good design cool

[Jakkalsdraai]

As far as I can see it sure looks like Landis is looking for a fight. This became clear after attacking various members on this forum.

Landis, believe what you like. These members have all the right to post their systems here and share it FOR FREE. Now have you tried Winkels's GUT? Have you tried Mr. Chip's Signum system? If you have, have you confirmed with them that you have played it correctly?

Landis my friend. To critisize is one thing but to look for fights is a totally different kettle of fish. I am totally sick of people disrupting other's work. Mr. Chips and Winkel have both gone to extraordinary efforts to share their methods for free. I take my hat off and salute you guys. To you though Landis. Keep it civil and if you are only planning to be disruptive.....then there is no place here for you.

Cheers
Jakk

[Mr Chips]

As far as I can see it sure looks like Landis is looking for a fight. This became clear after attacking various members on this forum.

Landis, believe what you like. These members have all the right to post their systems here and share it FOR FREE. Now have you tried Winkels's GUT? Have you tried Mr. Chip's Signum system? If you have, have you confirmed with them that you have played it correctly?

Landis my friend. To critisize is one thing but to look for fights is a ttally different kettle of fish. I am totally sick of people disrupting other's work. Mr. Chips and Winkel have botrh gone to extraordinary efforts to share their methods for free. I take my hat off and salute you guys. To you though Landis. Keep it civil and if you are only planning to be disruptive.....then there is no place here for you.

Cheers
Jakk

Exactly, thank you for making it clear to Landis. We are not interested in confrontation, it serves no
purpose and is a complete waste of time.

I hope the Administrators take note of this post, as I am sure the majority of members here agree with it.

Regards

Richard

[Landis]

No, I'm not looking for a fight.

I just wanted to correct some of the blunders.  

Mr. Chips Signum system does not and can not work.  I've read it, and it immediately became obvious to me that he's relying on previous spins to effect future outcomes.  As every encyclopedia and mathematician will tell you, each spin in roulette has no connection to past spins.  Keeping tracking of how many times the red or black have hit will not change the odds of them hitting on the next spins.  Therefore the odds of either red or black hitting remains 18/37 and the house edge remains 2.7%  (These facts are published on the internet, cited in books on probability and statistics, and can easily be found in just about every encyclopedia out there.)

Regarding Winkels system.  Winkel now admits that it doesn't change the house edge and that it's not a long term winner, since it also does not change the odds of numbers hitting on the next spin.

Unless someone speaks up occasionally,  people will continue to build systems based on faulty blue prints.

By the way, you'll notice that I've gone out of my way to be polite to these guys, despite the name calling that they have participated in on a regular basis.  

The purpose of the posts are to learn from past mistakes instead of building on blunders.

-Landis

[Landis]

I will post rules for building and evaluating more effective systems sometime soon. 

Building systems based on bad information is causing you guys to walk in circles.  You're reinventing the gambler's fallacy on a daily basis, only with different names.  The guide should help you out.

[Jakkalsdraai]

I suppose it depends on how you look at past results mate.

Do you agree that if the balance on red and black are 43% black 57% red that black will even out with red?

Do you agree that so called advantage techniques use past spins to calculate (in their words) the physics in predicting future events.

What you would want people to believe is that a wheel effectively could go through 10 mil spins and have 65% Red and 35% black after these 10 mil spins? You agree that this is not the case? Do you admit that results even out?

Cheers
Jakk

[gizmotron]

I will post rules for building and evaluating more effective systems sometime soon.  

Building systems based on bad information is causing you guys to walk in circles.  You're reinventing the gambler's fallacy on a daily basis, only with different names.  The guide should help you out.

Try to comprehend this:

So I use coincidence to establish a bet selection premise. Situational awareness comes from observation of the current conditions that exist, irregardless of the long term nature that exists too. Then the situation can be evaluated for each spin as they happen. The effectiveness of the premise can be evaluated at the same time too. At no time has predictability ever been factored. Yet, I have never had a discussion of randomness that has not had to deal with someone that insists that my concepts can't predict what will happen. They never get it when I agree with them. Only they hang themselves up on the need for predictability. So, Marven, you are one of the very few really smart people that discuss Roulette. Coming from me, that might not be a good thing to be. I'm crazy with all my concepts and beliefs after all.

[Landis]

Do you agree that if the balance on red and black are 43% black 57% red that black will even out with red?

The red and black fluctuation will occur until  the end of time.  You can not expect them to equalize in a way that will enable you to profit.   There is no law of averages, only the law of large numbers.   If you do more research on it you will understand that it's not possible to take advantage of any imbalance and profit since roulette is a game of independent outcomes.  This means even if black hit 50 times in a row, the odds of red/black hitting is still just 18/37.

Do you agree that so called advantage techniques use past spins to calculate (in their words) the physics in predicting future events.

Visual ballistic and computer ballistics are using the physics of the wheel to predict the outcome by using meaningful observations.  Past observations enable the user to determine the most common ball bounce, and other factors that can be used to calculate where the ball will likely impact the wheel.  You can not equate observations in the outcomes of the random game with the relevant observations of the gambling device.  

What you would want people to believe is that a wheel effectively could go through 10 mil spins and have 65% Red and 35% black after these 10 mil spins? You agree that this is not the case? Do you admit that results even out?

Again, regardless of the past results, the odds of red/ black hitting on the next spin remains 18/37.  
Cheers.

I've attached an article for you to study below.  It's bascially about the maturity of chances aka gambler's fallacy.
Please study the article below to learn more.

-Landis.
-----------------------------------

Exposition:
The Gambler's Fallacy and its sibling, the Hot Hand Fallacy, have two distinctions that can be claimed of no other fallacies:

They have built a city in the desert: Las Vegas.
They are the economic mainstay of Monaco, an entire, albeit tiny, country, from which we get the alias "Monte Carlo" fallacy.
Both fallacies are based on the same mistake, namely, a failure to understand statistical independence. Two events are statistically independent when the occurrence of one has no statistical effect upon the occurrence of the other. Statistical independence is connected to the notion of randomness in the following way: what makes a sequence random is that its members are statistically independent of each other. For instance, a list of random numbers is such that one cannot predict better than chance any member of the list based upon a knowledge of the other list members.

To understand statistical independence, try the following experiment. Predict the next member of each of the two following sequences:

2, 3, 5, 7, __
1, 8, 6, 7, __

The first is the beginning of the sequence of prime numbers. The second is a random sequence gathered from the last digits of the first four numbers in a phone book. The first sequence is non-random, and predictable if one knows the way that it is generated. The second sequence is random and unpredictable—unless, of course, you look in the phone book, but that is not prediction, that is just looking at the sequence—because there is no underlying pattern to the sequence of last digits of telephone numbers in a phone book. The numbers in the second sequence are statistically independent.

Many gambling games are based upon randomly-generated, statistically independent sequences, such as the series of numbers generated by a roulette wheel, or by throws of unloaded dice. A fair coin produces a random sequence of "heads" or "tails", that is, each flip of the coin is statistically independent of all the other flips. This is what is meant by saying that the coin is "fair", namely, that it is not biased in such a way as to produce a predictable sequence.

Consider the Example: If the roulette wheel at the Casino was fair, then the probability of the ball landing on black was a little less than one-half on any given turn of the wheel. Also, since the wheel is fair, the colors that come up are statistically independent of one another, thus no matter how many times the ball has fallen on black, the probability is still the same. If it were possible to predict one color from others, then the wheel would not be a good randomizer. Remember that neither a roulette wheel nor the ball has a memory.
Every gambling "system" is based on this fallacy, or its Sibling. Any gambler who thinks that he can record the results of a roulette wheel, or the throws at a craps table, or lotto numbers, and use this information to predict future outcomes is probably committing some form of the gambler's fallacy.

Sibling Fallacy: The Hot Hand Fallacy

Source:
A. R. Lacey, Dictionary of Philosophy (Third Revised Edition), (Barnes & Noble, 1996).

Resources:
Julian Baggini, "The Gambler's Fallacy", Bad Moves, 11/19/2004
Colin Bruce, "The Case of the Gambling Nobleman", in Conned Again, Watson! Cautionary Tales of Logic, Math, and Probability (Perseus, 2002). This is a Sherlock Holmes short story which explains clearly and entertainingly why the Gambler's Fallacy is fallacious.
Robert Todd Carroll, "The Gambler's Fallacy", Skeptic's Dictionary.

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

Q&A:
Q: Isn't there a sort-of fallacy embedded in the form of the gambler's fallacy, which is that it depends on the gambling device being "fair", something which (I submit) is technically unknowable and at best inferred through a series of trials? Put another way, while it is a fallacy to expect something other than a chance outcome for the next trial on a fair gambling device, I don't think it's a fallacy to expect a different-from-chance outcome on an unfair device. What if the actual reasoning that occurs "in the wild" and at Vegas is something like this?

P: A series of events has occurred which would be highly-improbable if the device is fair.
C: The device is (probably) not fair.

―David A. Ventimiglia

A: You're right that we test randomizers for fairness primarily through trials, but that's not the only consideration. A die will be a good randomizer if it's a cube and evenly weighted, which can be tested by direct measurement. However, it isn't necessary that it be perfect. No physical randomizer will ever be perfectly fair; for instance, no die will ever be perfectly symmetrical or absolutely evenly weighted. As with other mathematical laws―as well as scientific laws in general, and even the laws of logic―the laws of probability apply to the physical world only approximately. But if a randomizer approximates fairness closely enough, then the gambler's fallacy is, indeed, fallacious. So, to be perfectly precise, the form of the fallacy should be expressed in the following way:

An approximately fair gambling device has produced a "run".
Therefore, on the next trial of the device, it is significantly less likely than chance to continue the run.

There was a famous "man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo" who studied the roulette wheels in the casino and discovered that one seemed to favor certain numbers. By betting those numbers, the man was able to amass a small fortune. When the casino realized what he was doing, it switched the roulette wheels around at night while the casino was closed, and the man began to lose heavily. Nowadays, you can bet that casinos around the world have learned the lesson, which is why there has been no "man who broke the bank" since the 19th century.

However, consider how the man who broke the bank reasoned: Certain numbers on the wheel had come up more often than expected. Therefore, the man bet on those numbers! According to the Gambler's Fallacy, he should have bet against them because it was the other numbers on the wheel that were overdue. Rather than the Gambler's Fallacy, his reasoning actually took the form of its sibling, the Hot Hand Fallacy; that is, he bet that the run would continue.

In cases such as the Monte Carlo one, it may be reasonable to conclude that a gambling device is not fair based upon a highly improbable series of results. In those rare cases, the Hot Hand form of argument is not fallacious. The Gambler's Fallacy, in contrast, always is.

[TwoCatSam]

I must question my sanity for jumping into this fray.............

Jakk posed the question:  "Do you agree that if the balance on red and black are 43% black 57% red that black will even out with red?"

I am not math guy, but I've read a couple of books on the subject of roulette, craps and Baccarat.  I have read books on probability as it applies to roulette and random numbers.  That is my pedigree......

Now to the question.  No, they do not have to even out.  Not ever.  They probably will, but probably is very close to probability.  In fact, over millions of spins, the actual numerical distance between red and black may decrease but there is no law dictating it must.  While I agree with R.D. Ellison that there is a "statistical pressure" for them to conform, they don't have to.

Then there is the time constraint.  How long should we give red and black to equalize?  How many trials?  Or should we be like the famous Al Gore recount theory:  We stop the count when Al is one vote ahead!

I'm bored.  Jump all over me.  Someone start a fight.  I need the exercise!   

Sam

[Landis]

A great place to start would be for you to read on the "law of large numbers and the "gambler's fallacy."

[Tangram]

Mr. Chips Signum system does not and can not work.  I've read it, and it immediately became obvious to me that he's relying on previous spins to effect future outcomes.

Landis,

The problem I have is with that word "effect" (actually, I think it should be "affect", meaning - to influence). I don't think anyone seriously believes that past decisions affect future outcomes in the way that the trajectory of a ball affects (influences) where the ball will eventually land, as the gambler's fallacy seems to be saying.  The reason why people look at past outcomes as a possible aid to making future decisions is because the distribution of outcomes have characteristics which can be exploited.  To use a simplistic example, observation (and theory) tells you that an even chance streak of 8 will occur much less often than a streak of 3, and under certain circumstances it can be advantageous to use this information. You may also notice that events and patterns don't repeat themselves endlessly in a given sequence of outcomes, and this observation may also be used to good effect. There is no "cause and affect" in operation here, simply the noticing of certain tendencies.

Actually, the way the gambler's fallacy is stated is, I believe, itself a fallacy - an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc: "after this, therefore because of this". The fallacy has to do with causality, and it has this structure:

A occurred before B, therefore A caused B

As in the joke: "Why are you whistling?" "To keep the Tigers away." "But there aren't any Tigers around here."
"See, it works!".

[Landis]

Regarding "effect" and "affect"  I frequently interchange the two when I'm typing quickly.  It's nothing more than a typo.  Believe it or not, I sometimes make typos when typing as well as the occasional spelling eRor

The reason why people look at past outcomes as a possible aid to making future decisions is because the distribution of outcomes have characteristics which can be exploited.  To use a simplistic example, observation (and theory) tells you that an even chance streak of 8 will occur much less often than a streak of 3, and under certain circumstances it can be advantageous to use this information. You may also notice that events and patterns don't repeat themselves endlessly in a given sequence of outcomes, and this observation may also be used to good effect. There is no "cause and affect" in operation here, simply the noticing of certain tendencies

  There's nothing that you can exploit in the random game that will enable you to gain the edge.  The odds of a streak occurring are exactly as they should be according to probability.  The observation of the streak or streaks do not change the odds of them occurring.  For example:  A streak of 8 reds has just occurred.  The odds of another red occurring on the next spin remains 18/37 for an unfair payoff of just 35 to 1.  The house edge remains intact.  Understand?

Below is a link to help you learn more.

nolinks://wizardofodds.com/askthewizard/fallacy.html

[elmo]

Here is something I don't understand. The Signum website states " Roulette is considered a game of chance and the Signum system, when fully understood will make it a game of skill, turning the casino advantage in favour of the player. "
O.K. so are you saying that if I was playing red or black at my local casino and I bet against what the Signum strategy would suggest, then the odds for me are worse than 18/37?
If you are saying this, then does that mean the casino are wrong in their game odds that they display at the casino?
 

[Tangram]

Landis,

I said nothing about the odds changing  because of past outcomes, neither did I suggest that anything is "due". This is just a restating of the "cause and affect" argument. You just don't get it, and I don't think you ever will because you're not willing to suspend your disbelief for long enough to actually give it a try - and then try again when you fail (which you will). I have no need to understand anything more about the gambler's fallacy. I've known about it for years and have (thankfully) ignored it for years.

But keep up the good work anyway! 

[gizmotron]

...The observation of the streak or streaks do not change the odds of them occurring. 

Congratulations, now keep it in mind. The observation of streaks don't cause them to happen either. The observation of streaks don't make them continue either.

The observation of Standard Deviation does not cause them to happen either. The observation of relevance to large numbers does not cause streaks to happen.  Landis flapping his mantra on a gambling forum does not prevent others from seeing streaks continue either.

VB causes math Nazis to have blind spots based on none relevant math basics. They have such inadequacies that they think they are clever when they actually bore everyone.

[bombus]

Landis did start his own thread for the purpose critiquing, and aside from an initial condescending tone, he has kept it a clean fight from his corner, and what may develop from the discussion could be quite interesting and useful for a lot of members.

The topic name is probably a bit contentious. Perhaps it should be a 'criticism of systems in general', with specific systems then included in the thread.

That said it could also be seen as a bit of an old chestnut...

[bombus]

-