Where is the burden of proof for claims that past roulette spins influence future spins?
Poll
 | 9 votes (60%) | ||
| | 6 votes (40%) |
15 members have voted
Edit: Sorry for the misspelling on the poll. Get over it.
Quote: scotty81I voted that the burden of proof is on the person claiming that past spins DO influence future results.
Edit: Sorry for the misspelling on the poll. Get over it.
My God, there are already two votes on the idiot side.
The question is: Who has the BURDEN OF PROOF in proving their claim?
Does the person who claims that past spins DO influence future results have the burden to prove his claim, or does the person who claims that past spins DO NOT influence future results have the burden of proof?
After I posted the poll, it was apparent that it could be misinterpreted as asking: Do you BELIEVE past spins influence future results?
That is not what the poll is asking. It's asking who has the burden of proof.
My vote is that the person claiming that past spins DO influence future results has the burden of proof to prove their claim.
Quote: mkl654321My God, there are already two votes on the idiot side.
That's the smart side. The "DOers" have the burden of proof to show that their idea has merit. The rest of us get to sit back and laugh at them.
One can imagine a different game where the past spins do influence the future results (maybe the winning numbers are pulled out of a deck of cards, or the wheel is modified mechanically to make the number that just hit less likely to hit again for some time).
But in general, when one says "roulette", people tend to assume one is talking about an unbiased wheel with no memory producing a series of independent spins. Mrjjj himself had said repeatedly that he knows that the ball has no memory, so, we are on the same page here. I think, he is just pulling our leg.
When a method is posted, a few might say, "You cant use past numbers for future bets, it means nothing". How many have stated......unless there is a bias (cough) in the wheel, the player will NEVER have an advantage? That statement is EVERYWHERE. I then ask regarding betting on numbers with two hits on them (after 25 spins) and ALL OF A SUDDEN......I have an advantage! lol Ken
Quote: scotty81I voted that the burden of proof is on the person claiming that past spins DO influence future results.
What is the definition of "influence"?
what is "is"?
Last 25 spins can not change or alter the very next spin probability. Always 1/38 (1/37)
The last 25 spins can give us a probability of the next spin IF we bet all the numbers that have shown in the last 25 spins. That probability is a variable, never the same each time for a new set of 25 spins.
Quote: Mkl654321My God, there are already two votes on the idiot side.
Sorry Mkl654321, but the real roulette wheel is more complex than I suspect you can imagine. There are facets to it that most people can't comprehend because they simply don't know how or for what to look. In short, I think the wheel's defects and predictability will elude someone like you.
Also, The poll should specify whether we are talking about a real live wheel or an RNG wheel. As it stands, it's too vague.
The question should have read, "Do past spins from a real roulette wheel provide valuable information about the fitness of the gaming device and the randomness of the game?"
-Keyser
Quote: KeyserSorry Mkl654321, but the real roulette wheel is more complex than I suspect you can imagine. There are facets to it that most people can't comprehend because they simply don't know how or for what to look. In short, I think the wheel's defects and predictability will elude someone like you.
Also, The poll should specify whether we are talking about a real live wheel or an RNG wheel. As it stands, it's too vague.
The question should have read, "Do past spins from a real roulette wheel provide valuable information about the fitness of the gaming device and the randomness of the game?"
-Keyser
Oh, come on. Now you're babbling nonsense. AS THE QUESTION READ, even a BIASED wheel's spins would have no influence on future spins. Spin #1 does not reach forward in time and tweak Spin #2.
I am actually able to imagine a quite complex roulette wheel. There are sticky spots and dents and specks of dirt and miniature quantum singularities all over the wheel. So bloody what? Absent a thorough microscopic examination of the wheel, the only way we can detect "bias" is by observing results. But this is a fool's errand. Do you understand why?
No, you probably don't.
Any set of observations is going to show a pseudo-bias. Some numbers will come up less often, and some more often, than they "should". This is inevitable, even on a perfectly fair and unbiased wheel. THE COGNITIVE FALLACY IS IN ASSUMING THAT JUST BECAUSE THIS HAPPENS, THERE IS SOME KIND OF CAUSAL LINK. The human brain doesn't do well with the concept of randomness. If 23 came up ten times more than it "should" have, that fact in itself has no meaning--but our brains scream at us to find out WHY. The vast majority of the time, there IS no "why".
Quote: mkl654321"Any set of observations is going to show a pseudo-bias. Some numbers will come up less often, and some more often, than they "should". This is inevitable, even on a perfectly fair and unbiased wheel. THE COGNITIVE FALLACY IS IN ASSUMING THAT JUST BECAUSE THIS HAPPENS, THERE IS SOME KIND OF CAUSAL LINK. The human brain doesn't do well with the concept of randomness. If 23 came up ten times more than it "should" have, that fact in itself has no meaning--but our brains scream at us to find out WHY. The vast majority of the time, there IS no "why".
Mkl,
I'm not going to take the time on this thread to school you on how to detect a defective wheel visually or via data collection (testing via chi square, standard deviation, and correlation testing.) As I said earlier, you likely would not comprehend it.
Quote: mkl654321Oh, come on. Now you're babbling nonsense. AS THE QUESTION READ, even a BIASED wheel's spins would have no influence on future spins. Spin #1 does not reach forward in time and tweak Spin #2.
Mkl,
I wrote, "The question should have read, "Do past spins from a real roulette wheel provide valuable information about the fitness of the gaming device and the randomness of the game?" Did you miss that part or are you not grasping it?
Good Lord, 700 posts since Aug 8, 2010? You're even more manic than Mr. J! Slow down, read what others have written before attacking. Quality is better than quantity.
-Keyser
Even in biased wheels past outcomes do not actively "influence" future spins. The future spins have an increased chance of correlating with the past spins (the more recent past spins in many cases) simply because they are being produced by the same physical system.
In the case of a biased wheel it's the physical system that's doing the influencing, not the particular sequence of numbers that have come up.
Plus, there's a limit on how long a poll question can be.
Spin two. The dealer spins the ball and it just happens to bounce into the number one. Rather than bouncing out, the ball is a affected by the sticky lip balm and the bounce is negated.
Had the ball not landed in the number one on the first spin, then the number one would have been less likely to become temporarily biased. In short, on the live wheel, past spins sometimes matter. This is why I voted "YES"
"Past Spins DO influence the future"
I do completely agree that following the sequence of numbers in the random game is a fool's folly.
-Keyser
Quote: KeyserMkl,
I'm not going to take the time on this thread to school you on how to detect a defective wheel visually or via data collection (testing via chi square, standard deviation, and correlation testing.) As I said earlier, you likely would not comprehend it.
Mkl,
I wrote, "The question should have read, "Do past spins from a real roulette wheel provide valuable information about the fitness of the gaming device and the randomness of the game?" Did you miss that part or are you not grasping it?
Good Lord, 700 posts since Aug 8, 2010? You're even more manic than Mr. J! Slow down, read what others have written before attacking. Quality is better than quantity.
-Keyser
Sigh. I DID say, "as the question read". You later corrected it, but your response to my answer failed (somehow) to understand that I was responding to the question AS YOU HAD ORIGINALLY POSTED IT. And the question, as you originally posted it, was pretty stupid.
I don't need to be "schooled" about roulette wheels, or anything else, especially not by you. If you believe in magic and deterministic roulette wheels, you're far too ignorant to teach me anything. I am intimately familiar with statistics, data collection, and the associated mathematics, having taken three university courses on same.
What is zooming over your head is that ANY reasonable sample size will show a "bias" toward some numbers rather than others, and YOU CANNOT TELL if an observed bias is due to a mechanical malfunction, or simply a manifestation of randomness. You WANT to dream that every time you see red or odd or the number 19 coming up more times than "normal", that it's due to an exploitable wheel bias. Therefore you will waste your time staring at that wheel for another X hours. Anyone who would piss away their time doing this--well, he would be the one who needs to be "schooled".
So my initial response dealt with the question as initially asked. This response, and the one before it, dealt with the question as modified. The answer to that question is: "No", and that answer is underlined by the word "valuable".
I will post as often and as much as I wish.
Quote: KeyserSpin one. The dealer spins the ball and it just happens to randomly land in the number one. As the dealer picks the ball up, she unknowingly poisons the pocket with some lip balm.
Spin two. The dealer spins the ball and it just happens to bounce into the number one. Rather than bouncing out, the ball is a affected by the sticky lip balm and the bounce is negated.
Had the ball not landed in the number one on the first spin, then the number one would have been less likely to become temporarily biased. In short, on the live wheel, past spins sometimes matter. This is why I voted "YES"
"Past Spins DO influence the future"
I do completely agree that following the sequence of numbers in the random game is a fool's folly.
-Keyser
You're misconstruing the term "past spins". The "past spin" was over, in your little anecdote, before the biasing event came into play. What biased the next spin was the lip balm. Therefore, any observation of "Spin One" would not have given any useful data in predicting Spin Two; seeing the lip balm "poison" the pocket might have done that, but the question did not ask, "Does the dealer accidentally putting lip balm in one pocket affect future spins?". Of course, it does, but that wasn't the question.
Quote: KeyserSpin one. The dealer spins the ball and it just happens to randomly land in the number one. As the dealer picks the ball up, she unknowingly poisons the pocket with some lip balm.
Spin two. The dealer spins the ball and it just happens to bounce into the number one. Rather than bouncing out, the ball is a affected by the sticky lip balm and the bounce is negated.
Had the ball not landed in the number one on the first spin, then the number one would have been less likely to become temporarily biased. In short, on the live wheel, past spins sometimes matter. This is why I voted "YES"
"Past Spins DO influence the future"
The assumption appears to be that any "poisoning" of the particular number pocket will necessarily make the probability of that number higher. I don't believe this is true - it seems very feasible to me that such "poisoning" could just as easily make the probability of that number lower. Consider that, rather than lip balm, perhaps the dealer ran her finger along her nose and rubbed some oil on the pocket, making it *more* likely that the ball will pop out.
But as MKL posted earlier, that's the dealer's nose oil or lip balm doing the "poisoning", not the spin itself. If I took a gob of rubber cement and glued another roulette ball into the pocket for 00, that would influence future spins too. In short, even on a physical wheel, the past spins (i.e. the results, the numbers, the outcomes) have nothing to do with future spins. Past physical alterations to the wheel, on the other hand, may very well have an impact, but those have nothing to do with the numbers themselves. Whether you can detect and profit from such poisoning is a valid question, but the answer will have to do with the nature of the physical bias and *not* the sequence of past numbers.
Quote: Mkl654321What is zooming over your head is that ANY reasonable sample size will show a "bias" toward some numbers rather than others, and YOU CANNOT TELL if an observed bias is due to a mechanical malfunction, or simply a manifestation of randomness.
Speak for yourself. Where you can not detect a problem, I likely can. However, since you probably do not own a wheel and since you're not trained on how to look at them in a highly specialized way, I do understand why you are not comprehending how it's even possible.
Regarding the statistics, I'm not referring to a wheel that appears slightly bias or random. I'm referring to a truly defective wheel where the chi is beyond 200 after maybe15k spins. If you can't determine whether that's a random goat or a player's delight, then you shouldn't brag about comprehending the "statistics". FYI, if a wheel was defective, the chi square would continue to increase as the sample size grows.
All of this talk of biased wheels is a bit of a waste of time, since they are very few and far between these days.
Regarding your manic posting, what makes you think that you're not as big of a nuisance as Mr. Jjj.?
-Keyser
Quote: KeyserSpeak for yourself. Where you can not detect a problem, I likely can. However, since you probably do not own a wheel and since you're not trained on how to look at them in a highly specialized way, I appreciate your attempt at a limited comprehension of wheel bias.
Regarding the statistics, I'm not referring to a wheel that appears slightly bias or random. I'm referring to a truly defective wheel where the chi is beyond 200 after maybe15k spins. If you can't determine whether that's a random goat or a player's delight, then you shouldn't brag about comprehending the "statistics". FYI, if a wheel was defective, the chi square would continue to increase as the sample size grows.
All of this talk of biased wheels is a bit of a waste of time, since they are very few and far between these days.
Regarding your manic posting, what makes you think that you're not as big of a nuisance as Mr. Jjj.? Keyser
If you can't discern a difference between my and Mr. jjj's postings, then you're even denser than I thought.
I'd love to see some documentation of your status as a TRAINED roulette-wheel-looker-ater. Did you get a degree in that from some obscure university--or are you home-schooled? Lol, as Mr. jjj would say.
I still would like an answer from you regarding how you can detect a "problem" when all you can observe is the collected spins of the wheel. In other words (in case you STILL can't comprehend what I mean), how can you tell that a series of unusual results is due to some physical bias in the wheel, and not simply a manifestation of the simple fact that randomly generated results will always show an apparent bias toward some result or another? If you flip a coin 100 times, and it comes up heads 63 times, does that mean the coin is defective? What about 73 times? 83? What about 650 times out of 1000?
I fail to see how you could possibly collect a sample size large enough to even SUGGEST wheel bias. And the reason I fail to see that is not because I somehow lack perception, but because I realize the simple fact that a fantastic claim requires compelling evidence to support it. To get to four standard deviations, for example, would require observing the same wheel and seeing the same "bias" for a continuous month.
Quote: mkl654321I fail to see how you could possibly collect a sample size large enough to even SUGGEST wheel bias. And the reason I fail to see that is not because I somehow lack perception, but because I realize the simple fact that a fantastic claim requires compelling evidence to support it. To get to four standard deviations, for example, would require observing the same wheel and seeing the same "bias" for a continuous month.
I know you don't comprehend it.
Regarding sample sizes and statistics: If you can not discern a wheel with a chi square of 200 after 10 or 15k spins from a random wheel, then you don't know jack.
Four standard deviations really isn't enough to provide overwhelming support for a defective wheel. Afterall, if you were to track enough wheels, then you would eventually find a wheel that produced a single number at four standard deviations.
I'm talking about a wheel that may spike four standard deviations at 2k spins, then hit five standard deviations by 5k spins. If the wheel was biased, the standard deviation would gradually increase. At times, it may appear to fade, but as the sample size increases, the standard deviation will increase. The chi square would also increase with time. The shape of the data graph, as it is relates to how the numbers are placed on the wheel, will also provide a great deal of insight.
Some biases would also not require a large sample size to be recognized.
This talk of traditional bias is a big waste of time, since they are very rare.
Getting back to the temp. problems that can create short term bias, they are more common and would not always require massive data collection. For example, if you see the ball isn't bouncing each time it lands in the number one and you see a sheen on the pocket, then you might have good reason to think that the pocket is defective because of a spilled beer, etc... (I'm talking about observing the "action" of the ball.)
-Keyser.
Quote: KeyserI know you don't comprehend it.
Regarding sample sizes and statistics: If you can not discern a wheel with a chi square of 200 after 10 or 15k spins from a random wheel, then you don't know jack.-Keyser.
Yes, yes, of course, I'm ignorant, I know nothing. I don't see the mystic forces that hover above roulette wheels, nor do I perceive the elvea and fairies that reach down to the wheel and tickle the roulette ball as it spins.
You DON'T know that I "don't comprehend it", because I DO comprehend it, and I know it's a bunch of horsecrap. Do you think you're the first delusional clown to think that roulette can be beaten? People have wasted MILLIONS of man-hours staring at roulette wheels, scribbling equations, and concocting magical lucky charms in their basements. They ALL failed. What on EARTH makes you somehow different?
You may be familiar with the math itself, but you somehow don't understand the conclusion that that math leads to. YOU CANNOT ADD NEGATIVE NUMBERS AND REACH A POSITIVE SUM. I do "comprehend" that--if you are such a math expert, why don't you?
The sad thing is that you're not unique, or even particularly unusual or original. People have been trying to do the same thing as you for centuries. All the babbling about chi-squared this and that can't change that sad fact: you can't beat roulette. No, you can't. Really. Sorry.
Feel free to reply with some insult/diatribe/reflection on my education. It's not ME you need to refute--it's REALITY.
Quote: mkl654321You may be familiar with the math itself, but you somehow don't understand the conclusion that that math leads to. YOU CANNOT ADD NEGATIVE NUMBERS AND REACH A POSITIVE SUM.
Well, Duh!
I don't claim to have a system to beat roulette. I also did not say that I was the international spokesman for any roulette system. However, a defective roulette wheel would hit certain numbers more often than exectation and in some rare cases, hit specific numbers often enough to overcome the house edge.
Any series of bets on a random roulette wheel will have a negative expectation. The RANDOM GAME OF ROULETTE CAN NOT BE BEATEN IN THE LONG RUN. So in short, don't waste your time trying Mkl654321!
Good Lord, I'm at 103 posts
Sorry, but I'm not manic enough to continue posting on this thread.
-Keyser
Quote: mkl654321Do you think you're the first delusional clown to think that roulette can be beaten? People have wasted MILLIONS of man-hours staring at roulette wheels, scribbling equations, and concocting magical lucky charms in their basements. They ALL failed. What on EARTH makes you somehow different? Feel free to reply with some insult/diatribe/reflection on my education. It's not ME you need to refute--it's REALITY.
Wow, I wonder what it feels like to be called a clown and not be believed.. Of course roulette can't be beat, if it could, somebody would have done it by now.
