Can You Win At Roulette? / With Data
TranslucentAmoebae
data that i accumulated during the thousands of simulations...
http://transamoebae.blogspot.com/2000/07/winning-at-roulette.html
Be sure and visit the many other parts of this blog...
See 'Alternative Contents' for easy access to various genre's...???
--
Sorry that i didn't fill it all in before...???!!!
Oops!
xEaGLe
nice reading, i will bookmark your site :D
arturo
color
not to occur for a while and then betting the other color
progressively-
increasing each bet until it hits.
you say that this works EXCEPT when you get an atypicaly long run of
one
color. well thats the problem with every progression system and you or
any-
one else that wants to risk your money this way will pay to find that
out.
excepting a roulette wheel where age or tampering has caused the ball
to
favor certain pockets, each spin of the roulette wheel is an
independent trial
where the current winning number or color has absolutely nothing to do
with
the previous result. while this may be counter intuitive it is true.
say the ball
has landed on red 15 times in a row (i've seen this happen) - is the
wheel now
somehow "loaded" to favor black? it's not but if you think it is-
instead of the
next spin taking place right away say the ball and wheel were shot into
outer
space for a few trips around the earth and once back on earth was
placed atop
the statue of liberty for a week and then put back into play in the
casino- same
ball, wheel and dealer. is it still loaded for black ?? no of course
not- and never
was.
so realy all your doing is progressive betting. try your progression on
the color
that HAS just come out a lot and you will get the same results- lots of
small wins
that are all lost when your progreesion meets the table limit- which by
the way is
why there is a table limit, a limit placed high enuf to tempt people to
try what you
are suggesting but lose in the long run.
many casinos have electronic boards that do show the last 18 results or
so and
want people to try what you suggest.
anyway run your trials on the color you think "shouldn't" show and tell
us if you
get the same results- many little wins followed by THE HAMMER.
Arturo
arturo
will you try the data on the color you ascertain WILL NOT hit?
Arturo
arturo
TranslucentAmoebae
arturo wrote:
> TranslucentAmoebae,
>
> will you try the data on the color you ascertain WILL NOT hit?
>
In the data comentary; i did note that the actual number of times that
the smart player actually picked the correct colour, was marginally
better, ( very marginally ) than chance, but the fact that the smart
player SEEMS to consistently win more often, and win more money than
the dumb player seems CURIOUS to me...
Nevertheless; i was negligent in not creating more alternative profiles
for Dumb player stategies, which i will experiment with in the next few
days...
Smart Player
Pickes Deficient Colour - Bets Dificient Proportionality
Dumb:a
Picks Excessive Colour - Bets Deficient Proportionality
Dumb:b
Picks Excessive Colour - Bets Excessive Proportionality
Dumb:c
Picks Random Colour - Bets Examined Proportionality
Dumb:d
Picks Random Colour - Bets Examined AntiProportionality
Dumb:e
Picks Random Colour - Bets Randomly/Within Proportional Range
Dumb:f
Picks Random Colour - Bets Wildly
Dumb:g
Picks Random Colour - Bets Cyclicly ( Various Ranges )
---
Also
What kept me interested in this scheme was that The Smart Player Seemed
to be Consistently Winning, and The Dumb Player, perhaps MORE
importantly, Seemed to Consistently Lose, as the House Expects them
to...
Why Does The Smart Player seem to have an Advantage over the Dumb
Player...???
The Critics of this Scheme seem to be saying that the Smart Player, in
reality, is in fact losing just as badly as the Dumb Player, but is
deluding themselves by some unknown mechanism...???
What is the mechanism that causes the Smart Player to be so
consistently fooled...???
arturo
> The Critics of this Scheme seem to be saying that the Smart Player, in
> reality, is in fact losing just as badly as the Dumb Player, but is
> deluding themselves by some unknown mechanism...???
> What is the mechanism that causes the Smart Player to be so
> consistently fooled...???
you are testing 2 things at once.
the 1st is betting the color that hasn't shown to some degree for some
period.
the thing about the laws of math- statistics in this case- is that you
don't need
to test samples to prove the law which in this case states that on
average you
will get 18 red and 18 black in 38 spins ( and 1 single 0 and 1 double
0). if you
do not approach these figures in a large sample, then something is
biased in
your sample generation. black could come up 20 times in a row and it's
still
18 out of 38 it could come up the next spin- just like red.
the 2nd thing you are testing is progression betting. you think you are
testing
both 1 and 2 but you are really only testing 2- progressions. instead
of wait-
ing for a color not to show you could test the progression on betting
the color
that HAS been showing or progression bet on any combination of red and
black- flip a coin, heads bet red, tails black, it doesn't matter.
the "unknown mechanism" you are dealing with is probably tampering with
the sample. so a bunch of red come out and you start your progression
bet-
ting black. but the red just keep on coming and coming and your bet
reaches
the table limit and still it's red. you can't progress anymore- that's
why the
table limit is there, so you take the huge progressed loss. you take
the loss
in a casino but on your calculator you just restart your testing
thinking "well
i probably will never see a run that long in a casino"- so you toss
that huge
loss right out as if it couldn't happen but it can.
you don't see too many progression bettors in casinos because when the
lesson they could have learned doing some math or large trials on a
calc-
ulator are taught in the casino the lesson sticks and the atypical long
color
runs are real, can't be tossed aside and hurt like hell.
the chances of say 20 red coming out in a row are huge. but after the
1st
19 of those red come out chances are back to 18 out of 38 the NEXT spin
will be red.
Arturo
xEaGLe
arturo wrote:
> the "unknown mechanism" you are dealing with is probably tampering with
> the sample. so a bunch of red come out and you start your progression
> bet-
> ting black. but the red just keep on coming and coming and your bet
> reaches
> the table limit and still it's red. you can't progress anymore- that's
> why the
> table limit is there, so you take the huge progressed loss. you take
> the loss
> in a casino but on your calculator you just restart your testing
> thinking "well
> i probably will never see a run that long in a casino"- so you toss
> that huge
> loss right out as if it couldn't happen but it can.
I thought about that, and i think thats the reason the system will
eventually fail. I tried myself on a roulette with very high table
limit and made my way just fine with very low bets.The table limit is
what makes the house secured to win.
John H Meyers
> The table limit is what makes the house secured to win.
It's what assures a termination to "betting systems"
which continually increase the amounts bet, to establish
a finite set of all possible outcomes of the system as a whole.
Betting systems do actually "work," if by "work" you mean
that they transform one set of possible bets, probabilities
and outcomes into another -- you could think of them as
"shaping" a particular profile of the game at hand;
for example, if a pre-defined strategy for coin tossing
is "bet $1 on first toss, stop if won; if first toss loses,
then bet $2 on second toss and stop game whether win or lose,"
then the complete profile is:
Win 1st toss (prob. 0.5) gain $1
Lose 1st toss (prob 0.5) and win 2nd toss (prob 0.5) gain $1
Lose both tosses (prob 0.5 * 0.5) lose $3 (total).
By using the betting system,
the player has transformed the original, single-toss game,
in which he had only a 50% chance of some profit,
into a new, more complex game in which he has a 75% chance
of some profit and only 25% chance of some loss;
however, the amounts of the profits and losses
are also transformed, relative to one another,
keeping *constant* the amount of profit/loss
expected in the long run per $1 wagered,
which is the sense in which the system doesn't "work,"
because it doesn't win you any more money per dollar wagered,
in the long run, although it may very well enable you
to raise to a very high probability your odds of being able
to walk out of the casino saying "I beat the house tonight"
(even if only by $1 :)
In games where the house has a small expectation in its favor
per $1 wagered, so it will continue to have the same expectation
against any such "betting system."
In business ventures as well, the overall metric of success
in the long run may be *net* profit or loss; someone whose
projects "almost always make money" might yet be a net loser
(e.g. an insurance company having to pay out a few gigantic losses),
and conversely, someone whose projects almost always lose money
might be a net gainer (if his losses are modest
while his few "winners" are big enough to offset them all).
There are also "betting systems" which limit gains or losses
by placing "side bets" -- in securities markets,
these are called "options" :)
"You Bet Your Life"
http://timstvshowcase.com/youbety.html
http://www.tvparty.com/moviemarx.html
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042171
The time God appeared on "You Bet Your Life"
http://www.mattneuman.com/youbet.htm
[r->] [OFF]
John H Meyers
> The time God appeared on...
Matt Neuman's other slightly non-historic stories
can be found on http://www.mattneuman.com
See also:
http://indie.imdb.com/name/nm1238470
http://www.lanesarasohn.com/tvwriter/nntn.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DEFD71138F931A15751C1A960948260
[he evidently drank too much coffee]
[r->] [OFF]
arturo
> Betting systems do actually "work," if by "work" you mean
> that they transform one set of possible bets, probabilities
> and outcomes into another -- you could think of them as
> "shaping" a particular profile of the game at hand;
John, it amazes me how many people don't understand this concept-
and otherwise smart people too.
except for "card counting" at blackjack all other "money management "
systems, of which progression betting is one, do nothing but shape a
profile as you have said without affecting the house edge. there is
certainly nothing wrong with using such a system- in the face of random
outcomes it can offer you the false sence of some kind of control but
in the long run you will pay the house their due.
using the calculator to time and predict outcomes at roulette is
another
matter- and much more difficult.
Arturo
John H Meyers
by taking advantage of casino-sponsored travel packages
which were sometimes extraordinary deals -- I recall
once being offered round-trip airfare and hotel
for as little a price as having to purchase and bet
a minimum of $1000 in non-cashable chips
(any winnings were of course redeemable).
Since there are some games with a fairly small house
"percentage" (http://www.insidervlv.com/CasinoOdds.html),
one can bet one chip at a time until all are used up,
and be pretty well assured of a loss/gain within
a couple of standard deviations of the mean,
which could be a very cheap junket indeed
(and possibly even free, with a little luck :)
[r->] [OFF]
John H Meyers
Math, Mind, and Muscle
http://www.goldentouchcraps.com/mathmusc.shtml
[r->] [OFF]
arturo
yes John, i have and if the hp didn't work out at roulette that was
probably my next try.
i played black jack with the hp but, even with such perfect card
counting the edge is so small it might as well be a job. who wants
a +/- 1 % edge and have to risk a $1000 bet to win 10 bucks. yes
it can be done- with partners, large capital, long hours- like i said
it mite as well be a job.
i practiced a while with dice. the trick is to get them spinning- a
fast
spinning object tends to "want" to stay in the same plane (gyroscopic).
you either spin them "head over heals" so to speak (you can partially
limit the occurance of the 2 die faces on the sides, or spin them with
just 1 number staying on top- but casino personel can spot these
"sliders"
even if you have a distraction partner with you.
problem is your only shot is when you throw the die, unless you have
a team but then your just attracting more attention (you try to roll 2
or 12
at 30 to 1 odds and can't have too many coming up) and then you would
be splitting the money. i don't mean to imply it is easy to do, i'm not
good
enuf, but i'm sure there is some old man out there being laughed at by
the casino because his die barely reach the end of the table as he has
such
a feeble thow. they never suspect he's been working on that "feeble"
throw
for 40 years much to the appreciation of his partner(s) betting $100
aces
and boxcars while he has his $5 bet up.
Arturo
TranslucentAmoebae
arturo wrote:
> TranslucentAmoebae asks
> > The Critics of this Scheme seem to be saying that the Smart Player, in
> > reality, is in fact losing just as badly as the Dumb Player, but is
> > deluding themselves by some unknown mechanism...???
> > What is the mechanism that causes the Smart Player to be so
> > consistently fooled...???
>
> you are testing 2 things at once.
> the "unknown mechanism" you are dealing with is probably tampering with
> the sample. so a bunch of red come out and you start your progression
> bet-
> ting black. but the red just keep on coming and coming and your bet
> reaches
> the table limit and still it's red. you can't progress anymore- that's
> why the
> table limit is there, so you take the huge progressed loss. you take
> the loss
> in a casino but on your calculator you just restart your testing
> thinking "well
> i probably will never see a run that long in a casino"- so you toss
> that huge
> loss right out as if it couldn't happen but it can.
>
Well-- i did all The Other Simulations of Dumb Players, with all sorts
of Variations for Betting and Wagering...
See Appendix O :
http://transamoebae.blogspot.com/2000/07/winning-at-roulette.html
---
And it appears that The Red Streak is not required to Sabotage A
'Doubling Up' Scheme... You can Flip Back and Forth between Red and
Black during your Run and it will have No Effect on your Success or
Failure...!!!
Picking The Deficient Colour is 'Apparently' a Cruel Hoax...???
---
How can this be... How can The Colours Defy Statistical
Probability...???
---
The Casino's Use Seven Legged Radioative Hamsters that are Trained,
using the most pernicious methods, to Extrude ESP waves to subvert The
Natural Laws of Reality.
Where is PETA When a real Crisis is Happening...???
arturo
> Picking The Deficient Colour is 'Apparently' a Cruel Hoax...???
> ---
> How can this be... How can The Colours Defy Statistical
> Probability...???
Trans,
there is simply no such thing as a "deficient colour"- the colours
MUST obey statistical probability.
think of it this way- although it's incorrect- maybe the "colour def-
iciency" now is "making up" for a previous "colour excess"- maybe
an excess that occurred on that roulette wheel 4 years ago. so if
that were the case the colours are just "back to even" and now no
colour is "favored".
probability in fact predicts that there WILL be long runs of 1 color.
say a computer picks red or black a million times a second. statistics
can predict on average how many seconds will pass between runs
of say 15 of one color in a row or , to stretch the point, a million of
one colour in a row- now that will be a LONG LONG LONG LONG
time but eternity is infinite. it's like the chimp banging out
Shakespere.
in any case for any "excess or dificiency" there doesn't have to
be an impending ballancing. there will be long runs of colours but
they happen randomly in time- they are not "paired up" or anything
like that.
when you see a long run of 1 colour you are simply observing
something that doesn't happen often- nothing more nothing less
with no indication of what colour is next.
statistitions calculate the probabilities and the table limits are set
to invite but prevent the system you are trying.
to your credit your data came to the same conclusion- you didn't
"fudge" the data to match your theory.
Arturo
arturo
> Picking The Deficient Colour is 'Apparently' a Cruel Hoax...???
> ---
> How can this be... How can The Colours Defy Statistical
> Probability...???
John H Meyers
http://www.allaboutroulette.com/cheating-at-roulette.php
...which also says:
"In March of 2004, detectives in the UK investigated a claim
that two men and a woman used a laser scanner
hidden in a mobile phone that was linked to a computer."
In http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/05/168240
"Now do this with a stock camera phone...
Now that the basic principles are understood,
it should be possible to reprogram a camera phone
with a fast processor to do the same job.
It has to find and register the wheel,
which is an object of known form. Lane Hawk could do this.
It then has to find and track the ball,
which is not too hard (try the Lucas-Kanade feature tracker
in OpenCV) and extract position and velocity.
Given that information, prediction is possible.
Now that 3D game capability is going into camera phones,
there's enough processing power in phones to consider this.
It can all be done with passive sensors. You don't need lasers."
Lane Hawk: http://www.evolution.com/products/lanehawk.masn
So *that's* why my new shoes got added to my grocery bill!
Well, if supermarkets can aim scanners at customers
(and casinos train cameras continually on everyone),
haven't we the same right to watch them?
But all that's for arturo; TA is trying to use math alone,
which doesn't do much good against "pure chance";
it's the casino which sets itself up on the already-winning side,
and just lets the money roll in -- unlike in other sports,
or even other businesses, if you compete successfully here
using any skill of your own, you're a criminal :)
What does this kind of gambling do for society as a whole?
If humanity's overall ability to create were more than its desire
to possess and to consume, and if its rewards from creating and growing
were greater than in devoting life's time and energy to zero-sum games,
an undefinable thing called "quality of life" might be better.
[r->] [OFF]