Can you win at Roulette...???
TranslucentAmoebae
http://transamoebae.blogspot.com/2000/07/winning-at-roulette.html
Is it possible to win at roulette -- consistently...???
The data - examined with an HP48gx; seems to say YES!
Joe Horn
> Is it possible to win at roulette -- consistently...???
Sure. Just play consistently. That will ensure a relatively constant
rate of wins. The take will be less than the bets, but it'll be
consistent!
In Las Vegas one time I went over to a group of hot-fisted slot machine
players, and announced, "Hey, guess what? I found a machine with 100%
payback!" They all got excited until I led them to the Change Machine.
They didn't think it was funny. *sigh* As Paul Simon explains in his
brilliant song "Kodachrome", we all prefer our colorful imaginations
over black-and-white reality.
Meanwhile, if you can post your Roulette Method, we'll all enjoy
perusing it, and deciding how colorful it is. ;-)
-Joe-
"The skeptic who is not as skeptical about skepticism as he is about
everything else is in fact just another True Believer." -jkh-
John H Meyers
> Is it possible to win at roulette -- consistently...???
Why not -- the "house" does!
[r->] [OFF]
duenod...@gmail.com
John H Meyers ha escrito:
> On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 17:58:33 -0500, TA wrote:
>
> > Is it possible to win at roulette -- consistently...???
>
> Why not -- the "house" does!
So you just have to manage the house ! Bright answer !
Daniel
aplnub
The odds are against you because of the extra slot that is on the board
for the house. We looked at this in my statistics class I too a few
years ago (refresher).
John H Meyers
"I've a system that's fiendishly clever,
Which I learned from a croupier friend,
And I should go on winning forever
But I do seem to lose in the end."
Excerpted from "Candide" - one of the great old musicals.
Writers: Lillian Hellman, Richard Wilbur,
Stephen Sondheim, Dorothy Parker; Music: Leonard Bernstein
http://www.geocities.com/bernsteincandide/56libretto2-2.html
[r->] [OFF]
arturo
the answer is YES you can but not by any kind of statistic study as
described in the link above. my answer is based on personal
experience. the program is like setting 2 clocks- 1 for the ball and
the other for the rotor. when the ball "clock" calculates that the ball
will drop down on the rotor (this is a constant- when the ball slows
to a certain speed it always drops from the track) then what "time"
is it on the rotor "clock" (what numbers are below the ball).
of course its not that simple but don't you think the capabilities of
the
hp-48 can solve such a problem?
Arturo
John H Meyers
> the answer is YES you can but not by any kind of statistic study as
> described in the link above. my answer is based on personal
> experience. the program is like setting 2 clocks- 1 for the ball and
> the other for the rotor. when the ball "clock" calculates that the ball
> will drop down on the rotor (this is a constant- when the ball slows
> to a certain speed it always drops from the track) then what "time"
> is it on the rotor "clock" (what numbers are below the ball).
>
> of course its not that simple but don't you think the capabilities of
> the
> hp-48 can solve such a problem?
Oh yes -- welcome back, arturo!
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.hp48/msg/a59f722c43963c67
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.hp48/browse_frm/thread/c13df971c543c6a6/2e6fc6491936e812
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Jaggers
These people won more than a million Brit. pounds
(legally, it was apparently decided):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4069629.stm
Of course the "house" never goes to jail
(for the fact that all wagering is rigged in its favor),
but any time someone gets ahead of them...
[r->] [OFF]
claptonhendrix
John H Meyers ha escrito:
> On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 06:57:03 -0500, arturo wrote:
I have always thought simple answers are the best.
You don't have to think too much for the correct answer.
It is impossible because if it was possible all the casinos would be
closed
It is very simple
arturo
John, thank you for the welcome- my first on the internet- i seem to
bug certain types... well, ok- i bug know-it-alls. so with that confes-
sion out of the way...
Claptonhendrix, simple answers can only answer simple questions
and sometimes you do in fact "have to think" for the correct answer.
i do, however agree that the SIMPLEST answer is the best.
one reason "all casinos" are not closed is law. in A/C or Vegas you'll
do 2 years if caught playing with such assistance. that will stop most
who would consider trying but there are still plenty of places where
it is not illegal altho you would be booted (and keep any winnings).
R & R for programming would take a smart person (who also held
down a "normal" job) a couple years (it took me 5) and then getting
reaction times on the key hits to +/- 0.05 seconds doesn't so much take
years but dedication to the point of obsession (the key hits are with
your toe).
thing is any body smart enuf to pull it off would normally be smart
enuf not to try.
Arturo
TranslucentAmoebae
man o' man--
that is WAY to complicated...
This System simply takes the guesses of which colour the house will
come up with, based on a percieved disproportionality of the Reds to
Blacks ( Damn those Greens ) and then WAGERING intelligently ( or with
Magick ) on the predicted outcome...
[All the data is ALMOST DONE, and will be posted tomorrow probably...
Fri-the 7th
But the curious thing is; YOU CAN'T RELIABLY PREDICT THE COLOUR USING
THIS SYSTEM, it routinely hovers around the probability of chance...
AND YET - The Simulated Smart Player consistently wins money by
wagering according to the systems guidelines, while The Simulated Dumb
Player consistenly loses money by betting Randomly...
???
TranslucentAmoebae
> These people won more than a million Brit. pounds
> (legally, it was apparently decided):
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4069629.stm
>
it's always been my understanding that you can't place bets after the
ball is in motion,
and even so, the process would necessarily have to know where the wheel
started and what it's momentum was and the ball's and gawd only knows
what else...
i think this is somekind of 'dubious' -internet- story...???
TranslucentAmoebae
>
> I have always thought simple answers are the best.
> You don't have to think too much for the correct answer.
> It is impossible because if it was possible all the casinos would be
> closed
> It is very simple
i would counter that there are plenty of good, simple ideas that do
show up every day...
common sense would predict that if these ideas are so simple, someone
would have thought of them by now... but this doesn't seem to be the
actual pattern...???
arturo
Trans, it sounds like a "system" many try in variations- wait for
"no-shows"
and then bet they "will show" progressively. you WILL win more often
with
progressions but then lose in huge fashion- lots of little wins then
boom.
"no shows" mean nothing. the ball could land on black 20 times in a row
and "feel" no "need" to compensate by landing on red. on such a long
run of 1 color some jump in on the other color thinking it has to
"ballance
out" while others are piling it up on the color that is hitting
laughing at
them.
also many who know more than i do say the Ritz team did not use a laser
but won't say what did happen.
and yes- it is complicated. no 2 roulette wheels are identical for
starters
with great variation between models. but isn't the purpose of a
calculator
to simplify complex problems?
Arturo
John H Meyers
> It is impossible because if it was possible
> all the casinos would be closed
"Card-counting" (at Blackjack) has been shown quite possible,
and has been demonstrated in practice, yet the casinos
are not closed -- they simply watch very closely
and eject anyone whom they believe to be doing it.
Similarly with close observations of roulette wheel dynamics
in real-time; it has evidently also been demonstrated
in practice (see the references).
I read once of a mathematician who had proved that powered
flight (of heavier than air machinery) was impossible;
besides that, after all, it had been attempted for
hundreds (if not thousands) of years, with no success
(except by birds), which equally proved its impossibility
(except for birds :)
Many a very possible (and real) thing is scoffed at,
merely because it has not yet been known to the scoffer,
or to those with whom the scoffer associates,
but after a while, the evidence of actual experience
overtakes skepticism -- not in the mind of
every single person, but enough to be considered
established knowledge in the newer generation.
Some current beliefs are false, some current disbeliefs
are true; unfortunately nothing seems to come with
any sure way to discern which is which,
except to live, gain experience, and learn from it.
[r->] [OFF]
John H Meyers
> common sense would predict that if these ideas are so simple,
> someone would have thought of them by now...
> but this doesn't seem to be the actual pattern...???
A proof that Euclid's "parallel postulate" can *not*
be derived from all the others apparently waited
a couple of thousand years for a very simple demonstration.
An extremely simple mechanical construction
was discovered (and patented) in the 1960's
"the only elementary machine discovered this century"
"In tests, Rolamite devices display friction
of an amazingly low order, one to ten percent
of that in the best ball and roller bearings
of similar capacity." U.S. Patent# 3452175
http://www.rexresearch.com/wilkes/1wilkes.htm
How about "Rubik's cube"?
[r->] [OFF]
Joe Horn
John H Meyers wrote:
> Some current beliefs are false, some current disbeliefs
> are true; unfortunately nothing seems to come with
> any sure way to discern which is which,
> except to live, gain experience, and learn from it.
Perhaps, but what about this:
Godel showed that no formal system can be simultaneously complete and
consistent. Therefore, I agree with you that any belief system that
purports to be complete and consistent may be summarily rejected.
However, what about belief systems that do not claim to be complete? I
know of one which claims to be infallible, yet nowhere claims to be
complete. Therefore I see no reason to reject that belief system's
claim to infallibility, no matter how anathema such a claim might be to
the ubiquitous but preposterous philosophy, "The Only Absolute Truth Is
That There Are No Absolute Truths."
Deep Thought, or Brain Fart? I'm not sure. To those who think it's
the latter, I apologize. :-b It SEEMS TO ME, however, that this topic
(though off topic IMHO) is of critical importance to the survival of
the human species. Maybe even to all life.
-Joe-
TranslucentAmoebae
John H Meyers wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 11:50:05 -0500, claptonhendrix wrote:
>
I read once of a mathematician who had proved that powered
flight (of heavier than air machinery) was impossible;
besides that, after all, it had been attempted for
hundreds (if not thousands) of years, with no success
(except by birds), which equally proved its impossibility
(except for birds :)
When i read things like this-
i'm of two minds;
perhaps three ( ... )
a: The Mathematician is just a nut case
b: There is something wrong with Mathematics
c: And the one i have the most confidence in, because there seems to be
an overwhelming amount of evidence that points in this direction:
There is something 'Wrong' with Reality.
There are then: Various ways of interpreting this; most principly for
me-- is that:
The way we percieve reality is so different from the actual reality,
that thinking about it, is nearly pointless.
It may be that Thinking itself is a delusion.
We don't really have the ability to 'Think'.
???
TranslucentAmoebae
did they call this a 'Simple Machine' a new one...???
Don't get me started on Simple Machines...!!!
This Rolamite dealie is indeed very curious and interesting,
But it's seemed to me for a very long time that There is probably only
ONE genuinely simple machine, and what is a Simple Machine anyways...
how many parts can it have...???
Why does a Wheel and Axel get the axel, yet a pulley doesn't, while
they are OBVIOUSLY the same Simple Machine...
It is merely a Topological Perspective of what moves and what doesn't
that makes them seem differnt...
Clealy- The Incline Plane and the Wedge are the SAME Device. One moves
around the secondary objects, and the other remains stationary while
the secondary objects move around it. The Functionality however is
IDENTICAL.
A Screw and The Incline Plane are the same, within the confines of Bent
Space...
Which makes the Screw Topologically Identical with The Wedge, and both
are really the same as the Wheel...
Bent objects are merely moving around one another...
Are there MISLAID Simple Machines... Can a Diode be a Simple Machine,
why wouldn't you consider the functionality of Atomic Principles within
the confines of Simple Machinery...???
Should a Hole in a Surface be considered a Simple Machine... It is
obviously VERY functional, but are you going to hold it accountable
because it doesn't DO anything...
Is not The Hollow Part of a Bowl or Door the most Useful Feature...???
And so on...
TranslucentAmoebae
Joe Horn wrote:
> [OT IMHO]
>
> John H Meyers wrote:
>
> > Some current beliefs are false, some current disbeliefs
> > are true; unfortunately nothing seems to come with
> > any sure way to discern which is which,
> > except to live, gain experience, and learn from it.
>
> Perhaps, but what about this:
>
> Godel showed that no formal system can be simultaneously complete and
> That There Are No Absolute Truths."
>
> Deep Thought, or Brain Fart? I'm not sure. To those who think it's
> the latter, I apologize. :-b It SEEMS TO ME, however, that this topic
> (though off topic IMHO) is of critical importance to the survival of
> the human species. Maybe even to all life.
>
> -Joe-
Are you suggesting that 'Clear Thinking' is 'somehow' 'important'...???
( when you say 'All' Life; do you mean Literally "ALL" Life, or just
Terrestrial Lfie...??? )
Perhaps you should re-read 'Galapagos' by Kurt Vonnegut.
John H Meyers
> The way we perceive reality
> [may be] so different from the actual reality,
Plato may have agreed ("Plato's Cave"),
and so have many other sources,
over thousands of years, said something to the effect
that "knowledge is different in different states
of consciousness" (even in dreaming vs. waking,
for an example familiar to everyone).
> that thinking about it, is nearly pointless.
It is not all knowable by the intellect alone,
much as no amount of analysis of the elements,
compounds, or molecular structures in chocolate
conveys to anyone the taste of chocolate,
and to know the latter requires none of the former.
For those not yet having tried chocolate,
the pleased look on the faces of those who have
(of course only after large-scale testing
with proper controls and statistical analysis,
published in at least two of the top ten journals :)
may be sufficient to spark some interest
in finding out, or sometimes suppression/repression/antagonism
on the part of those not enjoying.
> It may be that Thinking itself is a delusion.
The dog's nose is more sensitive than ours,
the eagle's eyes are sharper, there are creatures
whom we believe to sense fields that we can not,
and to navigate the earth as well as if they had GPS;
we don't know what complete range of experience
(beyond sensory alone)
even other people may be having -- we can be open
to finding out, or we can assert that our past experience
(and results) constitute all that can be.
"All that we see or seem, is but a dream within a dream"
http://holyjoe.net/poetry/poe1.htm [Poe, via Joe]
"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio,
than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
http://www.bartleby.com/59/6/morethingsin.html
http://www.bartleby.com/46/2/15.html
John H Meyers
> Is not The Hollow Part of a Bowl or Door the most Useful Feature...???
Yes, just as "zero" is the essential "nothing"
which makes our numeric math simple and easy,
although the following calculator
also has a Roman Numeral mode!
http://www.calculator.org
http://www.calculator.org/download.html
John H Meyers
> Godel showed that
> no formal system can be simultaneously complete and consistent.
Let's look into that, shall we?
As an aside, what are "completeness proofs"?
http://www.google.com/search?q=completeness+proof
Are they proofs of inconsistency, then?
Was anything omitted from your first assertion, e.g. in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems
"For any consistent formal theory
==> that proves basic *arithmetical* truths..."
"Limitations of Gödel's theorems:
The conclusions of Gödel's theorems only hold for the formal systems
that satisfy the necessary hypotheses..."
"Some technical hypotheses have been omitted here;
one is the stipulation that the theory
be computably enumerable. That is, for Gödel's theorem to be applicable,
it must be possible in principle to write a computer program that,
if allowed to run forever, would print out all theorems of the theory,
and nothing else."
Under "Discussion and implications," you will find not only
further limitations upon the significance ("it presupposes that
'truth' and 'falsehood' are well-defined in an absolute sense,
rather than only relative to each formal system"), but also
some specific exceptions, that is, formal systems which are
*both* complete *and* consistent, e.g. Presburger arithmetic,
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presburger_arithmetic
(see the above Google search for others).
And how about this, for another (possibly surprising) contrast:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_completeness_theorem
So Gödel is on both sides of the fence, eh? -- allowing Joe
to invoke God (sorry, Gödel) to support whichever side he likes,
just like other politicians, by using irrelevant (and even false)
assertions and terms which do not really apply at all anyway
to what was actually under consideration!
Also [under "Minds and machines" - a lot to ponder there]:
"[Godel himself] seems to have believed that the human mind
was not equivalent to a finite machine, i.e., its power
exceeded that of any finite machine."
==
Getting back to what you originally said, however, I suppose
I should also ask whether you would apply even your own
(false, it now appears) original negative assertion
to the collected dogma of any Church?
Would you say it would also imply that God can not be simultaneously
complete and consistent? Or is God simply not contained
within any "formal [arithmetical] system [of logic],"
or perhaps all possible knowledge (and living experience)
would not be "computably enumerable" anyway,
because life (and its living experience)
*is*not*a*branch*of*logic!
But if it were, who would care, anyway?
Would life be no good if you haven't
done/experienced/figured out everything?
Would life be no good if the sun shone on Monday
but it (inconsistently) rained on Tuesday?
Can you not know a great deal with certainty,
even if you do not (or can not) know everything?
==
I came back to continue this discussion after coming across
another beautiful expression of one Albert Einstein,
who was a great deal more than simply a physicist
(by the way, the section "Gödel's friendship with Einstein"
might be interesting in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godel)
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift
and the rational mind is a faithful servant.
We have created a society that honors the servant
and has forgotten the gift." [Albert Einstein]
Illustrations (and research):
http://qad.charityfocus.org/view.php?qid=2300
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/17/thought_for_thinkers/?page=full
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/311/5763/1005
http://sbig.org.ohio-state.edu/02_03/ap_dijksterhuis.htm
"If there is light in the soul,
there will be beauty in the person.
If there is beauty in the person,
there will be harmony in the house.
If there is harmony in the house,
there will be order in the nation.
If there is order in the nation,
there will be Peace in the World."
[a Chinese Proverb, which says the same thing
as do we, about the effect of our own personal
inner light upon the peace of the entire world]
http://www.charityfocus.org/pics/abt/quote_peace.gif
http://www.play-maker.net/life.htm
With best wishes from http://www.mum.edu
and http://www.maharishischooliowa.org