mr jjjjjjjjjj is ahead for life......
Poll
 | 10 votes (18.51%) | ||
| | 23 votes (42.59%) | ||
| | 21 votes (38.88%) |
54 members have voted
Quote: edwardImpossible event has probability 0 , but an event with probability 0 is not impossible/
This is false.
Quote: TriplellThis is false.
I would phrase it as "Impossible event has probability 0 , but an event with probability 0 is not necessarily impossible."
As an example of an event with probability 0 that isn't impossible, the odds of hitting pi if you threw a dart on the number line from 3 to 4.
Quote: WizardI would phrase it as "Impossible event has probability 0 , but an event with probability 0 is not necessarily impossible."
As an example of an event with probability 0 that isn't impossible, the odds of hitting pi if you threw a dart on the number line from 3 to 4.
Take the number line and make a perfect circle. If the dart hits at the midway point, has it not reached pi?
Quote: TriplellTake the number line and make a perfect circle. If the dart hits at the midway point, has it not reached pi?
How do you know the circle is perfect?
How do you define the midway point?
A dart can never truly reach pi, it is a physical impossibility. Probability 0.
;)
Quote: WongBoNot really. The diametr of the dart point can surely cover the area of the line under which pi lies.
No it can't. Because pi becomes infinitely small. The dart is limited to a finite physical space.
Quote: YoDiceRoll11No it can't. Because pi becomes infinitely small. The dart is limited to a finite physical space.
Would it make any difference if I asked what is the probability that a random number chosen uniformly between 3 and 4 is pi?
Quote: WizardWould it make any difference if I asked what is the probability that a random number chosen uniformly between 3 and 4 is pi?
Hmmmmmmmm.............
I guess that depends on two things. How do you define pi? And...How do you define a number being chosen uniformly.
And how do you know the number is truly random?
;)
1 in infinity.
Quote: TriplellOh...now I see. You're goal is to simply troll people. I guess this is in order...
This should have been /thread. Jesus people...
Quote: YoDiceRoll11Hey now? What are you implying? I was just answering a question. And legitimately so, even my beliefs aren't as ill conceived as buying into the GF. I assure you, I am no troll.
Not directed at you, Yo. mrjjjjjjjjj is the troll here. I didn't actually read this whole thread, but it amazes me that it went on for 31 pages or so.
LOL, I am surprised it went on this long too. But, it is good conversations like this that make
this site marvelous. I had thought people who believed in the GF were non-existent.
20% of the forum members believe Ken is ahead. Can one of the members give me the likelihood of such....... Lets say 4 hours, twice a week, 15 years.... I don't have the variance math down well enough to figure it out.... Thanks...
If you are counting in base 10 it's impossible but if you are counting in base Pi then it's unlikely but possible.Quote: YoDiceRoll11How do you know the circle is perfect?
How do you define the midway point?
A dart can never truly reach pi, it is a physical impossibility. Probability 0.
;)
Quote:Predict the next spin? Of course not but to use the information as a GUIDE (method) to betting? Sure, why not? If the #3 has not hit in the last 150 spins and the #6 has hit 18 times in the same 150 spins, who says the two numbers are an equal? I mean presently, not 800 spins later.
The truth is you haven`t got a clue where those numbers are compared to each other. Measured over 5000 spin #6 could be an extreme hottie. Measured over 1000 spins it could be THE sleeper. Measured over the last 150 spins it could be anything. And it don`t mean anything anyway. Save yourself the trouble and leave the pen and paper at home, you are winning anyway. Your method don`t and THAT can be proved on real spins or RNGs feel free.
Quote: WizardI would phrase it as "Impossible event has probability 0 , but an event with probability 0 is not necessarily impossible."
As an example of an event with probability 0 that isn't impossible, the odds of hitting pi if you threw a dart on the number line from 3 to 4.
Hey , cut that out. I am still trying to figure out what the hell the cut card effect is ?
Quote: SOOPOOAt this point, despite what must ave been thousands of hours of play over quite a stretch of years at a game with a well known house edge of over 5%, .............
20% of the forum members believe Ken is ahead. Can one of the members give me the likelihood of such....... Lets say 4 hours, twice a week, 15 years.... I don't have the variance math down well enough to figure it out.... Thanks...
4 hours, let's guess at 10 bets per hour (I've been told he doesn't bet that often).
40 bets per session, 100 sessions per year, 1500 sessions, 60,000 bets.
Lets then assume each bet is single number.
The expected result is : -3,516 units
Let's work out the variance of one spin. Average results is (37*0 + 1 * 36)/38 = 36/38 as the mean.
Some of the square of the differences to the mean : = (37*(0-36/38)^2 + (36-36/38)^2) = 1227
Divide by the number of results = 32.3 Variance or 5.68 standard deviation.
Now if we take the square root of the number of trials (N) and multiply it by the standard deviation for one trial, we get the standard deviation for N trials :
244 * 5.68 = 1391 is one standard deviation.
Thus to make a profit over 60,000 spins you need to be 2.5 s.d's above the mean.
Or about a 1% chance.
This assume flat betting single numbers. I think it's a bigger number if you have a progression on single numbers (which would increase the variance, squishing the bell curve downwards).
Thus I think it is plausible MrJJJ is ahead over his lifetime. If it's just betting the even's bets, I'd find it very implausible, as the variance there is almost 1, thus the standard deviation is one, and over 60,000 bets, you'd be 14 standard deviations away from the mean.
This is also why it's more than possible to be up over a lifetime playing craps with 5x odds (for some value of lifetime).
I haven't voted. I have no idea on Ken's bank roll, and it's like guessing the length of the King of Spain's nose. If it was any Joe Blow in the world, it's unlikely they'd be up, but there's the self selection effect going on here.
Quote: SOOPOOTY, cesspit, but he has posted his methods before, and will be betting multiple 'hot' numbers at a time, thus increasing the bets per hour substantially. And he has discussed betting 'streets' I believe, which also lowers variance compared to single numbers. I do appreciate your work, cess, ty.
Indeed. I have no idea how many bets per hour he does make, so was guesstimating. I was curious on what the odds would actually be myself :)
Quote: thecesspitIndeed. I have no idea how many bets per hour he does make, so was guesstimating. I was curious on what the odds would actually be myself :)
Want to take the math a step further? Ken isn't just claiming to be up 1 bet. He's claiming to be up enough to buy a restaurant. How much less likely is that degree of up-ness?
Quote: SOOPOOTY, cesspit, but he has posted his methods before, and will be betting multiple 'hot' numbers at a time, thus increasing the bets per hour substantially. And he has discussed betting 'streets' I believe, which also lowers variance compared to single numbers. I do appreciate your work, cess, ty.
The last time he actually mentioned anything specific, he said he was making flat bets on 1-3 "hot" numbers, "hot" being ascertained based on the prior 60 numbers. So thecesspit's calculations are actually a very loose upper bound. Making 3 inside bets has lower variance than making just one, and according to Ken he's not just breaking even but significantly ahead, so the overall odds of him actually having realized his reported results based on his play style and estimated duration are far less than 1%.
3.5 standard deviations above the mean would be 1500 units, which at $25 units, $37,500.
1 in 5,000 chance of that, he sound roughly estimating and not getting out the tables for standard deviations to probabilities.
I might simulate up a quick single number progression this week and take a look at the curves for 60,000 bets (much like I did for VP a while back).
Quote: MathExtremistThe last time he actually mentioned anything specific, he said he was making flat bets on 1-3 "hot" numbers, "hot" being ascertained based on the prior 60 numbers. So thecesspit's calculations are actually a very loose upper bound. Making 3 inside bets has lower variance than making just one, and according to Ken he's not just breaking even but significantly ahead, so the overall odds of him actually having realized his reported results based on his play style and estimated duration are far less than 1%.
Indeed. It's a very loose estimate made quickly to get an idea. I'm right in thinking any progression bet would though up the variance, right?
(I'm more impressed that ME's read my quick sums and not said I've applied the maths incorrectly, which would be embarassing...).
Quote: MathExtremistThe last time he actually mentioned anything specific, he said he was making flat bets on 1-3 "hot" numbers, "hot" being ascertained based on the prior 60 numbers. So thecesspit's calculations are actually a very loose upper bound. Making 3 inside bets has lower variance than making just one, and according to Ken he's not just breaking even but significantly ahead, so the overall odds of him actually having realized his reported results based on his play style and estimated duration are far less than 1%.
Thank you, ME. That's what I thought, but couldn't phrase it properly.
MHO/ He took out a loan of sizeable amount. The Roulette ain't payin for it, the bank is. Or is it the loan is payin for the Roulette? /MHO
Quote: 98ClubsBuy a restaurant?... now you have my attention.
MHO/ He took out a loan of sizeable amount. The Roulette ain't payin for it, the bank is. Or is it the loan is payin for the Roulette? /MHO
I f I remember correctly he payed for 1/2 a restaurant with his hard earned roulette winnings. When I have a 'method' that will consistently beat the casino, I think I'll buy half a restaurant instead......
Quote: 98ClubsBuy a restaurant?... now you have my attention.
MHO/ He took out a loan of sizeable amount. The Roulette ain't payin for it, the bank is. Or is it the loan is payin for the Roulette? /MHO
He had the restaurant a couple years ago and has since
gotten out of it. Too much work, I think.
Quote: EvenBobHe had the restaurant a couple years ago and has since
gotten out of it. Too much work, I think.
More like he needed to liquidate his position...
Quote: rdw4potusMore like he needed to liquidate his position...
It was taking up way too much of his time, if
I remember correctly. Restaurants are a huge
amount of work.
Quote: EvenBobIt was taking up way too much of his time, if
I remember correctly. Restaurants are a huge
amount of work.
They can be. Some owners just hire a good GM and sit back.
Quote: rdw4potusThey can be. Some owners just hire a good GM and sit back.
Now that I think about it, his partner wanted to
do some things Ken wasn't into and thats why
he got rid of it. It was a combination of things.
Because 7 is the average and not the distribution.Quote: mrjjjI am asking, *WHY* has not every number hit 7 times each?
Yes, Because of variance.Quote: mrjjjThis is a FACT that every number will not hit evenly....
The distribution by averages:
| times hit | average numbers |
|---|---|
| 0 | 0.031550446 |
| 1 | 0.226822123 |
| 2 | 0.812268413 |
| 3 | 1.931881632 |
| 4 | 3.433005872 |
| 5 | 4.861878587 |
| 6 | 5.715992393 |
| 7 | 5.738061861 |
| 8 | 5.020804129 |
| 9 | 3.889992388 |
| 10 | 2.701967686 |
| 11 | 1.699517758 |
| 12 | 0.976074388 |
| 13 | 0.515432213 |
| 14 | 0.251745849 |
| 15 | 0.114306223 |
| 16 | 0.048464294 |
| 17 | 0.019262438 |
| 18 | 0.007201722 |
| 19 | 0.002540579 |
| 20 | 0.000848004 |
used "at all"? Yes.Quote: mrjjjcan this FACTUAL information be used at all for NEAR future betting? I dont mean 100 spins later.
Ken
Is it useful info? I say "No"
Why do I say No? because of my computer simulation results.
So, Ken, you believe, from your empirical data, that Hot numbers are more likely to stay hot in the very near term as the distribution continues to get larger and expand.
From the above photo of 266 spins, would you now bet the 32 and 33 for X number of spins? or is this not one of your betting methods?
No law against that.
Rock On!
FMI:(maybe more on this later)
In a random walk, by the Arcsine Law, one would expect to be either ahead more times than average during the walk or behind more times than average during the walk equally when p = 0.5. This is counter-intuitive to most.
It continues to shift to being behind more than at average as the value of p goes down as opposed to being ahead more.
I love multiple choice questions.Quote: mrjjjYour life depends on this, you'll get shot in the head if you lose. (joking, just play a long) You have to choose one number for 10 spins.
A) the #6 has hit 27 times in 450 spins.
B) the #32 has no hits in 450 spins.
C) throw your chip up in the air, whatever it lands on, thats your bet (10 spins)
Your choice is what and why? You can only choose A B or C.
Ken
Now, IF I choose c, there is a possibility I will, by random selection, still end up with a or b.
This does not seem "fair". But it is your question. And I see it could be a trick question.
I choose c
because a and c are not mutually exclusive
a and b are mutually exclusive
this is probability 101
the #6 has hit 27 times in 450 spins.
That is hot by standard deviation standards
The guy won hundreds of thousands before the casino caught on and moved the wheel. Now casinos have implemented methods to stop this, by changing wheels, getting wheels with shallower pockets, and having the dealer change ball speed or change the ball (to a different size ball). But even with all these changes I don't see why it's crazy to think an advantage could still be had.
I don't know jj's method, but I could believe he's ahead.
Quote: ewjones080I've heard of a documented case where a man DID gain an advantage over roulette. He and several of his family members would go to the Monte Carlo and record numbers for hours a day, for weeks. The man then ran the numbers through a statistical program and found 7 of the numbers came up more often than probability would indicate, so much so he actually had an advantage. This was apparently due to a wheel bias; a small unnoticable wobble to the wheel, along with unnoticable grooves in the side, causing a higher likelihood the ball would drop in one of these places.
The guy won hundreds of thousands before the casino caught on and moved the wheel. Now casinos have implemented methods to stop this, by changing wheels, getting wheels with shallower pockets, and having the dealer change ball speed or change the ball (to a different size ball). But even with all these changes I don't see why it's crazy to think an advantage could still be had.
I don't know jj's method, but I could believe he's ahead.
mrjjj states that his system (oops, method) does not depend upon wheel bias. He avers he has won on unbiased wheels.
You can always tell a Patrick player, but you can't tell him much.
Quote: ewjones080I've heard of a documented case where a man DID gain an advantage over roulette. He and several of his family members would go to the Monte Carlo and record numbers for hours a day, for weeks. The man then ran the numbers through a statistical program and found 7 of the numbers came up more often than probability would indicate, so much so he actually had an advantage. This was apparently due to a wheel bias; a small unnoticable wobble to the wheel, along with unnoticable grooves in the side, causing a higher likelihood the ball would drop in one of these places.
The guy won hundreds of thousands before the casino caught on and moved the wheel. Now casinos have implemented methods to stop this, by changing wheels, getting wheels with shallower pockets, and having the dealer change ball speed or change the ball (to a different size ball). But even with all these changes I don't see why it's crazy to think an advantage could still be had.
I don't know jj's method, but I could believe he's ahead.
When was this documented case? For at least the last 15 years, casino's have recorded every spin of every wheel. They would surely catch onto the bias much before this "documented case"..
PS: If you are going to refer to a documented case with much authority, you should problem post reference to that case. Otherwise, the statement holds little water...
Quite a well documented case, as I've heard of it in three different places. It was Spanish Casino's he took on.
Here's how you beat the random game of roulette:
1. Practice flipping a coin for hours at a time and guessing the outcome.
2. Throw common sense out the window.
3. Forget the math. It doesn't help accountantzs, engineerzs, bankerzs, or any of the mathboyzz. So why bother with it?
4. Inform everyone far and wide that Einstein "doN't kNoW nOttinz. HEz wRonG! Jus another one of them mathboyzz!"
5. Remind people that the odds don't apply to you, because you don't play everyspin.
6. Winning is easy when you find "just the right progression". The Martingale works just fine. "Loan me just one thousand dollars and I'll show you."
7. If you played and won five years ago, and haven't played since, then it means that you've "been winning for five years now!"
8. Biased wheels don't exist, but tracking the wheels enables you to win by playing trends, even though each spin is an independent event. You pick five cold numbers and I'll pick five hot numbers and we'll play for 300 spins. You'll see! You'll see!
9. Inform everyone that you win and they don't, because you are " a winning!"
10. AP is a myth, and you can win without the edge if you believe.
11. Did I mention that you should practice following trends by flipping a coin?
12. Readin random is easy IF YOU PRACTICE WITH A COIN!
13. George Bush is responsiBLE for 911 and he personally FAKED THE LUNAR LANDINGS!!! "my friEND's buDDY got pROOF!"
14. Wrong answer coolbreeze!! What the hell do you know! I win and you don't! ROFL ... LOL. ROF. AOL. LOL.
The results of every roulette wheel is stored in a database (this technology wasn't available in the early 90's). If a bias exists, the casino will know far before any player could figure it out.
Quote: TriplellWhen was this documented case?
The one that resulted in protection methods first being implemented was in 1873...
However, I did some incidental looking into this recently. Surprisingly, biased wheels still exist, and the casinos know about them; it's impossible not to when every spin is tracked. Furthermore, while a significantly biased wheel will be repaired or replaced, it seems that a wheel with moderate bias (but even enough to invert the HA) usually won't be, at least not right away, so as to spare the expense and the lost profit. Instead surveillance will occasionally look into players winning with straight-up bets on such wheels, with the idea to back them off if they seem to be exploiting the bias, and then consider replacing the wheel.
Quote: buzzpaffJoseph Jagger took advantage of a biased wheel in Monte Carlo in 1873.
The man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo... :)
Talk about a royal pain !
Quote: buzzpaffMick Jagger : Knighted in 2003
Talk about a royal pain !
Hi Folks, as many of you know I went under the knife a while ago. (No such luck, Mr. Wizard... I survived).
I was just wondering if I missed anything in this thread or not.
I last read it at page 16's "Why don't we all agree to stop talking about mrj and his roulette exploits? This thread is a bore." and have now rejoined it at page 35's something about Mick Jagermeister being a royal pain.
Did I miss anything? Will the next spin be 7 Red or not?
