Beating a math game with math

[Herb]

Here's the problem.

1. Roulette the game is a game of independent trials.  Past results simply don't affect future results.  Simple logic tells us this is true.
2. Since roulette is a game of independent trials, then using past numbers that have or have not hit in our bet selection is of no benefit.

Now here's a big exception,

Roulette wheels that are not random will tend to have certain numbers that clump, or come in when conditions are just right due to physical defects in the gaming device.

Regarding your testing:  You may have simply slightly exploited a small flaw within the RNG.  Try retesting.  I'm impressed that you tested so many trials.  It's really something to see.

-Herb

[gizmotron]

Regarding your testing:  You may have simply slightly exploited a small flaw within the RNG.  Try retesting.

-Herb

I created a version that only bets without the conditional selection and showed that code as proof also. It returned a confirmed 0.0526 number that could not be more than a thousandth level off in the extremely large sample. This was confirmed by other computer programmers. The RNG works perfectly as expected for proving the probability Why would it stop doing that once the selection process is added? I was forced by others to use such a large enough sample at to prove it was beyond the risk of RNG error.

[Herb]

Have you tried running the test again on a different RNG?

[gizmotron]

This may be chat to you but nobody has come along before and changed the odds, albeit by selection and waiting to avoid the zeros. It's just an argument for the fact that Math is supposed to be the absolute final answer here. I have found that that is just not true. Now if that is the case then what other conditional selections can be employed to lower the odd even more. Is it possible to find a strategy that uses conditional selection that works on really abstract things like patterns within patterns and patterns within trends?

I apologize if this is a can of worms and that there are others that must slam me down for saying what I just suggested. Never the less I want to discuss it and think that on a forum dedicated to discuss ideas is much better than a chat room. Also, let it be known in all this. I don't care if I'm wrong and have made an error. That would be informative too.

Please suggest a place, Victor?

[Herb]

The math is absolute, however, you may have:

1. Found a statistical anomily in a random trial
2. Found a small flaw in a particular RNG. 

I would be interested in discussing it further.

[gizmotron]

Herb - "Have you tried running the test again on a different RNG?"

Jugs Monthly created his own sim in another language and got lower results than me. I still don't know why. Bliss created a version of his own but it has problems with optimization and execution order with regards to use of operators and the find function. (sorry for the tech speak) Even Bliss's version produced almost perfect results for 0.0526. We all used massively large numbers in order to isolate natural drift from test to test.

I would love to see some others try it here. I never ever believed that anyone would not want it to be researched here.

I agree, long threads are a pain.

[VLSroulette]

Gizmo, thanks for stopping by. Please feel free to open your own topic or shall you wish, I can split (separate) your posts at this thread and relocate them somewhere else you specify.

A good place to start posting this roulette-related topics is here:
nolinks://vlsroulette.com/gambling-and-roulette-related/

Also, remember there's the testing zone, where you are totally welcome to post your charts/results:
nolinks://vlsroulette.com/testing-zone/

Be certain there are many (including myself) who are happy to know you are around with a productive mind and for sure loving the fact you are willing to contribute your personal tests and take feedback.

Just tell me if I shall split & move your contribution to our "gambling and roulette-related" section or you'd want to open a new thread. Perhaphs one named "Gizmotron's beating a math game with math thread" to separate them from current Turbo's "beating a math game with math" one.

As you wish it is fine. Just let's work this out the best way we can, and thanks again for being around at the productivity side.

Your friend.
Victor

[JHM]

It's coming Bago, roulette is on the major back burner at the moment

Glad to see you here though, you always bring the "anti-turbo" attitude which
does little but is indeed entertaining to read.

When is the release turbo 

[gizmotron]

OK, while we wait for Turbo to begin again, thanks Victor. Just a short update. Three of us have written three different Sims in three different languages and they all worked correctly. We set out to attempt to avoid the zeros by waiting 30 spins for them to not appear. However we all had this extra 10+ & 10- stop point and we did that so different that we got three different results.

If this goes no further then there is no need to start another thread. It just ends here unless the reason for the test in the first place were to continue. We needed to prove you could in fact lower the odds. It turns out that when you attempt to miss the swarms of zeros you still lose many of them anyway. When you add those fewer losses to zeros to the normal losses on the 50/50 lower and upper 18 bets you get the 10- stop point kicking in more often than the 10+ does. That appears to have a small effect on the odds. What it means has not been decided.

If anyone wants to talk about this then tell Victor to separate out this Sim stuff that I brought up and we will delve into why it works and discover it together. Somebody wondered why we were bothering with all this. I answered him that with two little insignificant rules we could get a small percentage loss what would happen if we used more intelligent conditional selection rules. I told him that the door swings wide open if the Sim is operating correctly. We have already proven that the RNG are not suspect.

still waiting for Turbo.

[Herb]

Gizmotron,


I think Turbo has done quite a bit of testing in this area as well.  You may find that he has some additional information to help you with your research project.

[bloomone2002]

TG, when are you going to follow-up on this topic? It's been about 30 days, we are waiting. What is the appointed date to submit the remaining input?
Bloom

[Jakkalsdraai]

  Funny how John has been waiting years for Turbo to deliver....yet it's his first post here. New guy huh? Or old guy new name?

aaaahhhh man you guys just do not let up. Get a F'n life. If you do not like Turbo's posts, do not read them. Simple.

[macca37]

I am on this forum because I am a fan of Turbo's work over a number of years.

In my opinion he has nothing to prove but always has something interesting to contribute and his posts tend to make me re-think some of the strategies I have been playing profitably in live Casino's all around the world.

Macca37

[VLSroulette]

his posts tend to make me re-think some of the strategies I have been playing profitably in live Casino's all around the world.

That is nice to know. That you actually take some time to rethink. To me it is always an evolution, there is always room for improvement.

At this game we never get to the "I know it all" point. There will always be left another system, another tweak, a suggestion, etc. and that is what makes the game so appealing.

Regards.

[TicTacToe]

Dumdeedum....dumdeedum....

It's a beautiful day today...

Maybe something new will be waiting for us today.

Maybe wishful thinking.

TTT

[TicTacToe]

-