### Author Topic: The Trigger Game  (Read 14537 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1693
• Thanked: 282 times
• Gender:
##### The Trigger Game
« on: January 09, 2016, 05:12:44 AM »

The "Trigger" Game

You have a system that relies on the outside ECs.  The wheel doesn't have a zero, and you're using an up as you lose progression.

Your triggers are based on waiting for a miss of five reds... before you begin betting that black will hit within the next five spins, while using your progression.

How long must you wait for five reds to miss before you can begin to bet?  Answer, the chance that a red will hit in five spins is 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/ 32.  So you'll have to wait around for about 32 spins before you can bet.

Now that you've waited, what is the chance that you won't hit on one of the next five spins?  Spin one miss 1/2 x spin two miss 1/2 x spin three miss 1/2 x spin four miss 1/2 x spin five miss 1/2    (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2) = 1/ 32.  Or put another way, this means that your progression will fail about once every 32 spins....  hmmm interesting.

Summarizing so far: You stand around for about 32 spins waiting to bet... and find that your progression fails about every 32 spins.

So you think, well this just isn't going work, so you decide to increase your trigger to 10 spins without a hit.

Now how long must you stand around before you will likely see 10 misses?  1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/1024   This means you're going to have to stand around for about 1024 spins before you can begin to bet.

Now that you've waited all this time, surely your progression will be less likely to lose, right?   Wrong!  The chance that you're progression will fail is still  1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/ 32.  This means that every time you wait around for 1024 spins your progression will still fail about once in every 32 attempts.

The big question now is, why are you waiting? The probability of winning didn't change, so what's the purpose of the triggers?   Regardless off how long you wait to bet, your progression still fails about once in every 32 attempts in the above trigger game.

I've noticed that many of you are running simulations... trying to figure out what the best trigger is that you should use. Each time you run your sims with a trigger, all you're doing is subdividing the number of spins on which you're actually betting.  If you're betting on fewer spins, then your system will fail less frequently.  However, if you compare the same number of spins on which bets were actually made for each of the triggers, then you'll find that the five trigger fails just as frequently as the six trigger, and the seven trigger, and the eight trigger, and the nine trigger, and the ten trigger, etc....and even the 1,000 trigger.  Regardless of the trigger's length, you're not increasing your success rate.  In other words, when you play the trigger game, you're only fooling yourself.

-Really

« Last Edit: January 10, 2016, 04:02:09 AM by Real »

#### palestis

• Great Contributor
• Posts: 842
• Thanked: 792 times
##### Re: The Trigger Game
« Reply #1 on: January 09, 2016, 09:43:51 AM »

The "Trigger" Game

You have a system that relies on the outside ECs.  The wheel doesn't have a zero, and you're using an up as you lose progression.

You're triggers are based on waiting for a miss of five reds... before you begin betting that black will hit within the next five spins, while using your progression.

How long must you wait for five reds to miss before you can begin to bet?  Answer, the chance that a red will hit in five spins is 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/ 32.  So you'll have to wait around for about 32 spins before you can bet.

Now that you've waited, what is the chance that you won't hit on one of the next five spins?  Spin one miss 1/2 x spin two miss 1/2 x spin three miss 1/2 x spin four miss 1/2 x spin five miss 1/2    (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2) = 1/ 32.  Or put another way, this means that your progression will fail about once every 32 spins....  hmmm interesting.

Summarizing so far: You stand around for about 32 spins waiting to bet... and find that your progression fails about every 32 spins.

Nice analysis.
With a \$5 starting chip if you win the 31 times you are entitled to (you said it), you make \$155. And one time in a 5 step progression loss, you lose \$155. So you are saying things even out. Enter 0 or 0 and 00 and you lose to the HE.
Though this analysis may seem brilliant at  first glance, it has serious faults.

First of all you really don't have to wait around for 32 spins. A suitable situation can be found sooner than the 32 spins waiting time suggests, if you have 5+ roulettes around you and you track all the EC types. Not just B/R.
Realistically you are not going to find exactly a streak of 5 identical EC's as the last 5 freshest numbers on the board. If they are in the middle or lower part of the board, it already happened and you obviously cannot act on it. You can only take action on the last 5 numbers that you came upon.
The most likely event will be to come upon less than 5 numbers in the streak, or more than 5 numbers. If it's less than 5 numbers you wait for the streak to complete and start betting, or if it breaks you move on to another roulette. If you found more than 5 numbers in the streak, you have a situation where not only you have a ready made trigger, but also a few bets that saved you money if you had bet on them from the start. If you see 7 red, it means that you have saved the cost of 2 bets and that you only have to bet 3 spins to complete the 5 step progression.  Hence the importance of virtual loss.

The second and most serious fault in your analysis is that it fails to incorporate the money factor.
Though the analysis pinpoints the 31 wins vs. 1 loss, it doesn't say anything about the amount wagered during some the 31 winning spins or the amount at risk when the loss happens.
Your analysis makes sense only if the amount of bets remains constant.
But since you finally agree that I am entitled to 31 wins out of 32 tries, I am confident that any increase on the starting chip, after the 1 and only loss, will result in the full recovery of the loss.
Then the process repeats at the regular starting chip value.
In other words after losing that \$155 during the one and only loss I am destined to suffer,
a \$100 starting bet in the next round will bring me close to recovery. And one more win out of the 31 I am entitled to, will bring me back  to a winning position.
After that, I can revert back to  \$5  starting chip as usual.
Could it be that after losing a 5 step \$5 progression will be followed by an immediate \$100 chip progression loss?
Well, it could happen. But 31 wins out of 32 tries is an overwhelming success rate I can count on.
If I employ virtual losses in some of the progressions, it has nothing to do with gambler's fallacy.
You insist that the success ratio 31:1 is valid.
Y would that ratio change if some of the bets are virtual? I don't see any reasoning for that.
But it makes a big difference in the risk.

« Last Edit: January 09, 2016, 09:49:35 AM by palestis »

The following users thanked this post: MickyP

#### dobbelsteen

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1572
• Thanked: 558 times
##### Re: The Trigger Game
« Reply #2 on: January 09, 2016, 12:27:03 PM »
Real you must learn the principle of SSB.
SSb is a system you have never wait for a serie of 5 even chances with the same risk.
A 5 spins event has 32 sequences of 5 results.
For your idea you can use any 5 spins event

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1693
• Thanked: 282 times
• Gender:
##### Re: The Trigger Game
« Reply #3 on: January 09, 2016, 05:56:07 PM »
Quote
Real you must learn the principle of SSB.
SSb is a system you have never wait for a serie of 5 even chances with the same risk.-Dobbelsteen

It doesn't matter whether you wait or don't wait.
The purpose of the "trigger" post is to demonstrate that any system that relies on the use of "triggers" is a foolish venture.  Regardless of a "triggers" length, they do not increase a system players win rate.  They are part of the gambler's fallacy.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2016, 05:57:57 PM by Real »

#### BlueAngel

• I always express my opinion
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1574
• Thanked: 246 times
• Gender:
• Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
##### Re: The Trigger Game
« Reply #4 on: January 09, 2016, 07:45:01 PM »
Quote
Nice analysis.
With a \$5 starting chip if you win the 31 times you are entitled to (you said it), you make \$155. And one time in a 5 step progression loss, you lose \$155. So you are saying things even out. Enter 0 or 0 and 00 and you lose to the HE.
Though this analysis may seem brilliant at  first glance, it has serious faults.

First of all you really don't have to wait around for 32 spins. A suitable situation can be found sooner than the 32 spins waiting time suggests, if you have 5+ roulettes around you and you track all the EC types. Not just B/R.
Realistically you are not going to find exactly a streak of 5 identical EC's as the last 5 freshest numbers on the board. If they are in the middle or lower part of the board, it already happened and you obviously cannot act on it. You can only take action on the last 5 numbers that you came upon.
The most likely event will be to come upon less than 5 numbers in the streak, or more than 5 numbers. If it's less than 5 numbers you wait for the streak to complete and start betting, or if it breaks you move on to another roulette. If you found more than 5 numbers in the streak, you have a situation where not only you have a ready made trigger, but also a few bets that saved you money if you had bet on them from the start. If you see 7 red, it means that you have saved the cost of 2 bets and that you only have to bet 3 spins to complete the 5 step progression.  Hence the importance of virtual loss.

The second and most serious fault in your analysis is that it fails to incorporate the money factor.
Though the analysis pinpoints the 31 wins vs. 1 loss, it doesn't say anything about the amount wagered during some the 31 winning spins or the amount at risk when the loss happens.
Your analysis makes sense only if the amount of bets remains constant.
But since you finally agree that I am entitled to 31 wins out of 32 tries, I am confident that any increase on the starting chip, after the 1 and only loss, will result in the full recovery of the loss.
Then the process repeats at the regular starting chip value.
In other words after losing that \$155 during the one and only loss I am destined to suffer,
a \$100 starting bet in the next round will bring me close to recovery. And one more win out of the 31 I am entitled to, will bring me back  to a winning position.
After that, I can revert back to  \$5  starting chip as usual.
Could it be that after losing a 5 step \$5 progression will be followed by an immediate \$100 chip progression loss?
Well, it could happen. But 31 wins out of 32 tries is an overwhelming success rate I can count on.
If I employ virtual losses in some of the progressions, it has nothing to do with gambler's fallacy.
You insist that the success ratio 31:1 is valid.
Y would that ratio change if some of the bets are virtual? I don't see any reasoning for that. But it makes a big difference in the risk.

If what you say is true why not bet without waiting against a streak of 6 in a row?
Again you have 31 chances to win against 1 to lose.
By waiting to lose first and after raise your bet doesn't improve probability, I hate to say it but I think that's the definition of gambler's fallacy.
What Harry describes on the topic "Very near the infallible method" is completely another thing, can you realize it?

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1693
• Thanked: 282 times
• Gender:
##### Re: The Trigger Game
« Reply #5 on: January 09, 2016, 07:55:52 PM »
Quote
First of all you really don't have to wait around for 32 spins. A suitable situation can be found sooner than the 32 spins waiting time suggests,-Palestis

Actually, there's no reason to wait at all. No trigger will perform any better or worse than any other trigger.   Triggers are worthless.   Always have been, always will be in the random game.
Quote

You can only take action on the last 5 numbers that you came upon.-Palestis

Why?
Quote
The most likely event will be to come upon less than 5 numbers in the streak, or more than 5 numbers. If it's less than 5 numbers you wait for the streak to complete and start betting, or if it breaks you move on to another roulette. If you found more than 5 numbers in the streak, you have a situation where not only you have a ready made trigger, but also a few bets that saved you money if you had bet on them from the start. If you see 7 red, it means that you have saved the cost of 2 bets and that you only have to bet 3 spins to complete the 5 step progression.  Hence the importance of virtual loss. -Palestis

Virtual losses are as silly as using triggers.  Applying a virtual loss does not increase your win rate.  Your win rate will be exactly the same whether you use the virtual loss or not.  The reason you're not grasping this is because your not comparing the same number of spins where bets are made in each test sample.

Quote
The second and most serious fault in your analysis is that it fails to incorporate the money factor.-Palestis

The money factor is irrelevant in the examples above.  Using virtual losses is no different than using triggers.  Both are part of the gambler's fallacy.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2016, 07:58:50 PM by Real »

#### BlueAngel

• I always express my opinion
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1574
• Thanked: 246 times
• Gender:
• Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
##### Re: The Trigger Game
« Reply #6 on: January 09, 2016, 08:00:03 PM »
Palestis, just because the theory says that on average you would win 31 times and lose 1 which costs you 31 wins,it doesn't mean that you are going to win first 31 times and on the 32nd you will lose, in other words the theory dictates only quantities on average but nobody could determine in which order are going to be distributed those streaks, not even the total quantity of streaks is not 100% due to variance.
What I'm trying to say here is that after you see a streak of 6 for example, nobody can guarantee that there won't be another one nearby!
The same false logic is to think that since a streak of let's say 8 is more rare than a streak of 6, thus someone could martingale for 8 times and when a streak of 6 appeares he would stop because according to this logic the smaller more frequent streak should appear before the longer more rare one, but of course this is far from truth.
Please tell me,from the many times you have been to casinos, haven't you saw a long streak just by the time you have arrived at the tables?? Didn't you?

#### Harryj

• Veteran Member
• Posts: 359
• Thanked: 174 times
• Gender:
##### Re: The Trigger Game
« Reply #7 on: January 10, 2016, 11:22:16 AM »
Palestis, just because the theory says that on average you would win 31 times and lose 1 which costs you 31 wins,it doesn't mean that you are going to win first 31 times and on the 32nd you will lose, in other words the theory dictates only quantities on average but nobody could determine in which order are going to be distributed those streaks, not even the total quantity of streaks is not 100% due to variance.
What I'm trying to say here is that after you see a streak of 6 for example, nobody can guarantee that there won't be another one nearby!
The same false logic is to think that since a streak of let's say 8 is more rare than a streak of 6, thus someone could martingale for 8 times and when a streak of 6 appeares he would stop because according to this logic the smaller more frequent streak should appear before the longer more rare one, but of course this is far from truth.
Please tell me,from the many times you have been to casinos, haven't you saw a long streak just by the time you have arrived at the tables?? Didn't you?

Hi BA,
The research we do to establish the statistics of the "Winning Range"  as based on many thousands of spins. We are well aware that many results will fall outside that range.  It is of little interest, because our statistics tell us that sufficient hits will fall within the range, to cover our losses and make a small profit.

The admitted danger is that several "outside the range" results will allow no time for recovery. This is a very rare result, but when it occurs it will obviously crash the Strategy. Therefor it is essential that the OVERALL B/R is well buffered. Fortunately this is not difficult as the progressions used are short and relatively inexpensive.

Harry

#### dobbelsteen

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1572
• Thanked: 558 times
##### Re: The Trigger Game
« Reply #8 on: January 10, 2016, 01:16:44 PM »
There is no system that can guarantee a profit.
Play your triggersystem and i guarantee a 50%  a profit or loss
Gamblers Fallacy is perhaps an anomaly in the head of AP players. Experience players know all the in and outs of Gamblers Fallacity and HE
AP fallacity is they think to predict the result of a spin after the ball is released.

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1693
• Thanked: 282 times
• Gender:
##### Re: The Trigger Game
« Reply #9 on: January 10, 2016, 11:55:40 PM »
The trigger game post also applies to the "hit and run" nonsense game.

#### Jake007

• Mature Member
• Posts: 398
• Thanked: 291 times
• "Topcats often start out as underdogs."
##### Re: The Trigger Game
« Reply #10 on: January 11, 2016, 07:12:03 PM »
Real... isnt it plausible that ALL roulette betting of any kind falls under gamblers fallacy?

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1693
• Thanked: 282 times
• Gender:
##### Re: The Trigger Game
« Reply #11 on: January 11, 2016, 09:34:15 PM »
Nope, not on live wheels.  On live wheels, some systems can create and advantage by exploiting the wheel, rather than the game.  Attempting to exploit the layout/game is foolish.  Attacking the wheel is a much better idea.

#### Jake007

• Mature Member
• Posts: 398
• Thanked: 291 times
• "Topcats often start out as underdogs."
##### Re: The Trigger Game
« Reply #12 on: January 11, 2016, 10:06:14 PM »
Nope, not on live wheels.  On live wheels, some systems can create and advantage by exploiting the wheel, rather than the game.  Attempting to exploit the layout/game is foolish.  Attacking the wheel is a much better idea.

I have read several places that casinos now check and double check their wheels frequently, thus taking out any advantage based on wheel bias.

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1693
• Thanked: 282 times
• Gender:
##### Re: The Trigger Game
« Reply #13 on: January 11, 2016, 10:10:01 PM »
Some casinos check, but wheels are expensive to replace.  The general modus operandi is if a wheel is making money, then why replace it.  By the way, wheel repair is rarely done on the floor.

#### Jake007

• Mature Member
• Posts: 398
• Thanked: 291 times
• "Topcats often start out as underdogs."
##### Re: The Trigger Game
« Reply #14 on: January 11, 2016, 10:21:56 PM »
If systems are just gambler fallacy, the only way to bet would be betting on the wheel. So you are looking then at wheel bias, which is still in essence just gamblers fallacy.