strategy versus expectation

[sqzbox]

"In a series of independent fair bets, strategy is irrelevant to expectation".

Do you believe this to be true?

[Reyth]

Yes.  In the sense that no matter what we do on the felt, we cannot change the outcome of each spin nor the statistical laws that govern it.

[weird]

Yes.  In the sense that no matter what we do on the felt, we cannot change the outcome of each spin nor the statistical law that governs it.

So we need to obey the laws,

but we could do with what known.

Let see.
Possible for 1red and 20black in next 21spins.
BUT impossible for only 10 red and 200black in next 210spins.

By understanding the above, we could see, that ,
short term variance is very possible, but long term variance being "smoothen"

When u understand the above statement, u will NEVER concern about progression again.!!!
U will only concern about
#BET SELECTION
#Variance.

[sqzbox]

But if the assertion is true, and it seems you believe it to be so, then does that not mean, categorically, that no amount of mucking around with strategy choices, no matter how sophisticated, will affect the expectation. Then, have you not proven that the long term result must be the expectation?  Which means you can't defeat the odds.

[Reyth]

It only appears that way if you look at an incomplete mathematical picture.  I believe it is possible to use the force of equal distribution (the downward probability of events) to consistently win at roulette.  This doesn't change the fact that the wheel is going to act the same regardless of what I do.

[Mike]

"In a series of independent fair bets, strategy is irrelevant to expectation".

Do you believe this to be true?

No. If it were true there could be no such thing as AP.

[sqzbox]

OK Mike - interesting point of view. Let me propose this in response -
There is no such thing as AP because in a series of independent fair bets, strategy is irrelevant to expectation.

I'm not a fully-fledged logician but I am pretty sure there is a term for the type of logic flaw demonstrated by your statement - something to do with using a conclusion to prove the argument that provides the conclusion. Circular Reasoning perhaps? Or Begging the Question maybe?

The existence of AP would be a consequence of the inverse of my assertion - that strategy is RELEVANT to expectation. If this were true then the mathematical phenomenon of AP could exist. AP cannot exist if strategy is IRRELEVANT to expectation. So you are saying that since AP exists then strategy must be relevant to expectation and so my assertion is false. But the existence of AP is not a proven fact. It is not even provable.

So I'm sorry Mike but while your opinion is perfectly reasonable (we are allowed to believe whatever we want aren't we?)your reasoning is not.

[Mike]

Sqzbox,

There's nothing wrong with my reasoning, I'm not begging the question.

Your statement was "strategy is irrelevant to expectation". I'm denying this, which means that I believe strategy IS relevant to expectation".  But perhaps I should have stated that:

"If it were true, then AP wouldn't work", which is what I meant by  "If it were true there could be no such thing as AP".

AP is a strategy, and yet using it defies expectation, therefore "strategy is irrelevant to expectation" cannot be true.

Also note that I don't have to PROVE that AP works, because you asked only whether I (or anyone) BELIEVED that strategy is irrelevant to expectation.

[sqzbox]

Also note that I don't have to PROVE that AP works, because you asked only whether I (or anyone) BELIEVED that strategy is irrelevant to expectation.

That is indeed true - which is why I said  "your opinion is perfectly reasonable".

Fundamental difference of opinion here - I believe that the so-called AP is an illusion and success with it is only the result of variance in a positive manner because long-term is actually unachievable by a single person in real-time play. I can't prove it because it is logically impossible to prove a negative so this debate will no doubt continue forever.

[Mike]

That is indeed true - which is why I said  "your opinion is perfectly reasonable".

Actually I don't think it would be if my reasoning was flawed; wouldn't that be a contradiction?

The truth or effectiveness of AP is not the issue. In essence my argument is:

1 "If in a series of independent fair bets, strategy is irrelevant to expectation, then AP cannot work"
2 "AP does work"
3 "Therefore, in a series of independent fair bets, strategy is not irrelevant to expectation".

Which is a valid argument. It may not be SOUND, because I haven't proved the second premise ( for an argument to be sound, it must be valid and the premises must all be true), but there's nothing wrong with the reasoning.

I can't prove it because it is logically impossible to prove a negative

Why not? If I claim that there's a pink unicorn in my garage and you deny it, you can just look in the garage and if there isn't a pink unicorn there, haven't you just proved a negative?

I claim that no winning roulette system is possible, given certain reasonable assumptions. The proof is well known and widely ignored, LOL.

Not only that, but "it is logically impossible to prove a negative" is itself a negative, so the statement refutes itself.

[dobbelsteen]

Mike doesnot know the difference between a system and a strategy. As a creaticion he believe in AP without any evidence.
Strategies are not based on rules or laws and expectations. Short run knowledge is very important. Hit and run!!!

[Mike]

dobblesteen,

I have plenty of evidence that AP works, and none that systems work. Hit and run is another fallacy, I'm afraid.

[sqzbox]

Aha Mike - you have been doing some research! Excellent! Yes indeed, I was being provocative. It's always fun to state the urban myths and see what sort of response is to be had.

Oh, and "your opinion is perfectly reasonable" was based on the principle that as a human being living in a free society you are permitted to have your personal beliefs, whether true or not, and the having of that belief is perfectly reasonable given the freedoms you are accorded by the laws of the land. It does not say that your opinion is correct, just that it is reasonable for you to have one.

Would I be correct in assuming that your evidence for AP is anecdotal? If it is scientifically based I would love to see that proof. Also, by "AP" are you referring to determinism based on the physics of the device?

[Mike]

sqzbox,

Research? not sure what you mean. I studied logic as part of my degree. A long time ago, but it stuck I guess.

Yes by AP I mean physics. The evidence has been around for a long time, before even Thorp and Shannon's computer exploits, but a couple of scientists at the University of Western Australia did a study quite recently:

There have been several popular reports of various groups exploiting the deterministic nature of the game of roulette for profit. Moreover, through its history the inherent determinism in the game of roulette has attracted the attention of many luminaries of chaos theory. In this paper we provide a short review of that history and then set out to determine to what extent that determinism can really be exploited for profit. To do this, we provide a very simple model for the motion of a roulette wheel and ball and demonstrate that knowledge of initial position, velocity and acceleration is sufficient to predict the outcome with adequate certainty to achieve a positive expected return. We describe two physically realisable systems to obtain this knowledge both incognito and {\em in situ}. The first system relies only on a mechanical count of rotation of the ball and the wheel to measure the relevant parameters. By applying this techniques to a standard casino-grade European roulette wheel we demonstrate an expected return of at least 18%, well above the -2.7% expected of a random bet. With a more sophisticated, albeit more intrusive, system (mounting a digital camera above the wheel) we demonstrate a range of systematic and statistically significant biases which can be exploited to provide an improved guess of the outcome. Finally, our analysis demonstrates that even a very slight slant in the roulette table leads to a very pronounced bias which could be further exploited to substantially enhance returns.

You can download their paper here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.6412

I tried to upload it here some time ago but the PDF is too large.

[sqzbox]

Didn't mean to be condescending - hope you didn't see my comment in that way. It just so happens that the "pink unicorn" thought experiment is contained within one of the first few articles to come up if you google "can't prove a negative". So I figured you must have researched it. Still, you are clearly knowledgeable about logic which is refreshing.

As regards AP it is my opinion (at the moment) that the day of successful AP play is just about over. Why? Because the modern wheel and ball combination produces scatter pretty much evenly over the full 360 degrees of the wheel, in even measure. That is, there are no peaks in a scatter graph. So - even if you predict with absolute accuracy the point at which the ball tumbles off the rim and the number on the wheel at that point, it will not help because the random scattering is evenly spread over the entire wheel.

It's probably time I revisited that so I think I will collect some more data. It will take a few days but here is what I will do. I will spend some time in my local casino, take a table at random (obviously one of those which is usually open) and record data from it. The data I will record will be, separately by spin direction, the number on the wheel under where the ball drops off the rim and the number it finally settles in. This will allow the calculation of the distance, in terms of the number of pockets, that the ball travels from drop-off to its final resting place.

It is my contention that I will find a relatively smooth scatter chart. That is, that the scatter is roughly evenly spread between 0 and 36  Of course, I will publish the results here.