopeful) than indicative. Not sure that a hard number can be used as a type of "circuit breaker". Perhaps a type of moving average could be employed, but that seems not too practical (aka between spins) for the time to calculate such. Some pundits advocate quitting anytime you're ahead....seems somewhat dramatic, but it could have some merit. It's an interesting thing to ponder.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2016, 04:32:11 PM by Sheridan44 »
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2078
  • Thanked: 434 times
Re: The Long Run
« Reply #7 on: May 08, 2016, 04:59:20 PM »
Once I've adopted a particular method to play....I've placed myself into my own personal "sine wave", unique to my methodology. Where I start on this wave is the question. The crest, trough or the middle? Sometimes I sink like a rock right from the get-go. Other times, I'll rocket up rapidly. More often than not....I usually meander around zero - occasionally in slight profit / slight loss, before a definitive trend develops. Going with my gut feelings seems more predictive (or hopeful) than indicative. Not sure that a hard number can be used as a type of "circuit breaker". Perhaps a type of moving average could be employed, but that seems not too practical (aka between spins) for the time to calculate such. Some pundits advocate quitting anytime you're ahead....seems somewhat dramatic, but it could have some merit. It's an interesting thing to ponder.

I am with you there , Sheridan. I  think we only know of a streak when we are in it . Anticipate it ? I am not so sure that it can be  done .
 

Bayes

  • Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 688
  • Thanked: 558 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: The Long Run
« Reply #8 on: May 08, 2016, 05:22:51 PM »

Yes , but since my bets are forever changing ,depending on past results, just how can statistical analysis be of any help in determining when I will meet my Doom ? Except by analysing my own past results ? When I am told that past results are useless for analysis .

No problem, if your bets are changing you can take a weighted average and compute the "long run" from that. Also there's no question of "meeting your doom" necessarily. The calculations assume betting on an unbiased wheel with no edge. If you have an edge, that changes things.

Quote
When I am told that past results are useless for analysis

Who told you that? How else can you do an analysis without using past results? And actually, the calculations don't use past results but future results, given certain assumptions, and there are always assumptions.

@ Dobble - thanks!
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2078
  • Thanked: 434 times
Re: The Long Run
« Reply #9 on: May 08, 2016, 06:30:48 PM »

Yes , but since my bets are forever changing ,depending on past results, just how can statistical analysis be of any help in determining when I will meet my Doom ? Except by analysing my own past results ? When I am told that past results are useless for analysis .

No problem, if your bets are changing you can take a weighted average and compute the "long run" from that. Also there's no question of "meeting your doom" necessarily. The calculations assume betting on an unbiased wheel with no edge. If you have an edge, that changes things.

Quote
When I am told that past results are useless for analysis

Who told you that? How else can you do an analysis without using past results? And actually, the calculations don't use past results but future results, given certain assumptions, and there are always assumptions.

@ Dobble - thanks!
I have always said that assumptions MUST be made when trying to forecast an uncertain future. How many bets do I have to make - or have made - to make a reliable weighted average ?
I don't accept that past results cannot be used because usually my  bets depend on past spins. As for " Who told you that " there have been many on this forum who have told me that. " The Wheel Has No Memory " gang .And don't mathematicians tell us that ?
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3978
  • Thanked: 1282 times
Re: The Long Run
« Reply #10 on: May 08, 2016, 08:13:38 PM »
Seeing how each output is independent (x/37) AND equal distribution applies to every spin (as evidenced by diminishing of successive streaks), I have surrendered to the fact that both sides of the argument are correct and both phenomena exist simultaneously.

Its the only explanation that makes sense to me.

Why people will cling to only one side of the argument when both are objectively true, I do not understand...
 

Bayes

  • Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 688
  • Thanked: 558 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: The Long Run
« Reply #11 on: May 09, 2016, 08:37:19 AM »

I have always said that assumptions MUST be made when trying to forecast an uncertain future. How many bets do I have to make - or have made - to make a reliable weighted average ?

Actually, thinking about it, a weighted average isn't what you need. Suppose you're betting sometimes on 1 number, sometimes 2 nos. and sometimes 3. Just  compute the "long run" for each of the three bets separately. The 3 number bet will reach the long run before the 2 no. bet which in turn will reach the long run before the single no. bet.

Quote
I don't accept that past results cannot be used because usually my  bets depend on past spins. As for " Who told you that " there have been many on this forum who have told me that. " The Wheel Has No Memory " gang .And don't mathematicians tell us that ?

I use past results too. It doesn't necessarily mean you're committing any fallacy. "The wheel has no memory" just refers to the fact that roulette outcomes are a "no replacement" kind of game. That is one form of independence, but there can be others. Independence means there is no regularity in the outcomes, but that doesn't follow from the fact of "no replacement".

 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Bayes

  • Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 688
  • Thanked: 558 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: The Long Run
« Reply #12 on: May 09, 2016, 09:01:35 AM »
Seeing how each output is independent (x/37) AND equal distribution applies to every spin (as evidenced by diminishing of successive streaks), I have surrendered to the fact that both sides of the argument are correct and both phenomena exist simultaneously.

Its the only explanation that makes sense to me.

Reyth I'm not understanding what you mean by this. By "equal distribution" do you mean that outcomes are equally likely?

What is the argument and phenomena you're referring to?

Thanks.
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2078
  • Thanked: 434 times
Re: The Long Run
« Reply #13 on: May 09, 2016, 12:40:44 PM »

I have always said that assumptions MUST be made when trying to forecast an uncertain future. How many bets do I have to make - or have made - to make a reliable weighted average ?

Actually, thinking about it, a weighted average isn't what you need. Suppose you're betting sometimes on 1 number, sometimes 2 nos. and sometimes 3. Just  compute the "long run" for each of the three bets separately. The 3 number bet will reach the long run before the 2 no. bet which in turn will reach the long run before the single no. bet.

Quote
I don't accept that past results cannot be used because usually my  bets depend on past spins. As for " Who told you that " there have been many on this forum who have told me that. " The Wheel Has No Memory " gang .And don't mathematicians tell us that ?

I use past results too. It doesn't necessarily mean you're committing any fallacy. "The wheel has no memory" just refers to the fact that roulette outcomes are a "no replacement" kind of game. That is one form of independence, but there can be others. Independence means there is no regularity in the outcomes, but that doesn't follow from the fact of "no replacement".

Thanks Bayes.
To be specific.
If I bet 2 dozens with one point on each  and then, on a win, bet the resultant 3 points on ONE dozen
can you calculate the Long Run of that ?
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3978
  • Thanked: 1282 times
Re: The Long Run
« Reply #14 on: May 09, 2016, 12:56:31 PM »
Seeing how each output is independent (x/37) AND equal distribution applies to every spin (as evidenced by diminishing of successive streaks), I have surrendered to the fact that both sides of the argument are correct and both phenomena exist simultaneously.

Its the only explanation that makes sense to me.

Reyth I'm not understanding what you mean by this. By "equal distribution" do you mean that outcomes are equally likely?

What is the argument and phenomena you're referring to?

Thanks.

By "equal distribution" I mean the force which ultimately gives balance to random results; just as you have shown in your long run and is also shown by diminishing occurrences of successive streaks.

The argument which the "fantasy/theory" guys constantly hit us with, is that equal distribution exists but that it cannot apply to every spin (and therefore cannot be used to gain any advantage in our play) because every result is independent (x/37).  This argument is quite silly and illogical but they fancy it as something quite intelligent and profound.

The only explanation for equal distribution is that it MUST exist simultaneously with result independence, BOTH applying to every spin.

 The "fantasy/theory" guys are obsessed over trying to prove how this is quite impossible with long-winded and condescending arguments oft repeated to the snores of many on this forum.

After much disputation I have gotten them to admit that the phenomenon of equal distribution exists (but that it is useless), exposing their illogic to full view.  They then jumped thread and began anew their illogical arguments in new threads.

Something quite bizarre motivates them which I have not been able to fully and accurately identify but here are some of the possible related concepts:

1) Sales of AP Materials -- Their posts scattered throughout this forum obtain high search engine hits which would result in PM's regarding these materials.

2) A Personal Mission to Discourage System Creation -- They seem to become especially active in threads created by newer users that are just starting out with system design; they seem to be intent upon discouraging them.

3) Ego Inflation -- They simply enjoy their intellectual badgering and belittling of those that play roulette systems, obtaining an intellectual sense of superiority by repeating their arguments over and over.

There is something that is sick about their behavior that I just know on an instinctual level but cannot fully explain.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2016, 01:23:22 PM by Reyth »
 
The following users thanked this post: december, Bayes, scepticus, Sheridan44