Keyser
Keyser
Joined: Apr 16, 2010
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 2044
September 17th, 2010 at 10:07:09 AM permalink
I'm saying that real wheels dealt by real dealers are not always the random output devices that people believe them to be.
Ericayne
Ericayne
Joined: Mar 9, 2010
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 88
September 17th, 2010 at 10:12:44 AM permalink
Quote: Keyser

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.



LOL!! I concur. Nowhere on this post is Keyser saying he can buy 1/2 a restaurant with his findings!!
Mosca
Mosca
Joined: Dec 14, 2009
  • Threads: 178
  • Posts: 3800
September 17th, 2010 at 10:16:21 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.



As best I can tell, that is not your point at all. Your point seems to be that past numbers can be indicative of a wheel bias that can temporarily predict results in the short term future... not that the numbers themselves have any influence. That is a very different point.

I contend that any bias, if it is as delicate and nuanced and ephemeral as you suggest (the oil on the dealer's fingers, for example) is infinitesimal and likely to have vanished (or changed) by the time it is discovered, if it is large enough to be discovered at all.
NO KILL I
Mosca
Mosca
Joined: Dec 14, 2009
  • Threads: 178
  • Posts: 3800
September 17th, 2010 at 10:20:18 AM permalink
You know, this shouldn't be hard to prove. Get some folks together, name a time and a place, spin a wheel and pick winners. If you can do that to a degree exceeding statistical randomness, a number of times in a row, maybe you have something.

I'm not talking about showing results that you've already got; I'm talking about doing it in the future.
NO KILL I
Keyser
Keyser
Joined: Apr 16, 2010
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 2044
September 17th, 2010 at 10:40:49 AM permalink
Quote: Mosca

As best I can tell, that is not your point at all. Your point seems to be that past numbers can be indicative of a wheel bias that can temporarily predict results in the short term future... not that the numbers themselves have any influence. That is a very different point.

I contend that any bias, if it is as delicate and nuanced and ephemeral as you suggest (the oil on the dealer's fingers, for example) is infinitesimal and likely to have vanished (or changed) by the time it is discovered, if it is large enough to be discovered at all.







The numbers hitting are just a mere reflection of the transient state of the gaming device and dealing proceedure.

Yes, you're correct when you state that it is evanescent at times, however, it also does not always dissipate as quickly as you might think. Regardless of whether it lasts for one spin or 10000 spins, it's still easy enough to measure.

-Keyser
Keyser
Keyser
Joined: Apr 16, 2010
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 2044
September 17th, 2010 at 10:44:02 AM permalink
Quote: Mosca

You know, this shouldn't be hard to prove. Get some folks together, name a time and a place, spin a wheel and pick winners. If you can do that to a degree exceeding statistical randomness, a number of times in a row, maybe you have something.






Mosca,


Yes, it shouldn't take to long to measure a change from -5.26% to -2.9%. We should be able to test this over a breif lunch break by spinning a quick 80k to 100k spins, while enjoying some chips and salsa. :)

Actually, reducing the house edge from 5.26% to 2.7% (Betting the last five numbers) within 100k spins would only be about 3.3 standard deviations.

Within a sample of that size a normal random fluctuation could potentially wash out the effect just long enough that we may need an additional 80k spins. This means we may need to play through dinner as well. :)



-Keyser
Mosca
Mosca
Joined: Dec 14, 2009
  • Threads: 178
  • Posts: 3800
September 17th, 2010 at 2:22:24 PM permalink
If you need that many spins to find it and take advantage of it, then it is useless. You said that the past five numbers are all that is needed. So you should be able to show it by batting the past five numbers.

Again, understand that I'm not doubting your sincerity, nor your data, just your interpretation of it. Even if the effect is real (and I make no concession nor denial of this), I contend that it is too slight to be useful in real time, but only in retrospect.
NO KILL I
Keyser
Keyser
Joined: Apr 16, 2010
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 2044
September 17th, 2010 at 2:26:30 PM permalink
Quote: Mosca

If you need that many spins to find it and take advantage of it, then it is useless. You said that the past five numbers are all that is needed. So you should be able to show it by batting the past five numbers.




I don't suggest it as a way to get an edge at roulette.
Mosca
Mosca
Joined: Dec 14, 2009
  • Threads: 178
  • Posts: 3800
September 17th, 2010 at 6:59:13 PM permalink
I've been thinking about this more. I just don't buy it. You say that it's this little thing, or that; but if you can't duplicate it, then how do you know? You said the oil on the croupier's fingers; can you show a difference between spins with oily fingers and dry fingers? Until you can measure it, quantify it, replicate it, and use it to make predictions, it isn't there. All you have is data and a hypothesis to explain it. It may be correct, but you've stopped short of proving your point.

By the way, I'm glad someone brought up The Newtonian Casino; I read that long ago, it was published in the US as The Eudaemonic Pie. I loaned it out and never saw it again, it was out of print and now it's back. In college I knew someone who knew the actors involved in that, but it was long ago and during a smoke haze, all I remember is knowing about it. Then the book came out about 10 years later. I remember it as a good read.
NO KILL I
MarieBicurie
MarieBicurie
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 140
September 17th, 2010 at 7:02:10 PM permalink
Quote: Keyser

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

Here's a small example below.

30000 trials. (This is just one wheel. Each wheel and sample varies some. Overall, the effect is real.)(Wheel make is a Huxley Mark Series with moveable fret ring). (Date 2007 to 2009)(Right handed)

Betting the last seven numbers to have hit.
Edge reduces to -1.29

Max loss run 37
Max DD 4871
--------------------------

Betting the last five numbers to have hit.
Edge reduces to -1.79


Max loss run 52
Max DD 4209

------------
Betting the last three numbers to have hit.

Edge .02

Max loss run 85
Max DD 1555
-------------

Betting the last number only.

Edge 5.17
Max loss run 85
Max DD 1555





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.




Assuming your data is accurate, how do we know you didn't just take the best 30,000 results to base your claim? I'm curious about the other 970,000. Oh, but they are too "sensitive". Perhaps there is another person out there with a million spins to verify this?

  • Jump to: