It is just a matter of knowing what the wheel is throwing at the time.

[Kelly]

Okey dokey, shouldn`t be too hard.  For a second i thought i would have to move my mind into some sort of Zen self  realization  where me and the ocean would be a united thing

[Mike]

What you should be looking for is the connection to a context based on the characteristics of randomness. You should use those data structures to determine the "now state."

But what are "the characteristics of randomness" if not the expected outcomes - in other words, the averages?

Every bet on the table has its own characteristics, and you don't need any math to see that, just observation. The math is only a formal description of what actually happens, it's not the enemy as all you guys seem to think, that's absurd.

There's a guy on another forum touting a system called "pattern breaker" or something like that. They were all very excited when he posted the stats. Then he checked his past records looking for another bet which had an more impressive strike rate. Not really surprising that he found one which was then trumpeted as the final solution. This is classic back-fitting, he doesn't have a clue and neither does anyone else. No-one seems to learn any lessons or question what they're actually doing, it's just "oh well, that wasn't the holy grail, on to the next!". It would be quite hilarious if it wasn't such a waste of time and energy, it's really pretty sad. If you try to point this out to him you're dismissed as a "negative" or a "math boy".

[gizmotron]

But what are "the characteristics of randomness" if not the expected outcomes - in other words, the averages?

Every bet on the table has its own characteristics, and you don't need any math to see that, just observation. The math is only a formal description of what actually happens, it's not the enemy as all you guys seem to think, that's absurd.

The maths are the lesser data.  The characteristics are the greater data. You are invested in the lesser data. You ask what are "the characteristics of randomness?" That's a lesson almost impossible to teach. They are a bunch of things learned to relate to through playing experience.  The answer is work for that experience. It's way more difficult to earn it. But that's the real price. I dare you. Anyone can use math as an excuse to do nothing.

[Mike]

It does not matter what Bayesian or Frequentist math says.

The calculations involved are exactly the same. Bayes' theorem is the same formula in Bayesian and frequentist statistics, only the interpretations differ. If you take the bayesian viewpoint, which I agree is more sensible in general, because it doesn't assume any imaginary samples; only the data which you actually have, then you could make a "hypothesis" regarding current outcomes and let bayes' theorem guide your betting (in other words, confirm or deny your current hypothesis). That would be a way of using bayes' theorem to guide your betting in the short term.

However, unless outcomes actually are dependent on past spins, it won't work in the long term, although the bayesian approach does hold some promise for a physics based attack on the wheel.

[gizmotron]

The calculations involved are exactly the same. Bayes' theorem is the same formula in Bayesian and frequentist statistics, only the interpretations differ.

My point is that the maths are the lesser data. The characteristics and the pattern recognitions are the greater data. Bayes stats can be used for the short term. But characteristics are a far better source of data for that. Here's the real dilemma. I know it from experience. The math is almost worthless and the current conditions are invaluable. I know this and use it. But I can't explain it. It's lost in translation. The binding necessity is playing experience.

[cheese]

Every bet on the table has its own characteristics, and you don't need any math to see that, just observation. The math is only a formal description of what actually happens,

Math isn't an enemy, its just a way calculating whats happening. Its useful, to a point. Its not a brick wall, as many seem to think. Past spins aren't connected, but they're limited and dependable. Experience shows the dependability can be exploited.

[cheese]

The math is almost worthless and the current conditions are invaluable. I know this and use it. But I can't explain it. It's lost in translation. The binding necessity is playing experience.

Experience shows you things the math cannot possibly show. What people here want is to be able to paint like Michaelangelo without taking the time to learn how.

[bombus]

Hi guys.

I've just returned from holidays.

...All you can do is guess.

If all you can do is guess, why couldn't rule based system guess for you?

[cheese]

Hi guys.

I've just returned from holidays.

If all you can do is guess, why couldn't rule based system guess for you?

Sure. You first..

[gizmotron]

Hi guys.

I've just returned from holidays.

If all you can do is guess, why couldn't rule based system guess for you?

I tried with a computer program that guessed. It's too complicated to do it right.

[Mike]

Experience shows you things the math cannot possibly show. What people here want is to be able to paint like Michaelangelo without taking the time to learn how.

Painting by numbers can give a good approximation to the original.

[cheese]

I'm always amazed that every discussion I've had about roulette in the last 5 years on forums inevitably comes down to 'are spins independent or aren't they'. The 'law' is, if they're independent, which they are, then you can't exploit them. I've heard this so many times I should get it tatoo'd on my forearm. Herb used to say it 5 times a day till he was banned. Thats the brick wall nobody can get around.  Its an assumption, not a law. But, talk is cheap...

[Mike]

Its an assumption, not a law.

It's quite a reasonable assumption, considering that each number has an equal chance of hitting every spin, that's what "independent" means.

But it's true that it's not a law, and there is no way to prove mathematically that outcomes are independent. But every empirical test has shown that they are, and all systems which rely on dependence fail.

[cheese]

But every empirical test has shown that they are, and all systems which rely on dependence fail.

Oh, they're independent, you can take that to the bank. When they aren't, like with an RNG, they can't be beaten. Weird, huh.

[xman1970]

IF you are playing a system/method and NOT VB/Bias, what else is there APART from past spins to use to decide where to bet 

[xman1970]

-