Author Topic: A question of BALANCE  (Read 9389 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Dane

• Mature Member
• Posts: 317
• Thanked: 175 times
• Gender:
A question of BALANCE
« on: August 07, 2016, 12:21:29 PM »
Balance is good, you might think in your balanced heads filled with balanced ideas from the Age of Enlightenment.
But when it comes to distributions, the Balance might be missing or falsely understood.
Imagine that RED has appeared 34 times within 100 spins.
Right after 200 spins it has appeared 65 times. A greater balance?
No! 34/100 = 34%.
65/200 = 32.5%.

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

Sheridan44

• Mature Member
• Posts: 279
• Thanked: 251 times
• Gender:
Re: A question of BALANCE
« Reply #1 on: August 07, 2016, 12:37:22 PM »
"A Question Of Balance" a keen observation by Dane, and also one of my treasured Moody Blues albums.

Dane

• Mature Member
• Posts: 317
• Thanked: 175 times
• Gender:
Re: A question of BALANCE
« Reply #2 on: August 08, 2016, 07:18:17 AM »
"A Question Of Balance" a keen observation by Dane, and also one of my treasured Moody Blues albums.

As a matter of fact I had that album in mind.  Released 7Th August 1970!

Another example: Right after 10 spins Red has come out 3 times.
After 100 spins: 31  times.
31% is better than 30%. But still the Red player has lost!

The following users thanked this post: kav, Sheridan44

kav

• www.Roulette30.com
• Hero Member
• Posts: 2227
• Thanked: 1170 times
• Gender:
Re: A question of BALANCE
« Reply #3 on: August 08, 2016, 09:37:37 AM »
According to ergodic theory, the balance in due time should not only be "better" but even reversed.
It is "impossible" that in many consecutive 100 or 200 spin sequences the same color will continuously dominate.

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

dobbelsteen

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1572
• Thanked: 558 times
Re: A question of BALANCE
« Reply #4 on: August 08, 2016, 09:39:50 AM »
In another topic you can find the graph  for ECs.After about 150 spins the ratio R/B is 1 with a slight deviation.

This is a certanity!

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

scepticus

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2581
• Thanked: 573 times
Re: A question of BALANCE
« Reply #5 on: August 08, 2016, 10:38:35 AM »
I remember reading about a mathematician  or Statistician who tested R/Bs over a million
spins and found that one colour dominated within one thousand spins before the other colour began dominating over the next thousand spins.
Small samples differ from long samples -  and we only bet short samples .

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Dane

• Mature Member
• Posts: 317
• Thanked: 175 times
• Gender:
Re: A question of BALANCE
« Reply #6 on: August 08, 2016, 11:17:32 AM »
As you might have guessed, my examples only came from me and not real spins.
My point: Over Time greater Balance might be seen in PERCENTAGE - as the actual difference grow bigger. Maybe this is basic  statistical knowledge.

With a touch of irony I mentioned The Age of Enlightenment. You know, d´Alembert played a role then. We have come a long way since and even overcome  a question of Balance from the psykadelic era (impressive album cover, by the way, showing Einstein in the Universe). Your ideas of Balance may be better, and you may know Laws, theories and Words that I don´t.

result in profit in the real World?
WITHOUT PROGRESSION?

scepticus

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2581
• Thanked: 573 times
Re: A question of BALANCE
« Reply #7 on: August 08, 2016, 03:02:16 PM »
As you might have guessed, my examples only came from me and not real spins.
My point: Over Time greater Balance might be seen in PERCENTAGE - as the actual difference grow bigger. Maybe this is basic  statistical knowledge.

With a touch of irony I mentioned The Age of Enlightenment. You know, d´Alembert played a role then. We have come a long way since and even overcome  a question of Balance from the psykadelic era (impressive album cover, by the way, showing Einstein in the Universe). Your ideas of Balance may be better, and you may know Laws, theories and Words that I don´t.

result in profit in the real World?
WITHOUT PROGRESSION?

If this question was meant for me , Dane then I can  accept that "balance"  will result " In The Long Term ". As you say, it is the percentage that comes closer to "balance" while the actual differences may  grow. As a matter of logic , though, there must be a limit to that "actual difference" or else the percentage itself  must also grow .
In roulette , over a million spins there will be a difference but that difference can be either way and not just in the casino's favour   whatever the math geeks say. Because of variance.
If balance will occur then it becomes a question of " when "? I think that s a question that no one can answer so those who advocate " balance"  are fiddling in the dark. AS WE ALL ARE ! Maths geeks, AP. Method players -whatever.
Short Term there is a greater imbalance than in the Long Term so the Short Term is where our focus should be. Forget about what MIGHT happen after we are dead .Or in the next few spins or sessions.
The Long Term is where maths geeks live while gamblers  live in the real world.
As to your question can I profit in the real world without using a progression ? Yes.   In my view progressions are useful in enhancing the profit of an already Break - Even or Profitable  strategy but not by themselves. Progressions  after a loss ARE a form of "Chasing Your Losses " so must be used with caution.
What Newcomers  ( newbies ) need to understand is that roulette is a form of gambling and so , in essence, everyone involved in gambling is  just guessing - despite the claims of some that they have found The Holy Grail .

The following users thanked this post: Dane, december

Dane

• Mature Member
• Posts: 317
• Thanked: 175 times
• Gender:
Re: A question of BALANCE
« Reply #8 on: August 08, 2016, 03:23:28 PM »
As you might have guessed, my examples only came from me and not real spins.
My point: Over Time greater Balance might be seen in PERCENTAGE - as the actual difference grow bigger. Maybe this is basic  statistical knowledge.

With a touch of irony I mentioned The Age of Enlightenment. You know, d´Alembert played a role then. We have come a long way since and even overcome  a question of Balance from the psykadelic era (impressive album cover, by the way, showing Einstein in the Universe). Your ideas of Balance may be better, and you may know Laws, theories and Words that I don´t.

result in profit in the real World?
WITHOUT PROGRESSION?

If this question was meant for me , Dane then I can  accept that "balance"  will result " In The Long Term ". As you say, it is the percentage that comes closer to "balance" while the actual differences may  grow. As a matter of logic , though, there must be a limit to that "actual difference" or else the percentage itself  must also grow .
In roulette , over a million spins there will be a difference but that difference can be either way and not just in the casino's favour   whatever the math geeks say. Because of variance.
If balance will occur then it becomes a question of " when "? I think that s a question that no one can answer so those who advocate " balance"  are fiddling in the dark. AS WE ALL ARE ! Maths geeks, AP. Method players -whatever.
Short Term there is a greater imbalance than in the Long Term so the Short Term is where our focus should be. Forget about what MIGHT happen after we are dead .Or in the next few spins or sessions.
The Long Term is where maths geeks live while gamblers  live in the real world.
As to your question can I profit in the real world without using a progression ? Yes.   In my view progressions are useful in enhancing the profit of an already Break - Even or Profitable  strategy but not by themselves. Progressions  after a loss ARE a form of "Chasing Your Losses " so must be used with caution.
What Newcomers  ( newbies ) need to understand is that roulette is a form of gambling and so , in essence, everyone involved in gambling is  just guessing - despite the claims of some that they have found The Holy Grail .

This question was not meant for you in particular, scep, but I welcome your reply and tend to agree.
A long time ago I read some German roulette books. One of the authors adviced us to
FORGET ALL ABOUT BALANCE at the roulette tables.
Should I forget what MIGHT happen after we are dead? My grandma would not agree. She was a spiritist, you know   Long term karma is gonna get you!
NEXT week I´ll be in Germany. The Germans might teach a certain Dane to be a little less ironic
OHNE GEWÄHR UND PISTOLE. To focus  on here and now.

dobbelsteen

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1572
• Thanked: 558 times
Re: A question of BALANCE
« Reply #9 on: August 09, 2016, 09:45:20 AM »
the graph of a long run test for the ratio R/B show a long wave round  1. In the beginning the intervals between the balance spins are small and increase. The crests of the unbalance crease also. It is normal that  the difference between the  occurrences  of Red and Black is more than 100 after a M testrun.
You can require table performences from the Wiesbadener Spielbank or others.

Bayes

• Veteran Member
• Posts: 688
• Thanked: 566 times
• roulettician.com
Re: A question of BALANCE
« Reply #10 on: August 09, 2016, 10:20:38 AM »
As a matter of logic , though, there must be a limit to that "actual difference" or else the percentage itself  must also grow .
In roulette , over a million spins there will be a difference but that difference can be either way and not just in the casino's favour   whatever the math geeks say.

Scep,

As regards your first point, there isn't really a limit to the "actual difference". The percentage gets closer and closer to the "ideal" probability but the actual difference continues to grow. The difference can be either way for a while, but eventually percentage takes over, so it's not really true to say that eventually the difference won't necessarily be in the casino's favour.

I have to disagree that everyone is "fiddling in the dark". Suppose you identify a biased wheel? Your winnings will definitely continue to grow, assuming you're betting on the right numbers.

scepticus

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2581
• Thanked: 573 times
Re: A question of BALANCE
« Reply #11 on: August 09, 2016, 01:17:52 PM »
As a matter of logic , though, there must be a limit to that "actual difference" or else the percentage itself  must also grow .
In roulette , over a million spins there will be a difference but that difference can be either way and not just in the casino's favour   whatever the math geeks say.

Scep,

As regards your first point, there isn't really a limit to the "actual difference". The percentage gets closer and closer to the "ideal" probability but the actual difference continues to grow. The difference can be either way for a while, but eventually percentage takes over, so it's not really true to say that eventually the difference won't necessarily be in the casino's favour.

I have to disagree that everyone is "fiddling in the dark". Suppose you identify a biased wheel? Your winnings will definitely continue to grow, assuming you're betting on the right numbers.

I don't agree Bayes.
If the % difference after , say, a million  spins is always  2.7 % or thereabouts as we are constantly told then the actual difference  cannot stray beyond that. The % is the measurement of the difference is it not ?
A Biased Wheel , Bayes, ? In a casino owned by a large corporation ? If that were so then Maths students would be there in their droves ! Modern Wheels  are much different from their predecessors- as Real will tell you. Ask any Mathematician or Physicist about bias and they will tell you that what
you are seeing is likely to be variance. As you have a copy of Real's book can you say how many spins are needed to establish his " bias ". And does he offer to give you further guidance for a fee as does Mr. Perfect. And do you really believe in biased wheels ?
If , in the Long Term, the casino MUST win why are there  "outliers " in the Bell curve if there can be no outliers after a million spins ?
I have said it before, Bayes, .Winning or losing depends entirely on what you actually bet and not the maths. Probability Theory is just that  -Theory . It is a helpful guide- nothing more .

Jesper

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1454
• Thanked: 753 times
• Gender:
Re: A question of BALANCE
« Reply #12 on: August 09, 2016, 02:26:45 PM »
A bias wheel is theoretically a fact, but it is so hard to find, we can give it up.  Variance and luck have created a lot of AP-players.

I did try and used a wheel at a restaurant, which in deed had bias. At the time we could just flat bet, and the straight up paid 30, so the bias was useless, and the manager know it, did not invest in expense equipment.

(sc  RESTAURANT ROULETTE IN SWEDEN AT ABOUT 1970).

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Bayes

• Veteran Member
• Posts: 688
• Thanked: 566 times
• roulettician.com
Re: A question of BALANCE
« Reply #13 on: August 09, 2016, 03:18:22 PM »
I don't agree Bayes.
If the % difference after , say, a million  spins is always  2.7 % or thereabouts as we are constantly told then the actual difference  cannot stray beyond that. The % is the measurement of the difference is it not ?

No, the % is not the measurement of the difference. The difference is for example the number of reds vs the number of blacks. That's a difference not a ratio (or percentage). The ratio or percentage approaches the theoretical probability as you get more spins but the absolute number of reds vs blacks increases.

Quote
A Biased Wheel , Bayes, ? In a casino owned by a large corporation ? If that were so then Maths students would be there in their droves !

Well I didn't say how likely it was to find a biased wheel, only that if you can establish that the wheel is biased then you're not just "fiddling in the dark". Not all casinos are owned by large corporations, and I think most maths students would assume just what you do, so why would they even bother to try to find one?  And from the casino's point of view, if a wheel is making money then why should they replace it even if it's biased? Roulette tables aren't cheap. They're more likely to just move it around. Anyway, it's not my purpose to champion this particular AP path. I was just making a hypothetical point which applies to all forms of gambling. There are "gamblers" who win far in excess of what luck would suggest, so at least some are not fiddling in the dark.

Quote
I have said it before, Bayes, .Winning or losing depends entirely on what you actually bet and not the maths.

Well yes, but that's rather obvious isn't it? If we bet on the winning numbers we'll win and if not we'll lose.  If we're betting randomly though then our results should conform to the maths, over time.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2016, 03:24:08 PM by Bayes »

scepticus

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2581
• Thanked: 573 times
Re: A question of BALANCE
« Reply #14 on: August 09, 2016, 05:41:33 PM »
So what is the ratio based on if not the difference ?
What you are stating is text book maths.It is based on simplistic scenarios . Bet on Red. Bet on Black.
Many of us use previous spins to determine our bets so our bets change. Sometimes Red sometimes black , for example.So just how do you calculate them ? We bet in small samples so sometimes we hit a good patch , sometimes a bad patch .When we hit a bad patch we use our stop loss so just how can you calculate that ? When we hit a good patch we stop at a predetermined  profit. Just how can you calculate that ? We DO NOT BET randomly which is what  your Long Run  refers to.
Each spin  gives a random result so just how can you calculate uncertainty ? Probability Theorydeals with possibilities so just how do you conclude that outcomes are certain? Is your “ over time “ certain to happen during our betting lifetime ? If not why invoke it ?
It is not sufficient for a wheel to be   biased . It needs to be sufficiently biased to be exploitable . Of course it is elementary My Dear Watson IF you can find a suitably biased wheel you could exploit it.  But so too IF  the moon was made of cheese you could eat it , couldn’t you ? You avoid the fact  that you could wait until the proverbial Doomsday before you found one.  Real’s idea of a biased wheel is based on the belief of Physicists that anything Manmade is not perfect . That may be true but it is a Quantum Leap to go from there to claim that modern wheels are exploitable.What Physicist agrees with his hypothesis - that he can profit from a wheel without the use of  a computer ? What evidence have you that this is being done ?
Nor do you say how many spins are needed to prove that a bias exists or how long that would take. I think your belief in biased wheels is not founded in reality.
I am glad that you agree that what we bet is what counts and not the maths. That is where my focus is - what to bet .