MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
September 16th, 2010 at 9:26:03 PM permalink
Quote: Keyser


-It's not always limited to just five spins. I think you will see that I mentioned that above. There are so many variables at work that the effect is not always persistent.

The dealer touching the pocket with wet or oily hands can poison not only the track, but the rotor as well.

" if 23, 35, 14, 2, and 0 are sticky but 34 just hit, aren't I hurting myself by betting on the 34 just because it's one of the most recent numbers?"

-Yes, sometimes you will lose. Your point? I would also not assume that an entire section is a good bet.



That'd be interesting to test based on your data. If we assume your data is sound, and there's no reason to doubt it, then further analysis should be able to determine answers to questions such as:
1) What is the observed probability of a number repeating, if not 1/38? How does that change over time?
2) What is the observed probability of a number and it's N neighbors repeating, if not N/38? How does that change over time?

If you look at N = 1..18 or so, you may find that a certain combination has different EV than others. In other words, assuming there is evidence of bias, and also assuming that the bias persists, what is the optimal way to take advantage of it?
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
Keyser
Keyser
Joined: Apr 16, 2010
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 2044
September 16th, 2010 at 9:45:18 PM permalink
In most cases, you can't get an edge. All you can do is reduce the house edge. When some other effects come together, you can get a small edge.
teddys
teddys
Joined: Nov 14, 2009
  • Threads: 150
  • Posts: 5444
September 16th, 2010 at 10:22:43 PM permalink
Huh? What is all this talk of edges and reducing the house edge. The fact is that you are looking in hindsight at a million trials. That's a lot, but it's not a whole hell of a lot. You could easily transpose a system onto that set of data to find one that performs better than another. That's not beating the game, that's variance. In that way it is similar to those "Zumma" books that publish a whole bunch of roulette results. No system will beat Zumma flat betting, but I'm sure you can find patterns that you can "exploit" in that data. Doesn't mean that that "system" will work going forward.
--------------------------------
mrjjj is corrupting y'all. Back to reality!
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
Keyser
Keyser
Joined: Apr 16, 2010
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 2044
September 16th, 2010 at 10:34:59 PM permalink
No, we're not comparing apples to apples here and it's beyond the normal variance.

Moving from -5.26% to the (-2.8 and -3.4% for five numbers) has it well beyond five standard deviations after a million trials. Dropping the house edge from -5.25% to just -2.7% would be close to 10 standard deviations, so just guessing, the five number is probably close to seven or nine standard deviations above the norm.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
September 16th, 2010 at 11:33:28 PM permalink
Quote: Keyser

No, we're not comparing apples to apples here and it's beyond the normal variance.

Moving from -5.26% to the (-2.8 and -3.4% for five numbers) has it well beyond five standard deviations after a million trials. Dropping the house edge from -5.25% to just -2.7% would be close to 10 standard deviations, so just guessing, the five number is probably close to seven or nine standard deviations above the norm.


But if that's true, you should be able to move from -2.7% to zero or very close to it. Are you suggesting that the same dust/sweat factors you observed don't appear on a 37-spot wheel?
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
weaselman
weaselman
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
September 17th, 2010 at 4:16:28 AM permalink
Quote: Keyser

I feel that I have provided a satisfactory amount of information given the circumstances


I have explained why it can and does happen and I have provided enough information for you to make an informed decision on your own. If you feel that you need further prove, then perhaps you should go out and collect some spins on your own and test them.



Well, if this is so, then you should drop everything, and head to the nearest casino right now, and bet there on 10 and 22, because I have provided just as much information to you that betting my birthday (10/22) gives you a large advantage over the house. If you feel that you have provided enough information, then I have provided enough to you as well (because I have provided as much), so what are you waiting for?
If you feel that you need further proof, just go out and collect some spins on your own!
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
teddys
teddys
Joined: Nov 14, 2009
  • Threads: 150
  • Posts: 5444
September 17th, 2010 at 9:06:29 AM permalink
Yeah, I agree. Get it down to zero or close to it. Otherwise why bother. I'm not going to stake the farm on a five number system just because there is the possibility it loses less. This doesn't convince me at all.
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
Mosca
Mosca
Joined: Dec 14, 2009
  • Threads: 178
  • Posts: 3800
September 17th, 2010 at 9:41:43 AM permalink
Quote: Keyser

Did you read the part where I said that I tracked several hundred different wheels?

Maybe there was a reason for that. :)



Well now, just a minute. If the bias is on real wheels, in real world conditions, and you then used several hundred different wheels, then you didn't actually explore the manufacturing/real world bias of any one wheel for 1,000,000 trials, did you? Assuming that all wheels got the same number of trials, and that "several hundred" means a minimum of 200, then no one wheel got more than 5000 trials.

I don't doubt your sincerity, or your results, but I disagree with your interpretation of your results. I think you are seeing patterns where there are none.
NO KILL I
Keyser
Keyser
Joined: Apr 16, 2010
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 2044
September 17th, 2010 at 9:53:28 AM permalink
For starters, why would you stake the farm on this bet? I didn't say that you would have the edge in the long run. I simply stated that it does in fact slightly reduce the edge in the long run.





I am not advocating this use of this method as a means by which you can win back your farm, your tractor, your wife, or your dog.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
September 17th, 2010 at 10:02:10 AM permalink
Quote: Keyser

My point is that past numbers that have hit on a real roulette wheel dealt by a live dealer do have a slight effect on the numbers that have yet to hit. The cause is related the the nonrandom effects of a defective gaming device being influenced intentionally or unintentionally by the dealer and other conditions at the table.

You imply that every roulette wheel you've ever played at is defective. Is that what you believe?
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563

  • Jump to: