Tom's study on randomness

i wanted to write this for a long time. finally i start it.

it is a big topic, if i haven't put lots of time into it, i shoudn't have started it.

it is a forum aritical, so forgive me incoherency and bad logic. also some info maybe is mistaken..

firstly, as we heard before, the Ipod songs was complained not-in-random, though it is really is. so randomness is sometimes different from our perception.

that is for first piece of info, i will keep posting more and more.

this is what i wrote in another thread, i copy it here:

in any game of half and half by average in theory.
in 20,000(twenty thousand) hands. we win half and lose half. in this half winging and losing,
1 lose or 1 win: 2500 times.(25% of total winning or losing times.)
2 lose or 2 win: 1250 times.(half of above)
3 lose or 3 win: 625 time.(half of above)
4 lose or 4 win: 312.5 time.(half of above)
5 lose or 5 win: 156.25 time.(half of above)
6 lose or 6 win: 78.125time.(half of above)
7 lose or 7 win: 39.0625 time.(half of above)
8 lose or 8 win: 19.53125 time.(half of above)
9 lose or 9 win: 9.765625 time.(half of above)
10 lose or 10 win: 4.8828 time.(half of above)
11 lose or 11 win: 2.44 time.(half of above)
12 lose or 12 win: 1.22 time.(half of above)
13 lose or 13 win: 0.61 time.(half of above)
14 lose or 14 win: 0.305 time.(half of above)
15 lose or 15 win: 0.1525 time.(half of above)
.........
it means also if 200,000 hands, there is 1.5525 times of winning or losing 15 times in streak.
also if 20 millions times, 4.7 times of 20 times.

i conclude above, because i counted by word(now mostly by excel).
in 500 shoes in w of odds:
the B is 18577. while
1B
4656
2B,
3B,
2277
4B.
1163
5B and more...
526 297 152 67 39 35 13 8 4 0 0 1 0 0 0

also i did another 1000, and 2000 shoes,they keep the same theory.

by the way, for Roulette, if betting small, medium, and big.
the 1 small is about 45% of all smalls. 2 smalls is 15% of all smalls. 3, 5%...

as for the theory of fractal and chaos go, the random number also copy itself a lot.
suppose the excel random number are right. here are the test results:
i used the number of '36', check how many times, i will see another 36.i tested 10*1million.
the average is:
0 723.5
1 701.5
2 681.2
3 647.6
4 641.9
5 617.6
6 606.3
7 586.4
8 569.2
9 551.5
10 540.4
11 534.1
12 513.5
13 500.4
14 491.7
15 478.8
16 460.7
17 439.4
18 429.8
19 429
20 406.4
21 392.7
22 381.3
23 375.7
24 381.9
25 367.4
26 352
27 338
28 325.4
29 314
30 319.2
31 312.7
32 292
33 285.3
34 282.3
35 263.9
36 257.8
37 255.7
38 254.4
39 244.5
40 236.6
41 230.6
42 223.4
43 215.4
44 211.1
45 207.2
46 204.2
47 191.1
48 189.5
49 189.5
50 181.1
51 164.7
52 167.9
53 164.6
54 160.1
55 163.6
56 154.1
57 146.5
58 144.4
59 138.7
60 138.9
61 132.5
62 131.6
63 122.2
64 116.4
65 117.6
66 114.5
67 120
68 105.3
69 104.8
70 103.1
71 104.3
72 100.8
73 91.4
74 97.1
75 90.5
76 83.7
77 83.5
78 84.6
79 83
80 76.1
81 77.9
82 75.2
83 71.7
84 69.4
85 74.9
86 65.4
87 64
88 64.3
89 59.9
90 62.4
91 61.3
92 59.3
93 51.9
94 53.3
95 53.6
96 50.3
97 49.1
98 48.6
99 48.6
100 45.1
101 43.6
102 43.4
103 42.8
104 44.7
105 40.2
106 40.6
107 37.2
108 38.8
109 37.2
110 40.4
111 32.9
112 34.9
113 32.9
114 30.3
115 28
116 28.1
117 31
118 25.8
119 28.2
120 30.6
121 26
122 26.2
123 23.1
124 24.3
125 21.3
126 24.9
127 21.1
128 22.1
129 21.9
130 22.1
131 20.8
132 19.1
133 15.9
134 18.2
135 17.7
136 16.9
137 18.8
138 14.4
139 15.2
140 15.2
141 14.6
142 14.4
143 15.1
144 12.8
145 14.2
146 16.6
147 12.7
148 13.5
149 12.6
150 11.7
151 11
152 10.8
153 12.1
154 12.6
155 10.1
156 9.1
157 12.5
158 7.9
159 10.3
160 9.7
161 9
162 7.9
163 8.9
164 6.8
165 6.8
166 6.9
167 8
168 7.1
169 6.8
170 6.5
171 8.1
172 7.6
173 5.2
174 6.8
175 6.5
176 6
177 5.5
178 5.9
179 5.3
180 4.6
181 5.5
182 4
183 5.3
184 5
185 3.3
186 4
187 4.7
188 4.2
189 4.8
190 4
191 3.8
192 3.6
193 2.8
194 4.6
195 4
196 3.2
197 2.9
198 3.4
199 2.9
200 3.4
201 2.4
202 3
203 2.6
204 1.8
205 2.6
206 2
207 3
208 2.6
209 2.1
210 1.8
211 2.7
212 1.4
213 2.3
214 1.9
215 2.2
216 1.9
217 2.6
218 1.9
219 1.6
220 2
221 2.2
222 1.8
223 1.7
224 2.2
225 1.7
226 1
227 1.8
228 0.9
229 1.4
230 1.3
231 1.4
232 1.1
233 1.7
234 1.5
235 2.2
236 1.2
237 0.8
238 1
239 1.2
240 0.7
241 0.6
242 1.2
243 1.6
244 1
245 1.3
246 0.9
247 0.7
248 0.8
249 0.5
250 1
251 0.6
252 1
253 0.8
254 0.6
255 0.7
256 1.2
257 0.3
258 0.6
259 0.2
260 0.5
261 0.5
262 0.2
263 0.5
264 0.9
265 0.1
266 0.9
267 0.3
268 0.3
269 0.4
270 0.5
271 0.8
272 0.1
273 0.2
274 0.6
275 0.5
276 0.4
277 0.5
278 0.3
279 0.2
280 0.6
281 0.5
282 0.5
283 0.1
284 0.3
285 0.1
286 0.2
287 0.1
288 0.2
289 0.2
290 0.4
291 0
292 0.2
293 0
294 0.4
295 0.1
296 0
297 0.3
298 0.3
299 0
300 0
301 0.1
302 0.1
303 0
304 0.3
305 0.1
306 0.2
307 0.2
308 0
309 0.2
310 0.1
311 0.1
312 0.1
313 0.1
314 0
315 0.1
316 0.1
317 0.2
318 0.1
319 0
320 0
321 0
322 0
323 0.2
324 0.1
325 0
326 0.1
327 0.1
328 0
329 0.1
330 0.2
331 0
332 0.1
333 0
334 0
335 0
336 0.2
337 0.2
338 0
339 0
340 0
341 0
342 0.1
343 0.1
344 0
345 0
346 0
347 0
348 0.1
349 0.1
350 0
351 0
352 0
353 0.1
354 0.1
355 0.1
356 0.1
357 0
358 0.1
359 0
360 0
361 0
362 0.3
363 0
364 0
365 0
366 0
367 0
368 0.1
369 0.1
370 0
371 0.1
372 0
373 0.1
374 0
375 0
376 0
377 0
378 0
379 0
380 0
381 0.1
382 0.1
383 0
384 0
385 0
386 0
387 0
388 0
389 0
390 0
391 0
392 0.1
393 0
394 0
395 0
396 0
397 0
398 0
399 0
400 0
401 0
402 0
403 0
404 0
405 0
406 0.1
407 0.1
408 0.1
409 0
410 0
411 0
412 0
413 0
414 0
415 0
416 0
417 0
418 0
419 0
420 0.1

0 means the 36 follows 36. 1 means. 36 ? 36...

this 'copy' applies to +EV baccarat dragon 7.
if i see dragon 7, i bet another 1.
in 1000 shoes, 58 hands/shoe(macao style)
though the result: is -49, but till shoe 952, it is still winning. max winning is 221 units in shoe number 237.

also if to check the Tie in baccacat, that Tie follows a Tie is the most, intead of gap of 1, 2, 3 or 4...

when i was in high school, i learned that if you want to write an essay, you need 3 parts:
intro, body, conclusion.

and how is this relevant to your post?

you posted lots of data, (they are not even information, difference being data is raw, information is organized) but nobody can see what you are trying to say.

what exactly are you trying to prove or disprove? say it first, then your reasoning, then the supporting data.

for betting a number in roulette, an important gap is 24. half of that number's quantity will appear.
here is the result of 5*1 million number test:
number "36":
times of 36 of gap 0-24: 13243 13037 13035 13053 12887
times of 36 of gap 25-420: 13376 13292 13230 13217 13336

to check the ratio, i also counted the '3 number' in roulette:
here is the result of 10*0.1 million.
times of 34,35,36,of gap 0-8: 4039 4012 4054 4162 3866 4171 4101 4060 4058 3978
times of 34,35,36,of gap 9-107: 4153 4104 4048 4175 4116 4165 4092 4142 4155 4123

then conclude:
24/37=0.648
8/12=0.66.
about 65% of the theoritcal quanity will have half appear.

then i check in sic bo.
betting 4 and 7, and 3 dice is 216 options. by the ratio half of 4's quanity will appear in 216*0.65=140 hands.
but the result is the gap 47 is the most stable: here are the result of 10*100,000 hands.(maybe too small sample)
times of 4 of gap 0-47: 694 662 651 646 662 668 665 678 683 666
times of 4 of gap 48-535: 705 675 689 696 701 678 717 701 687 743

betting 666 in sic bo.
the chance is 1/216,
the half gap should be: 140.4
the test result is just the same.
5*100,000hands (surely too small a sample)
times of 666 of gap 0-140:222 185 215 224 189
times of 666 of gap 0-141:241 243 236 255 238

as in my first post, i wrote, it is not really an article.

anyway, thanks for your feedback.

as in my first post, i wrote, it is not really an article.

anyway, thanks for your feedback.

after knowing the gap and 'copy', i tried to test many way:

like betting a number of roulette, when gap is 1,2,3,4,5....100 times. betting once, twice.... 30 times. by 3 millions.

the best one: if the gap is smaller than 3(0,1,2), bet the same number 13 times. the result is +3057 units. the maximum loss is -68. but because excel can run random numbers of about 1 million number, and often it is very very slow... the result is quite fragile...

then i used this ratio to test 1000 random number, it is just not stable.

then i try to use this theory for red and black of roulette, 1 million.

if betting red all the time, house edege is always about 0.027.
if set it by a basic pattern:
result: -73 277 46 440 100 -348 -177 -193 98 98
times of +1: 40524 40666 40724 40796 40675 40254 40240 40645 40619 40619
times of-1: 40597 40389 40678 40356 40575 40602 40417 40838 40521 40521
total betting times: 81121 81055 81402 81152 81250 80856 80657 81483 81140 81140
house edge: -0.00089989 0.003417433 0.000565097 0.005421924 0.001230769 -0.004303948 -0.002194478 -0.002368592 0.001207789 0.001207789

by the way, i know to how to calcuate house edge: result/total betting times.

i tested also by big,small and even and odd. it is almost the same.

(i) What's the question you are looking for help with?
(ii) If you're running simulations then you need a better random number generator (see Mersenne).
(iii) No fair betting system will overcome a House Edge - however short term runs may show a profit - so sims have to run millions if not billions of trials.

Quote: charliepatrick

(i) What's the question you are looking for help with?
(ii) If you're running simulations then you need a better random number generator (see Mersenne).
(iii) No fair betting system will overcome a House Edge - however short term runs may show a profit - so sims have to run millions if not billions of trials.

1) i am trying to share info, not ask.
2) i will. thanks.
3)i am not talking on the betting system, it is on some rules of random numbers. for some, i tested them by 10 millions. but for some, i have to test them by 1/10 of million. but many times. because the computer cannot run too much data in excel.
also i suspect: in a 1 to 1 game. 100,000 hands should be ok to see a general house edge, then a number in roulette, then it is x/37*2=100,000. or 100,000*18.5. then 1.85 million.

Quote: tomchina123

also if to check the Tie in baccacat, that Tie follows a Tie is the most, intead of gap of 1, 2, 3 or 4...

That is expected.

Similarly, in craps, a gap of zero between any number and itself will occur more often than a gap of one or more.

I suppose then, a gap of zero between Dragon 7's will occur more frequently than any other gap.

So, only betting Dragon7 immediately after a Dragon 7, as you do, would be better than betting randomly.

How frequently does the Dragon7 occur in any shoe?

One in 20 hands? One in 13.5 hands? One in ...?

Quote: Tanko

That is expected.

Similarly, in craps, a gap of zero between any number and itself will occur more often than a gap of one or more.

I suppose then, a gap of zero between Dragon 7's will occur more frequently than any other gap.

So, only betting Dragon7 immediately after a Dragon 7, as you do, would be better than betting randomly.

How frequently does the Dragon7 occur in any shoe?

One in 20 hands? One in 13.5 hands? One in ...?

by theory, it is about 43 hands.
in reality, it may disappear 5 wholes shoes and it may be seen 6 times in a shoe.
in this thread: i put a lot of data on it:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/other-games/24318-toms-sharing-on-bacarrat-dragon-7-bet/#post499655

Quote: tomchina123

by theory, it is about 43 hands.

Then, if I am correct, one would only lose $5.70 per every $100 wagered betting on a back to back Dragon 7.

A bet that pays 40 to 1 when it wins.

I suppose the optimum strategy would be to bet Banker every hand, Count the Dragon 7, and bet it to repeat on the next hand when it wins.

Quote: Tanko

Then, if I am correct, one would only lose $5.70 per every $100 wagered betting on a back to back Dragon 7.

A bet that pays 40 to 1 when it wins.

I suppose the optimum strategy would be to bet Banker every hand, Count the Dragon 7, and bet it to repeat on the next hand when it wins.

firstly, to be exaxt, on how many hands a dragon. i did my way of calculation:
chance to lose-chance to win*pays/total=house edge
total=chance to lose+chance to win.
now dragon house edge is 7.6%.
let's say total is X.
(x-1)-(1*40)/x=7.61%
x=44.3771

so every 44.3771 hands, there is a dragon 7.

on betting after a dragon, the test is only 1000 shoes. it means nothing for the scientific result. so i cannot give an answer on what average loss is.

next time, if i go to play the dragon 7 bet, i would take the patience to keep notes of Dr Eliot counting,if i cannot wait for the true +4. i will just bet the running count +13 and above. i will do the circle count of last 3 hands, of course, i will also bet once after the dragon appears+count is +8 or above. also, if i have patience enough, i will wait. if that table, no dragon 7 for 5 shoes, i will go to count that table... that is only the plan, i am not good at performing plans.

about 14 days ago,i won 2 dragon 7 in Macao, i just wrote every thing down. counting at +10 about, it is mostly luck. because i don't have the patience to count from the beginning, or in Macao, the new table is always cold for too long time, and the minimum bet of banker is about USD80. while dragon 7 is USD4 to USD450. i just think there is maybe a way to do circle count of last few hands. and i did it, the result is good. but it is fragile, i guess. and i haven't tested it yet in real.

also on always betting banker without any patterns, i woudn't do it.

as i replied to another thread:
here i copy:
for a new shoe. when banker is 3 more. betting banker all the time, until you lose twice. go to another table... by maths, it is the same as other ways, but by about 3 thousands shoes i tested, the first 2000, it is good. for last 1000, not so good.

by this post, i would say more:
all bacarrat data from wizard. i cut them into 70 hands(excuding tie.) by above method:
the first 444 shoes,
by flat betting:
maxi win: 94.55 units
maxi loss: -2.5
result. 29
by paroli 124
maxi win: 192
maxi loss: -12.65
result: 87.15

i did them also by paroli 1248, and 124816 also the D'alembert.

also other 891 shoes and 933 shoes.

the result is not good on 933 shoes.

but all results are much better than betting banker all the time without a pattern.maybe pattern is not maths. but the result is really different. the player will prevail for 2000 hands. if i can do pictures easily, i should show a wave chart to indicate it.

maybe i answered too much and put too much work into doing this kind of things. but i am a person like this.

Tomchina:
I am very impressed that you put in so much time and energy into this data. Too bad I cannot understand them.Is anybody out there understand what Tom was trying to say? If you do ,please translate them into simple English. So I can benefit from Tom' effort and hard work. Thanks.

Quote: Francisco

Tomchina:
I am very impressed that you put in so much time and energy into this data. Too bad I cannot understand them.Is anybody out there understand what Tom was trying to say? If you do ,please translate them into simple English. So I can benefit from Tom' effort and hard work. Thanks.

that can be right.

if i can put it simpler: betting a hot number in roulette will make us lose less. or win more, which exists in statistics rather than maths.

i did another test on baccarat just now, i really wonder if the maths gifted will use it or not.

when is the best chance to win more than(and=) 10 Bankers in a shoe? meaning: in that shoe: Banker is 10 times or over 10 times more than player. for example: let us say: 70 hands, 6 ties, banker: 37 times or more, player: 27 times or less.
6+37+27=70.

note: best chance only.
baccarat data: w of odds
checked shoes: 500+1000+5000 shoes, then do it by average.
resulted: answer by last shoe: Banker is 1 more or 2 more or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 more.

what i am going to do with this result: if by last shoe, player is more or banker is 8 times more, i will go to another table.

posts deleted, it is a mistake from me...,
not only this one, more in the computer.
maybe all are worthless. at last.

Quote: tomchina123

i did another test on baccarat just now, i really wonder if the maths gifted will use it or not.

when is the best chance to win more than(and=) 10 Bankers in a shoe? meaning: in that shoe: Banker is 10 times or over 10 times more than player. for example: let us say: 70 hands, 6 ties, banker: 37 times or more, player: 27 times or less.
6+37+27=70.

note: best chance only.
baccarat data: w of odds
checked shoes: 500+1000+5000 shoes, then do it by average.
resulted: answer by last shoe: Banker is 1 more or 2 more or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 more.

what i am going to do with this result: if by last shoe, player is more or banker is 8 times more, i will go to another table.

i found i couldn't delete this message. then don't take this seriouly.