Apophenia in Slots

Hi, I'm new here.

I'm curious about probability inside randomness.

So I ran into this reference:


Apophenia has also come to describe a human propensity to unreasonably seek patterns in random information, such as can occur while gambling.
/wiki/Apophenia


It seems that apophenia could be a human trait used for survival to attempt to seek patterns in data.

I think I understand the concept and math of random numbers.

I call this "absolute" randomness.

I have a question of "relative" randomness.

Relative randomness is likewise scientific and regulated by math.

Such as a statistical average.

So a "relative" random number resides within an "absolute" random number.

So is my thinking of relativity in random numbers apophenia?


For example, say I spin a slot a fixed number of times.

The absolute random math is never violated.

But, for a window of fixed spins, the statistical average changes.

So let's say I hit 5 jackpots in a row.

Does the "relative" probability change (not absolute probability as we know that never changes) to not hit a jackpot the very next spin?

Isn't there a difference in relative and absolute?

Quote: DoubleGold

So let's say I hit 5 jackpots in a row.

Does the "relative" probability change (not absolute probability as we know that never changes) to not hit a jackpot the very next spin?

Isn't there a difference in relative and absolute?
link to original post

Are the trials independent?

Is your perception of the trials independent?

Welcome to the forum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

Link for convenience.
(Links from new members get eaten by the spam filter.)

To meet the definition of "absolute" randomness, yes, each spin would be independent.

But the statistical average changes with each spin, so I would think the "relative" concept would be dependent.

The long term statistical average would be the RTP (I think).



Thank-you for your reply and welcoming.

Quote: DoubleGold

To meet the definition of "absolute" randomness, yes, each spin would be independent.

But the statistical average changes with each spin, so I would think the "relative" concept would be dependent.

The long term statistical average would be the RTP (I think).



Thank-you for you reply and welcoming.
link to original post

Of what significance is relative randomness?

More directly, how do you know that the observed recent trend will or will not continue for the next trial in an independent series?

Quote: Dieter

Quote: DoubleGold

To meet the definition of "absolute" randomness, yes, each spin would be independent.

But the statistical average changes with each spin, so I would think the "relative" concept would be dependent.

The long term statistical average would be the RTP (I think).



Thank-you for you reply and welcoming.
link to original post

Of what significance is relative randomness?

More directly, how do you know that the observed recent trend will or will not continue for the next trial in an independent series?
link to original post

We don't know the future regardless of the past.

But doesn't the "relative" probability change of the future based upon the past?

For example, Albert Einstein and the Theory of Relativity.

If we are inside the object as opposed to being outside of the object.

Quote: DoubleGold

Quote: Dieter

Quote: DoubleGold

To meet the definition of "absolute" randomness, yes, each spin would be independent.

But the statistical average changes with each spin, so I would think the "relative" concept would be dependent.

The long term statistical average would be the RTP (I think).



Thank-you for you reply and welcoming.
link to original post

Of what significance is relative randomness?

More directly, how do you know that the observed recent trend will or will not continue for the next trial in an independent series?
link to original post

We don't know the future regardless of the past.

But doesn't the "relative" probability change of the future based upon the past?

For example, Albert Einstein and the Theory of Relativity.

If we are inside the object as opposed to being outside of the object.
link to original post

Welcome to the forum. I think you are putting too much mental energy into this. Either you believe the event you are discussing is independent of past and future events or you don’t. If you start with they are independent, all your questions are easily answered.

Quote: DoubleGold

Quote: Dieter

Quote: DoubleGold

To meet the definition of "absolute" randomness, yes, each spin would be independent.

But the statistical average changes with each spin, so I would think the "relative" concept would be dependent.

The long term statistical average would be the RTP (I think).



Thank-you for you reply and welcoming.
link to original post

Of what significance is relative randomness?

More directly, how do you know that the observed recent trend will or will not continue for the next trial in an independent series?
link to original post

We don't know the future regardless of the past.

But doesn't the "relative" probability change of the future based upon the past?

For example, Albert Einstein and the Theory of Relativity.

If we are inside the object as opposed to being outside of the object.
link to original post

Relative to what?
Past-posting is illegal.

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: DoubleGold

Quote: Dieter

Quote: DoubleGold

To meet the definition of "absolute" randomness, yes, each spin would be independent.

But the statistical average changes with each spin, so I would think the "relative" concept would be dependent.

The long term statistical average would be the RTP (I think).



Thank-you for you reply and welcoming.
link to original post

Of what significance is relative randomness?

More directly, how do you know that the observed recent trend will or will not continue for the next trial in an independent series?
link to original post

We don't know the future regardless of the past.

But doesn't the "relative" probability change of the future based upon the past?

For example, Albert Einstein and the Theory of Relativity.

If we are inside the object as opposed to being outside of the object.
link to original post

Welcome to the forum. I think you are putting too much mental energy into this. Either you believe the event you are discussing is independent of past and future events or you don’t. If you start with they are independent, all your questions are easily answered.
link to original post

I think both are true, absolute math and relative math.

The future number is both independent and dependent since RTP is associated with the randomness.

Take away the RTP, then the concept might not make sense.

But since RTP is associated with randomness, that means a statistical average is associated with the randomness.

Right?


Thank-you for the reply and welcoming.

Quote: Dieter

Quote: DoubleGold

Quote: Dieter

Quote: DoubleGold

To meet the definition of "absolute" randomness, yes, each spin would be independent.

But the statistical average changes with each spin, so I would think the "relative" concept would be dependent.

The long term statistical average would be the RTP (I think).



Thank-you for you reply and welcoming.
link to original post

Of what significance is relative randomness?

More directly, how do you know that the observed recent trend will or will not continue for the next trial in an independent series?
link to original post

We don't know the future regardless of the past.

But doesn't the "relative" probability change of the future based upon the past?

For example, Albert Einstein and the Theory of Relativity.

If we are inside the object as opposed to being outside of the object.
link to original post

Relative to what?
Past-posting is illegal.
link to original post

Relative to the RTP and the statistical average of a fixed amount of time.

So if the current statistical average is higher than the RTP, the probability could favor a cold streak.

Quote: DoubleGold

Hi, I'm new here.

I'm curious about probability inside randomness.

So I ran into this reference:


Apophenia has also come to describe a human propensity to unreasonably seek patterns in random information, such as can occur while gambling.
/wiki/Apophenia


It seems that apophenia could be a human trait used for survival to attempt to seek patterns in data.

I think I understand the concept and math of random numbers.

I call this "absolute" randomness.

I have a question of "relative" randomness.

Relative randomness is likewise scientific and regulated by math.

Such as a statistical average.

So a "relative" random number resides within an "absolute" random number.

So is my thinking of relativity in random numbers apophenia?


For example, say I spin a slot a fixed number of times.

The absolute random math is never violated.

But, for a window of fixed spins, the statistical average changes.

So let's say I hit 5 jackpots in a row.

Does the "relative" probability change (not absolute probability as we know that never changes) to not hit a jackpot the very next spin?

Isn't there a difference in relative and absolute?
link to original post

You have not defined what 'relative randomness' means in any mathematical sense, so you are just hand waving and ascribing significance to an observed series of results. In 10 coin flips, HHHHHHHHHH is just as probable as HTTHTHHTTH. Both sequences are equally random. Are you thinking the first sequence is somehow relatively random?

The very definition of independent trials means past results can have no influence on future results. There are many things in life that are not independent trials, but you seem to be talking about a situation where the trials are truly independent. Otherwise, you would need to specify the math connecting one trial to the next.

So in my opinion, yes, your way of thinking of relativity in random numbers is apophenia.

Quote: DoubleGold

Quote: Dieter

Relative to what?
Past-posting is illegal.
link to original post

Relative to the RTP and the statistical average of a fixed amount of time.

So if the current statistical average is higher than the RTP, the probability could favor a cold streak.
link to original post

No. Trials are independent.
In many jurisdictions, it is specifically illegal to deliberately introduce "cold streaks" in a gambling machine to offset recent "hot streaks".
Just because you won a few games recently does not mean you don't have the same slim chance of winning the next game.

Quote: Mental

Quote: DoubleGold

Hi, I'm new here.

I'm curious about probability inside randomness.

So I ran into this reference:


Apophenia has also come to describe a human propensity to unreasonably seek patterns in random information, such as can occur while gambling.
/wiki/Apophenia


It seems that apophenia could be a human trait used for survival to attempt to seek patterns in data.

I think I understand the concept and math of random numbers.

I call this "absolute" randomness.

I have a question of "relative" randomness.

Relative randomness is likewise scientific and regulated by math.

Such as a statistical average.

So a "relative" random number resides within an "absolute" random number.

So is my thinking of relativity in random numbers apophenia?


For example, say I spin a slot a fixed number of times.

The absolute random math is never violated.

But, for a window of fixed spins, the statistical average changes.

So let's say I hit 5 jackpots in a row.

Does the "relative" probability change (not absolute probability as we know that never changes) to not hit a jackpot the very next spin?

Isn't there a difference in relative and absolute?
link to original post

You have not defined what 'relative randomness' means in any mathematical sense, so you are just hand waving and ascribing significance to an observed series of results. In 10 coin flips, HHHHHHHHHH is just as probable as HTTHTHHTTH. Both sequences are equally random. Are you thinking the first sequence is somehow relatively random?

The very definition of independent trials means past results can have no influence on future results. There are many things in life that are not independent trials, but you seem to be talking about a situation where the trials are truly independent. Otherwise, you would need to specify the math connecting one trial to the next.

So in my opinion, yes, your way of thinking of relativity in random numbers is apophenia.
link to original post

I think it's a good possibility I have apophenia.

I am open to it.


For example, say I am on a machine and spinned it 1,000,000 times and didn't get a line hit.

Does the relative probability of the next spin hit increase because of the fixed RTP?

Quote: DoubleGold

So if the current statistical average is higher than the RTP, the probability could favor a cold streak.
link to original post

You are creating a god who overlooks these events. Seeing that the player is doing quite well, the god/goddess creates a cold streak.

Without divine intervention , how is this supposed to happen? The machine does not know the player has been lucky, unless you are suggesting the machines are gaffed. How then is it to make "corrections?" As is often said of dice, they have no memory. They do not know or care if you have been lucky or not. If you have lost your bankroll, they don't huddle up and plot how you get it back, or vice versa

so how do things even up? the meaning of short term anomalies are drowned in the power of large numbers.

PS, no one is going to accuse you of failing to break up your writing into paragraphs

Quote: DoubleGold

I think it's a good possibility I have apophenia.

I am open to it.

For example, say I am on a machine and spinned it 1,000,000 times and didn't get a line hit.

Does the relative probability of the next spin hit increase because of the fixed RTP?
link to original post

There are gambling situations where the house gets a fixed RPT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_lottery_terminal#:~:text=Each%20terminal%20is%20connected%20to,through%20the%20central%20computer%20system.
In some VLT's and scratch off games, there are virtual boxes of tickets. The total cost of buying the whole box is fixed and the return of all tickets in the box is predetermined when they are printed. Once all tickets are sold, the house will pay out the exact RTP that was used to generate the tickets. For example, the box may have a designed RTP of 90% and 1000 tickets. If by chance all the good tickets are claimed after 500 tickets have been played, the actual RTP might be 95% to that point. The remaining 500 tickets will yield an RTP of 85%, and the total RTP will be exactly 90% as designed.

This is an example where the RTP is fixed for a certain interval of play. Your future 'luck' will depend on the history of past results. The VLT or scratch off is not an independent trial. However, many people believe slot machines are designed with a similar gaffe to smooth out the RTP.

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: DoubleGold

So if the current statistical average is higher than the RTP, the probability could favor a cold streak.
link to original post

You are creating a god who overlooks these events. Seeing that the player is doing quite well, the god/goddess creates a cold streak.

Without divine intervention , how is this supposed to happen? The machine does not know the player has been lucky, unless you are suggesting the machines are gaffed. How then is it to make "corrections?" As is often said of dice, they have no memory. They do not know or care if you have been lucky or not. If you have lost your bankroll, they don't huddle up and plot how you get it back, or vice versa

so how do things even up? the meaning of short term anomalies are drowned in the power of large numbers.

PS, no one is going to accuse you of failing to break up your writing into paragraphs
link to original post

Besides slot machines, BJ, Craps, etc., likewise have streaks (relative probability) above and below the absolute probability.

Those relative streaks gravitate to the absolute RTP over time.

Can't those relative streaks be measured and exploited scientifically against the absolute probability to gain an probability edge?

I am referring to the science and math.

In other words, a streak could be a consistent deviation relative to the RTP.

Quote: Mental

Quote: DoubleGold

I think it's a good possibility I have apophenia.

I am open to it.

For example, say I am on a machine and spinned it 1,000,000 times and didn't get a line hit.

Does the relative probability of the next spin hit increase because of the fixed RTP?
link to original post

There are gambling situations where the house gets a fixed RPT.
/wiki/Video_lottery_terminal#:~:text=Each%20terminal%20is%20connected%20to,through%20the%20central%20computer%20system.
In some VLT's and scratch off games, there are virtual boxes of tickets. The total cost of buying the whole box is fixed and the return of all tickets in the box is predetermined when they are printed. Once all tickets are sold, the house will pay out the exact RTP that was used to generate the tickets. For example, the box may have a designed RTP of 90% and 1000 tickets. If by chance all the good tickets are claimed after 500 tickets have been played, the actual RTP might be 95% to that point. The remaining 500 tickets will yield an RTP of 85%, and the total RTP will be exactly 90% as designed.

This is an example where the RTP is fixed for a certain interval of play. Your future 'luck' will depend on the history of past results. The VLT or scratch off is not an independent trial. However, many people believe slot machines are designed with a similar gaffe to smooth out the RTP.
link to original post

For slots, isn't the RTP embedded inside the random number?

What are Compositional Data

Compositional data is any data where the numbers make up proportions of a whole. For example, the number of heads and tails you obtain from flipping a coin say 10 times is compositional data. The main feature of these data is that they are ‘closed’ or constrained in the sense that if I tell you we got 6 heads from flipping a 2-sided coin, you know that there are 4 tails without me providing you with any further information. In probability terms, this means not all components in the data are independent of each other.

/relative-vs-absolute-understanding-compositional-data-with-simulations-fdc15e0c781e




I am trying to establish relative and absolute probability so that both are true from the view of an observer.

Similar to Einstein's famous theories.

So in the reference above, the author injects relativity and dependency, when the actual flipping of a coin is random and independent.

Quote: DoubleGold

Besides slot machines, BJ, Craps, etc., likewise have streaks (relative probability) above and below the absolute probability.

Those relative streaks gravitate to the absolute RTP over time.

by the law of large numbers only

Quote:

Can't those relative streaks be measured and exploited scientifically against the absolute probability to gain an probability edge?

you're not the first to wonder about this, alas no one got anywhwere with the idea there would be an active attempt to restore the universe, which got all upset evidently

Quote:

I am referring to the science and math.

In other words, a streak could be a consistent deviation relative to the RTP.
link to original post

just the wrong tree to bark up here, sir.

Quote: DoubleGold

For slots, isn't the RTP embedded inside the random number?
link to original post

No, the RTP is embedded inside the paytable.

Quote: DoubleGold

I am trying to establish relative and absolute probability so that both are true from the view of an observer.

Similar to Einstein's famous theories.

link to original post

Einstein was solving for the counter-intuitive data that showed the speed of light was a constant, so he realized time and space could not be.

You are treading where others have been: if a player wins or loses more than expected, it seems to mean there has to be a correction. But the universe is unfazed, it simply doesn't 'know'. The law of large numbers is the constant, all other factors are not constant but are variable indeed.

I think I have a way to prove it scientifically.

It would likely have to be peer reviewed.

I'd have to buy a brand new machine and certify it as unused somehow, etc.

Set it (or have it set) to a specific RTP.

Then spin it about 100,000,000 times using code to simulate a user.

Then create a database table storing the relative statistical averages to the RTP.

So at least the probability of a winning next spin (a hit) could increase the further the statistical average was away from the RTP and vice-versa.

Quote: DoubleGold

I think I have a way to prove it scientifically.

It would likely have to be peer reviewed.

I'd have to buy a brand new machine and certify it as unused somehow, etc.

Set it (or have it set) to a specific RTP.

Then spin it about 100,000,000 times using code to simulate a user.

Then create a database table storing the relative statistical averages to the RTP.

So at least the probability of a winning next spin (a hit) could increase the further the statistical average was away from the RTP and vice-versa.
link to original post

Why 100,000,000 times? Why not just 2 times. Two and 100,000,000 are just positive whole numbers you could choose for your experiment. If you spin just two times, do you think the results of the first spin changes the probability of the second spin based on the RTP?

Now, simplify further. One spin. Do you think you will get exactly the RTP from one spin?

No sane reviewer will give a positive review to your theory.

Quote: DoubleGold

So at least the probability of a winning next spin (a hit) could increase the further the statistical average was away from the RTP and vice-versa.

Until you are able to realize, ON YOUR OWN, how just abjectly wrong that statement is, no one here will be able to help you in any way.

The RTP (return to player) is an expectation value calculated FROM the probabilities and the payoff structure. The RTP never affects the probabilities in any way. No matter what the actual RTP has been historically, the expectation value and probabilities remain unchanged in the future.

Quote: DoubleGold

Hi, I'm new here.



Apophenia has also come to describe a human propensity to unreasonably seek patterns in random information, such as can occur while gambling.
/wiki/Apophenia

]

Hi, I have been here far too long. You forgot to include a more detailed description of Apophenia.

https://psychcentral.com/health/apophenia-overview#types
This phenomenon is very common. We routinely look for patterns and are predisposed to finding patternsTrusted Source, even when there are none.

If you live with schizophrenia, patternicity can be a feature of paranoia, or delusions where you may believe you’re under threat. You may hold this belief because you see patterns in media or other aspects of the environment.


Pareidolia: This type involves seeing an image or sound from random visual or auditory stimuli. A common form is face pareidolia, where elements of an object can make them resemble a face.
Clustering illusion: This illusion involves seeing patterns in events and data when there is, in fact, no connection between data points.
Confirmation bias: This bias is the tendency to only accept information that confirms prior beliefs.

Wikki
Gambling
Gamblers may imagine that they see patterns in the numbers that appear in lotteries, card games, or roulette wheels, where no such patterns exist. A common example of this is the gambler's fallacy.

2. Gambler’s fallacy. People who regularly gamble often fall prey to the gambler’s fallacy. They may perceive patterns or meaning in random numbers, often interpreting the pattern as an indication of an oncoming win.

https://www.masterclass.com/articles/how-to-avoid-apophenia-bias
Gambler’s fallacy: This type involves believing that a prior series of events affects a future event, even though the two are unrelated.

https://nesslabs.com/apophenia
Apophenia can lead to poor decision-making. For instance, many people choose their lottery numbers based on the birthdates of family members. As the numbers are picked at random, however, this approach won’t increase their chance of winning. In rare cases, apophenia can even be an indicator for some mental conditions.

Apophenia is an error of perception: The tendency to interpret random patterns as meaningful.
It's not usually pathological but can become so in schizophrenia, when pattern recognition and interpretation run wild. A famous example is that of the brilliant MIT physicist John Nash, featured in the film A Beautiful Mind, whose preoccupation with "meaningful" patterns became disabling.

Apophenia: In psychology, the perception of connections and meaningfulness in unrelated things. Apophenia can be a normal phenomenon or an abnormal one, as in paranoid schizophrenia when the patient sees ominous patterns where there are none.


Schizophrenia and its treatment have an enormous effect on the economy, costing between $32.5-$65 billion each year.


*** Types Of Apophenia

2 Gambler’s Fallacy
Gamblers often think that they see patterns in the numbers that appear in roulette wheels and lotteries. A common belief is that a particular outcome is ‘due’ to happen since it has not happened before, or vice versa. For example, imagine that Dave is repeatedly flipping a coin and guessing the outcome before it lands. After observing three heads in a row, he believes that a tail is ‘due’, meaning that a tail is more likely to appear on the next flip than a head. This is the gambler’s fallacy.

This phenomenon has highly contributed to the more than nine billion dollars in gambling revenue taken in by Nevada casinos in 2001 (Source).
___________________________________________________________

I'M BEGINNING TO SEE A PATTERN HERE!

Where's EvenBob?

He might have something to say about apophenia re: his roulette system method.

The only pattern I have been seeing lately is male pattern baldness.

I exceeded the newbie 10 new post quantity, so I had to wait for another day to post (like waiting for Christmas day to open gifts). That’s the reason I didn’t reply to some posts in a short time.


Let’s say the RTP percentage is 85% (middle line, see below). I call this the “absolute” probability of a specific slot machine. But, since an absolute probability exists, that means scientific statistical averages come into play somewhere in the logic, so after a predetermined number of spins, the overall relative statistical average is the same as the absolute probability. Let’s say a ½ year worth of spins since Vegas must keep RTP records for reporting requirements.

The top line (see below) is the maximum and the bottom line is the minimum combined “relative” probability. They represent the magnitudes away from the “absolute” probability (fixed by the casino). So (at least) when the minimum or maximum is reached, the probability increases or decreases for a future result towards the “absolute” probability line. This is what I refer to as high “relative” probability (not absolute probability because we know that never changes). But low probability should work similarly for smaller periods of time.

So I believe, each spin can be anything at anytime, as independent randomness dictates. It’s a math law. But that is not the only math law in play here. A mathematical average of all past results refers to the relative probability. And the spread between the two (absolute and relative) would dictate the relative probability. So when the relative probability was high, the probability for a line hit are more favorable and vice-versa even though the absolute probability is boss.

I am referring to scientific principle so far. Not implementation of how to exploit the statistical average math in reality. The mathematicians are not wrong because they are looking at independent data. I am looking at both independent and dependent data, while trying to respect their math expertise. IMO the data becomes dependent when grouping a time series (such as min and max deviation). Slot data can be dependent and independent (from an observer), and that must be what confuses a mathematician (like Einstein was initially confused) and the gambling boards.

So, I likely have apophenia (or an inability to describe what I see) because no one here has been supportive of the relativity concept. Only the absolute concept (while I also support). It seems (so far) participants disregard laws associated with mathematical averages.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote: DoubleGold

So I believe, each spin can be anything at anytime, as independent randomness dictates. It’s a math law. But that is not the only math law in play here. A mathematical average of all past results refers to the relative probability. And the spread between the two (absolute and relative) would dictate the relative probability. So when the relative probability was high, the probability for a line hit are more favorable and vice-versa even though the absolute probability is boss.
link to original post

No. This would not be independent trials.
If I flip 100 heads in a row, I am not suddenly due for a tails.

usually we start to hear about 'regression toward the mean' in these theories like yours. And, I repeat, you are covering ground that has been quite stomped upon by others. Just so you know. Regression theory has some kind of mathematical foundation, quite a bit over my head when you get away from the basic principle. Gamblers have studied the hell out of it to no avail. So you are trying to re-invent the wheel, but the frustration will be even worse, since this wheel keeps getting a flat tire.

Quote: Dieter

Quote: DoubleGold

So I believe, each spin can be anything at anytime, as independent randomness dictates. It’s a math law. But that is not the only math law in play here. A mathematical average of all past results refers to the relative probability. And the spread between the two (absolute and relative) would dictate the relative probability. So when the relative probability was high, the probability for a line hit are more favorable and vice-versa even though the absolute probability is boss.
link to original post

Trimmed! Emphasized!

No. This would not be independent trials.
If I flip 100 heads in a row, I am not suddenly due for a tails.
link to original post

I am eligible for another post since I'm a newbie. So I will reply to the real-time post. Sorry for those that replied earlier. I will reply as I am allowed.



When 100 flips are grouped together, that represents a time series and they are not completely independent IMO.

But if only one coin is flipped, then that would be independent and not relative to another other flip.

For example, the absolute probability is 50%. There is no room for a third party, like a casino, to make profit.

IMO the relative probability after a 100 head flips is higher for a tail than a head even though the absolute probability is fixed at 50%.

The relative probability would be higher for a tail if there were 1,000,000 head flips in a row IMO.

Quote: odiousgambit

usually we start to hear about 'regression toward the mean' in these theories like yours. And, I repeat, you are covering ground that has been quite stomped upon by others. Just so you know. Regression theory has some kind of mathematical foundation, quite a bit over my head when you get away from the basic principle. Gamblers have studied the hell out of it to no avail. So you are trying to re-invent the wheel, but the frustration will be even worse, since this wheel keeps getting a flat tire.
link to original post

I am eligible for another post since I'm a newbie. So I will reply to the real-time post. Sorry for those that replied earlier. I will reply as I am allowed.


If what I write is not possible (not true), then why do 200 million people leave a machine after hitting a jackpot or stay on a machine as their bankroll drops to zero?

When hitting a jackpot with max credits, do they play max credits again or minimum credits?

After 20 non-hits in a row with min credits, do they play max credits?

Do 200 million people have apophenia?

I don't think so.

Quote: DoubleGold

Quote: odiousgambit

usually we start to hear about 'regression toward the mean' in these theories like yours. And, I repeat, you are covering ground that has been quite stomped upon by others. Just so you know. Regression theory has some kind of mathematical foundation, quite a bit over my head when you get away from the basic principle. Gamblers have studied the hell out of it to no avail. So you are trying to re-invent the wheel, but the frustration will be even worse, since this wheel keeps getting a flat tire.
link to original post

I am eligible for another post since I'm a newbie. So I will reply to the real-time post. Sorry for those that replied earlier. I will reply as I am allowed.


If what I write is not possible (not true), then why do 200 million people leave a machine after hitting a jackpot or stay on a machine as their bankroll drops to zero?

When hitting a jackpot with max credits, do they play max credits again or minimum credits?

After 20 non-hits in a row with min credits, do they play max credits?

Do 200 million people have apophenia?

I don't think so.
link to original post

Many have apophenia. Many just feel better and feel in more in control when they make decisions based on superstitions that they hold deeply. I don't do these things that you say most gamblers do.

Quote: DoubleGold

If what I write is not possible (not true), then why do 200 million people leave a machine after hitting a jackpot or stay on a machine as their bankroll drops to zero?

When hitting a jackpot with max credits, do they play max credits again or minimum credits?

After 20 non-hits in a row with min credits, do they play max credits?

oh, come on! What slot players believe is 99% superstition

Quote:

Do 200 million people have apophenia?

I don't think so.
link to original post

I don't know the figures, but it is common. We all have it to some degree.

Regarding coin flips after X trials, don't you realize how testable your theory is that tails, say, becomes more likely? This is a real disappointment, to see that your ideas are delusional on that topic as well. Soopoo was right, you need to show you are understanding some real basic fallacy debunking - long time debunked - otherwise we are all just wasting our time, as if you are trolling us.

Mathematicians shocked to find pattern in 'random' prime numbers
MATHEMATICS 14 March 2016
By Jacob Aron

Just as Einstein’s theory of relativity is an advance on Newton’s theory of gravity, the Hardy-Littlewood conjecture is essentially a more complicated version of the assumption that primes are random – and this latest find demonstrates how the two assumptions differ. “Mathematicians go around assuming primes are random, and 99 per cent of the time this is correct, but you need to remember the 1 per cent of the time it isn’t,” says Maynard.

/article/2080613-mathematicians-shocked-to-find-pattern-in-random-prime-numbers/


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not referring to quantum entanglement of our DNA.

I am referring to the science of relativity.

Quote: Mental

Quote: DoubleGold

Quote: odiousgambit

usually we start to hear about 'regression toward the mean' in these theories like yours. And, I repeat, you are covering ground that has been quite stomped upon by others. Just so you know. Regression theory has some kind of mathematical foundation, quite a bit over my head when you get away from the basic principle. Gamblers have studied the hell out of it to no avail. So you are trying to re-invent the wheel, but the frustration will be even worse, since this wheel keeps getting a flat tire.
link to original post

I am eligible for another post since I'm a newbie. So I will reply to the real-time post. Sorry for those that replied earlier. I will reply as I am allowed.


If what I write is not possible (not true), then why do 200 million people leave a machine after hitting a jackpot or stay on a machine as their bankroll drops to zero?

When hitting a jackpot with max credits, do they play max credits again or minimum credits?

After 20 non-hits in a row with min credits, do they play max credits?

Do 200 million people have apophenia?

I don't think so.
link to original post

Many have apophenia. Many just feel better and feel in more in control when they make decisions based on superstitions that they hold deeply. I don't do these things that you say most gamblers do.
link to original post

So do you believe primes are random?

Quote: DoubleGold

Mathematicians shocked to find pattern in 'random' prime numbers
MATHEMATICS 14 March 2016
By Jacob Aron

Just as Einstein’s theory of relativity is an advance on Newton’s theory of gravity, the Hardy-Littlewood conjecture is essentially a more complicated version of the assumption that primes are random – and this latest find demonstrates how the two assumptions differ. “Mathematicians go around assuming primes are random, and 99 per cent of the time this is correct, but you need to remember the 1 per cent of the time it isn’t,” says Maynard.

/article/2080613-mathematicians-shocked-to-find-pattern-in-random-prime-numbers/


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not referring to quantum entanglement of our DNA.

I am referring to the science of relativity.
link to original post

I always knew primes were not random. They seem to occur slightly more often among odd numbers.

You don't seem to want to be enlightened, so I will allow you to live in the darkness as is your wont.

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: DoubleGold

If what I write is not possible (not true), then why do 200 million people leave a machine after hitting a jackpot or stay on a machine as their bankroll drops to zero?

When hitting a jackpot with max credits, do they play max credits again or minimum credits?

After 20 non-hits in a row with min credits, do they play max credits?

oh, come on! What slot players believe is 99% superstition

Quote:

Do 200 million people have apophenia?

I don't think so.
link to original post

I don't know the figures, but it is common. We all have it to some degree.

Regarding coin flips after X trials, don't you realize how testable your theory is that tails, say, becomes more likely? This is a real disappointment, to see that your ideas are delusional on that topic as well. Soopoo was right, you need to show you are understanding some real basic fallacy debunking - long time debunked - otherwise we are all just wasting our time, as if you are trolling us.
g]
link to original post

It is OK if I am wrong.

Debating is healthy.

But don't insinuate I am delusional when I don't immediately agree with the consensus.

It doesn't mean I won't eventually agree with the consensus.

I think you are misinterpreting the law of large numbers.

What the law of large numbers isn't: You flip a fair coin 20 times and it comes up heads 13 times (65%), therefore it is more likely that tails will come up because the average must revert back to 50%.

What the law of large numbers is: The next 1000 flips of that coin are expected to come 500 heads and 500 tails, meaning that after 1020 flips, you can expect to be at 513 heads which is about 50.3%. That is how regression to the mean works.

Quote: DoubleGold

It is OK if I am wrong.

Debating is healthy.

But don't insinuate I am delusional when I don't immediately agree with the consensus.

It doesn't mean I won't eventually agree with the consensus.
link to original post

Well, I shouldn't have brought coins into it.

(6t,4h just now. Must be losing my touch on tile.)

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: DoubleGold

Quote: Dieter

Quote: DoubleGold

To meet the definition of "absolute" randomness, yes, each spin would be independent.

But the statistical average changes with each spin, so I would think the "relative" concept would be dependent.

The long term statistical average would be the RTP (I think).



Thank-you for you reply and welcoming.
link to original post

Of what significance is relative randomness?

More directly, how do you know that the observed recent trend will or will not continue for the next trial in an independent series?
link to original post

We don't know the future regardless of the past.

But doesn't the "relative" probability change of the future based upon the past?

For example, Albert Einstein and the Theory of Relativity.

If we are inside the object as opposed to being outside of the object.
link to original post

Welcome to the forum. I think you are putting too much mental energy into this. Either you believe the event you are discussing is independent of past and future events or you don’t. If you start with they are independent, all your questions are easily answered.
link to original post

This. Again. You choose not to learn. If you think posting the same message repeatedly in a slightly different fashion changes anything, feel free to continue to post.

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: DoubleGold

Quote: Dieter

Quote: DoubleGold

To meet the definition of "absolute" randomness, yes, each spin would be independent.

But the statistical average changes with each spin, so I would think the "relative" concept would be dependent.

The long term statistical average would be the RTP (I think).



Thank-you for you reply and welcoming.
link to original post

Of what significance is relative randomness?

More directly, how do you know that the observed recent trend will or will not continue for the next trial in an independent series?
link to original post

We don't know the future regardless of the past.

But doesn't the "relative" probability change of the future based upon the past?

For example, Albert Einstein and the Theory of Relativity.

If we are inside the object as opposed to being outside of the object.
link to original post

Welcome to the forum. I think you are putting too much mental energy into this. Either you believe the event you are discussing is independent of past and future events or you don’t. If you start with they are independent, all your questions are easily answered.
link to original post

This. Again. You choose not to learn. If you think posting the same message repeatedly in a slightly different fashion changes anything, feel free to continue to post.
link to original post

So you are seeing a pattern developing? Sir you may have... Ah! never mind your the Doctor.

Quote: DoubleGold

Mathematicians shocked to find pattern in 'random' prime numbers
MATHEMATICS 14 March 2016
By Jacob Aron

“Mathematicians go around assuming primes are random, and 99 per cent of the time this is correct, but you need to remember the 1 per cent of the time it isn’t,” says Maynard.

/article/2080613-mathematicians-shocked-to-find-pattern-in-random-prime-numbers/

link to original post

Prime numbers are considered to be subrandom, since their variance is less than that of a random series. Their subrandomness is a result of their recursive structure.

Euclid defines a prime number as that which is measured by a unit alone. Not unlike the Fibonacci series, prime numbers are distributed from a unit periodic structure and a recursive rule. In other words, prime numbers can be defined prior to, as opposed to derived from, natural numbers.

"The law of large numbers states the following: as the number of trials increases, their average results get closer to their expected value."


So what I am saying, is make the largest wagers when the largest statistical spread is present.

It doesn't matter if anything can happen on the next spin because scientific statistics say when the spread is widest.

It matters on the spins after I place the money into the machine.

Since we can't short slot machines (make money if we don't get a hit), that implies usually only playing loser machines with the trend close to the maximum deviation (the historical loser).

Can anyone make money on their gift or system( pretend it's a method)?

That's all that matters.

All (including EvenBob).


FAIL.

NO HUMAN CAN BEAT A -EV GAME/SITUATION.

If you decide to test your theory,

Do not place bets you cannot afford to lose.

Quote: DoubleGold

"The law of large numbers states the following: as the number of trials increases, their average results get closer to their expected value."


So what I am saying, is make the largest wagers when the largest statistical spread is present.

It doesn't matter if anything can happen on the next spin because scientific statistics say when the spread is widest.

It matters on the spins after I place the money into the machine.

Since we can't short slot machines (make money if we don't get a hit), that implies usually only playing loser machines with the trend close to the maximum deviation (the historical loser).
link to original post

Go back and read my post above, you are misinterpreting what the law of large numbers means.

Identifying the historical loser machines for users are also the historical money makers for the casinos, since they're the counter-party.

When I write historical loser machines, I am referring to those machines during the reporting cycle that likely have a wide spread from the average.

Those statistics are available internally, I'm pretty sure, but wouldn't want to do anything illegal nor unethical.

To identify one externally would be very difficult historically, so would likely have to focus on $25 a credit and higher machines.

So assign one person in each high limit room to report hand payouts of each high limit machine.

Employ about 25 and provide them a cell phone.

Track each machine by ID and only play the ones that have never hit big, whatever amount is decided upon.

No one is disputing that results regress to a mean, just that you can not apply that fact to predict a trend of future results no matter how many samples you observe. Slot machines are never “due.” The roulette ball has no memory. Dice do not collaborate to create streaks.

Use a data stream from random.org to test your theory. If you can predict future results, you are ready to invest in real play. Or you can just have at it and pay for a very expensive education in the school of hard knocks.

Mods: Can this thread be moved to the Betting Systems sty?

Quote: BleedingChipsSlowly

No one is disputing that results regress to a mean, just that you can not apply that fact to predict a trend of future results no matter how many samples you observe. Slot machines are never “due.” The roulette ball has no memory. Dice do not collaborate to create streaks.

Use a data stream from to test your theory. If you can predict future results, you are ready to invest in real play. Or you can just have at it and pay for a very expensive education in the school of hard knocks.

Mods: Can this thread be moved to the Betting Systems sty?
link to original post

One theoretical post doesn't make it a betting system thread.

Could it be you have apophenia?


The "memory" (better than memory, more like DNA) is embedded in the deviation from the average.

It will automatically do it's thing.

So the relative probability changes to more favorable the further away from the average.

It can be predicted to a high degree of accuracy as long as the action is at its historical maximum relative to the average.

But a trend can make a new historical high or low too.

I am not disagreeing with that.

But I am mostly referring to the math.

"No one is disputing that results regress to a mean..."



Thanks for cutting to the chase.

The relative probability changes but the absolute probability never changes, unless the casino interferes.