### Author Topic: Triggers in Systems  (Read 7236 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### palestis

• Great Contributor
• Posts: 842
• Thanked: 792 times
##### Re: Triggers in Systems
« Reply #105 on: December 08, 2017, 11:48:39 AM »
Mathematicians know math. No argument about that.
But they don't know play styles.
Roulette playing does not  necessarily involve  single independent events. Where the EC probability is 18/37, dozen is 12/37. a DS is 6/37 etc.
Most playing under a well designed system involves playing a SERIES of events. Predetermined by the player according to his system and  after conditions (triggers), that have a proven success rate thru extensive testing.
Moreover, those betting series have an additional benefit that most experts don't talk about.
The option to stop as soon as a favorable result happens, without being FORCED  to execute the entire betting series. (Which can claim back a win during the series).
The house does not have that benefit. They are locked into continuous spinning.
Following a continuous spinning spree, is what makes money for the casino and gives rise to the advantage of the HE.
A player can pick and chose and can stop any time. Either locking in a win or avoiding further losses.
A collection of mini betting series ( after conditions or triggers), makes up an entire session.
Where a player can stop and leave at any time.
As far are testing millions of spins, is not really necessary.
What counts is the results of many thousands of betting endeavors after certain conditions are present (triggers). Finding conditions that trigger the start of a betting series, of course takes many more thousands of spins. So when we say millions of spins, we usually mean thousands of betting opportunities. And a rate of success can be accurately computed.

The following users thanked this post: kav, Reyth

#### Mike

• Great Contributor
• Posts: 891
• Thanked: 181 times
##### Re: Triggers in Systems
« Reply #106 on: December 08, 2017, 02:32:40 PM »
Palestis,

I agree with you that one of the player's great advantages is that he can choose what and when to play. But it's a common misconception that statistical independence only applies between one spin and the next. An "event" could be a series of spins of any length. Say black has hit 70 times in the last 100 spins, that doesn't tell you anything about how many times it will hit in the next 100 spins. Most of the time it will hit less than 70 times in the next 100 spin sequence, but that would happen anyway because it's a relatively rare occurrence. A "trigger" of 70 blacks in the first 100 spins doesn't affect the probability of the number of blacks in the second 100 spins; that's what independence means.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2017, 02:46:01 PM by Mike »

#### MrPerfect.

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1806
• Thanked: 996 times
##### Re: Triggers in Systems
« Reply #107 on: December 08, 2017, 04:23:14 PM »
Red or black is not a trigger.

#### MickyP

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1168
• Thanked: 510 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Triggers in Systems
« Reply #108 on: December 08, 2017, 07:36:31 PM »
Agree, a red or black on its own is not a trigger but a series or pattern of red/black have been used as triggers in systems I've read.
Playing red/black is volatile with or without triggers because of their layout on the wheel.

#### MrPerfect.

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1806
• Thanked: 996 times
##### Re: Triggers in Systems
« Reply #109 on: December 08, 2017, 07:48:28 PM »
Mickey, my point was a bit other...
You see, some folks here got agenda of spreading as much desinfo as they can. It's not only here... but here their... ( put any bad word here) is stronger.
Folks speak aboud independence of spins and call "red" as a spin result... lm just with out words sometimes,  it makes me reevaluate importance of my answer in the middle of it, so l give up ...
It may look like a banality, but if you evaluatever it in light of previous post... even banality becomes light of wisdom comparing to noncence written above.

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

#### MickyP

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1168
• Thanked: 510 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Triggers in Systems
« Reply #110 on: December 08, 2017, 08:10:45 PM »
Point taken MrPerfect. It can be annoying but it should be like water off a ducks back.
I appreciate your contributions  in sharing your knowledge and wisdom of the game with us.

#### palestis

• Great Contributor
• Posts: 842
• Thanked: 792 times
##### Re: Triggers in Systems
« Reply #111 on: December 08, 2017, 09:36:28 PM »
Palestis,

I agree with you that one of the player's great advantages is that he can choose what and when to play. But it's a common misconception that statistical independence only applies between one spin and the next. An "event" could be a series of spins of any length. Say black has hit 70 times in the last 100 spins, that doesn't tell you anything about how many times it will hit in the next 100 spins. Most of the time it will hit less than 70 times in the next 100 spin sequence, but that would happen anyway because it's a relatively rare occurrence. A "trigger" of 70 blacks in the first 100 spins doesn't affect the probability of the number of blacks in the second 100 spins; that's what independence means.
Statistical independence in a series of single events ( like betting Black or Red), doesn't mean that each single event restarts its probability, if you, as a player,  intend to execute that single event for a number of predetermined trials . Single event probability applies if you play black here, then odd there, then red elsewhere. Or the same table.
But once you decided that you will play black 5 times, until you hit it once,  the probability of series kicks in automatically.
That's the definition of probability of series.
Because a silent clause is to stop  the trials.  if the desired result occurs. And the series ends earlier than planned  if the desired result happens.
That's what "at least once" means.
And in that case the probability of the desired result happening at least one, is 1- (.5x.5x.5x.5x.5).
Or 96.875%.  Not 50% considered individually each time.
Your example that if in 100 spins black has hit 70 times is not applicable in this argument.
For once it has already happened, and secondly these are not spins that the player has decided to play in a continuous series of bets. That's a series of events the roulette itself produced. NOT THE PLAYER.
What you wrongly assume to support your argument is that after 70 blacks in 100 spins, there are many more reds due to happen.
This logic is not the foundation of a system. A good system at least.
The logic is that after an overwhelming majority of blacks, ONE RED in a series of future spins, should appear at least once fairly soon. That's where the system ends. There is no need to go any further to see that an equal number of blacks is matched against an equal number of reds.
Most likely  this is not what is going to happen.
But I surely expect one red to appear, and that's good enough for me.
This logic also applies after a long streak of one EC, ( like 4,5 or 6), and we see it all the time.
Pick any daily results from a casino and you will see that an opposite EC will  appear within a few spins after a long streak of the opposite EC most of the time.
Where to witness 5 more blacks after 5 or more  already happened, you have to search thru hundreds or even thousands of pages of daily results. Y is that?
Let's not forget that the objective to playing roulette is profit. One step at a time. And stop.
The intention is not to defeat probability.

« Last Edit: December 08, 2017, 10:30:00 PM by palestis »

The following users thanked this post: kav, Reyth, MrPerfect.

#### MrPerfect.

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1806
• Thanked: 996 times
##### Re: Triggers in Systems
« Reply #112 on: December 08, 2017, 09:58:25 PM »
Bravo!!! Finally someone says something that make sense. .  At least for me. I even put " like".

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

#### Reyth

• Global Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 4393
• Thanked: 1611 times
##### Re: Triggers in Systems
« Reply #113 on: December 08, 2017, 10:28:25 PM »
You can't sidestep probability & statistics with theoretical independence -- probability & statistics don't care what anybody thinks.TM

I have absolutely no need to be "theoretically correct" -- my bankroll & statistical models say that probability & statistics rule the day and I don't care about the ever so precise definition of "independence" because if I pretend that independence works as well as probability and statistics, I lose large and in short order (relatively speaking)!
« Last Edit: December 08, 2017, 11:08:47 PM by Reyth »

The following users thanked this post: palestis

#### Reyth

• Global Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 4393
• Thanked: 1611 times
##### Re: Triggers in Systems
« Reply #114 on: December 08, 2017, 10:34:02 PM »
The logic is that after an overwhelming majority of blacks, ONE RED in a series of future spins, should appear at least once fairly soon. That's where the system ends. There is no need to go any further to see that an equal number of blacks is matched against an equal number of reds.
Most likely  this is not what is going to happen.
But I surely expect one red to appear, and that's good enough for me.

Let's not forget that the objective to playing roulette is profit. One step at a time. And stop.
The intention is not to defeat probability.

It is also possible to treat a SEQUENCE of events in the same manner; i.e. I am betting that I will gain 1 hit in the next X spins UNTIL a certain number of hits vs. spins are gained.

From this perspective, it is possible to bet the same selection multiple times; its not greed, its using existing statistics & probability to bet during times when a hit is more likely than expectation.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2017, 10:37:44 PM by Reyth »

The following users thanked this post: MrPerfect.

#### Mike

• Great Contributor
• Posts: 891
• Thanked: 181 times
##### Re: Triggers in Systems
« Reply #115 on: December 09, 2017, 09:34:07 AM »
What you wrongly assume to support your argument is that after 70 blacks in 100 spins, there are many more reds due to happen.

I don't assume that at all. That's what system players who think that "regression to the mean" will give them an advantage assume, and they're wrong.

Quote
Pick any daily results from a casino and you will see that an opposite EC will  appear within a few spins after a long streak of the opposite EC most of the time.

Yes, "most of the time". And most of the time the EC will appear regardless of what the previous spins were. That's the point.

Quote
Where to witness 5 more blacks after 5 or more  already happened, you have to search thru hundreds or even thousands of pages of daily results.

That's not what I'm finding. It's pure gambler's fallacy.

#### Mike

• Great Contributor
• Posts: 891
• Thanked: 181 times
##### Re: Triggers in Systems
« Reply #116 on: December 09, 2017, 09:36:04 AM »
Bravo!!! Finally someone says something that make sense. .  At least for me. I even put " like".

Mr Perfect,

I'm beginning to realize that you don't have a clue what  you're talking about. Now you're endorsing gamblers fallacy? It's the blind leading the blind!

#### MickyP

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1168
• Thanked: 510 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Triggers in Systems
« Reply #117 on: December 09, 2017, 01:07:10 PM »
Wikipedia will set you straight....

#### Mike

• Great Contributor
• Posts: 891
• Thanked: 181 times
##### Re: Triggers in Systems
« Reply #118 on: December 09, 2017, 01:21:07 PM »
Yes, read Wiki, not Mr P.

#### palestis

• Great Contributor
• Posts: 842
• Thanked: 792 times
##### Re: Triggers in Systems
« Reply #119 on: December 09, 2017, 01:56:06 PM »

Quote
Pick any daily results from a casino and you will see that an opposite EC will  appear within a few spins after a long streak of the opposite EC most of the time.

Yes, "most of the time". And most of the time the EC will appear regardless of what the previous spins were. That's the point.

Yes, "most of the time". And most of the time the EC will appear regardless of what the previous spins were. That's the point.
Yea that's the point. But that streak that you based your next bets on, would've already caused a major disaster if you happened to have bet the opposite with Martingale.
And streaks of 4,5, and 6 consecutive EC's do happen very often.
Just think about what can happen if you play black and run into 6 red in a row. You will lose 63 units.
Where 6 red in a row (if you play red), will earn you 6 units.
The point is that starting the bets from the beginning earns one unit/per hit. But when an opposite streak happens the loss is disproportional to the wins.
If you don't use Martingale and play  with the same unit all the time you will lose 2.7% if you play like that often.
What's the point of playing like that ?