Advanced Roulette 'a constructive debate'

[sebix]

Hi Mr.  Chips and everyone!

I've been reading this thread for a couple of days now and I came to this series of conclusions:

1.  Mr.  Chips has a system.
2.  This system makes a constant profit (as he claims).
3.  Because of this constant profit, this system PROVES the gambler's fallacy wrong (and the 2. 7% house edge way too small).

This is a logical sequence of sentences, I think you all agree.  The sentence you don't agree on, as I observed is sentence number 2.  You think that Mr.  Chips is either lying about his consistent results or that he is naive or that his results are extremely lucky ones.

My opinion is that Mr.  Chips really has a system that is consistently winning and this system takes at some point into consideration the inverse of the gambler's fallacy.

When it comes to this post's utility, I have to admit that I think is pointless.  Mr.  Chips, I think you are trying to prepare everyone for your system (if you ever considered sharing it), but I think that this thread is useless, as all you do here guys is arguing and fighting in vain.  This is going nowhere, and no one will benefit from it. 

I think this thread either should be closed, or to be turned in a positive and constructive way so that everyone who reads it to benefit from its content!

Thank you,
sebix         

[Mr Chips]

sebix,
 
Sentence number 2 that you referred to shows the various formations, which are not into contention here, as it can be proved that they
exist in the format described.
 

When it comes to this post's utility, I have to think it is pointless.

I would like to draw your attention to paragraph 3.
 

I think you are trying to prepare everyone for your system

I am just amazed at some of the comments. I have shared systems on this forum previously and I didn't need to debate a logical
proposition in order to explain the system
 

but I think that this thread is useless, as all you do here guys is arguing and fighting in vain

Have you never heard of having a debate, where does the fighting come into it?
 

This is going nowhere and no one will benefit from it.

If it can be proved by using a self evident truths and arguing logically, that gamblers fallacy is itself a fallacy it will have
serious implications in areas of mathematics and gambling. Specifically here, the notion that the game of roulette cannot
be beaten in the long term will be a fallacy.
 

I think this thread either should be closed..

If it's ok with you I will decide what to do with this thread.
 
Mr Chips

[Mr Chips]

This is my last post to this thread. Like everything Mr Chips writes about, everything here is totally confusing. He wants a debate, yet he doesn't want certain subjects talked about, even when he himself has mentioned them. Nobody can figure out what this thread is about because Mr Chips has no idea what its about. He has yet to start a thread or exlain a system that makes any sense to anybody..

Phooey on Mr Chips..

Never mind Spike you can carry on increasing your 10000 + posts over at GG and explain in detail about 'educated guessing',
now let me see, that is about #@*&^#|><%*@ ?

[Tangram]

There are a number of self evident truths, they are not assumptions:

2.The system will produce certain formations in the form P+1, P+2, P+3,etc also M-1, M-2, M-3, etc, also P+1,P+2,P+1,P+2, and M-1, M-2, M-1,M-2, also a series of OOO.

3. The formations will be referred to as A, B, C, D and they are winning formations. The +600 units referred to earlier would show that they are winning formations.

4. The losses will be in the form as shown previously and referred to as E formations. They are restricted to a particular format, as any other format will produce A, B, C, D formations.

Mr Chips,

These are not self-evident. You have not explained your system in detail so how are we to know what P, M etc are referring to? You have obviously coded the stream of Reds and Blacks into something meaningful, but it's only meaningful to you, and not anyone who hasn't been initiated into the mysteries of the system!

You say that certain formations are winning formations but that does not tell us that you would necessarily win with them. It's like saying that Red is a winning formation if your bet selection is betting on Red, and if a lot of Blacks appear then you will switch to Black and therefore win. QED!

Your system is obviously much more sophisticated and complex but do you see what I'm trying to say? It appears to me that this is the logic of your argument.
It doesn't really matter how complex the system is. Instead of betting Red you are betting on formations A, B etc and you have a losing formation E instead of Black.

I think I see where the problem is now Mr Chips. Your argument depends on the assumption that the gambler's fallacy is false. You have assumed that it is false in order to make your points, but you cannot then assert that you have proved it false if you have already assumed it!

[Mr Chips]

Tangram,
 
In mathematics there are occasions when a theory is produced, but not yet proven. It is assumed that one day a proof will be
found and for that reason other mathematical proofs will refer to the theory, as part of their proof. Of course if theory turns out
to have a flaw, then all the other proofs which have included the theory collapse.
 
I have already stated that I can explain the Signum system. I haven't said if there was such a system. It's just a matter of showing
that the system exists and explain it in detail. If I did not explain the system and showed that A,B,C,D, were winning formations then
the logical argument would collapse.
 
The logical argument I have put forward in points 1 to 14 is perfectly valid. It only becomes invalid if I don't fulfil points 1 to 3.
 
What I need to know at this stage is once having fulfilled points 1 to 3, then will the logical conclusion be true, point 14.
 
I have already started working on the verifiable results re the +600 units.
 
Mr Chips
 

[Mr Chips]

I think I see where the problem is now Mr Chips. Your argument depends on the assumption that the gamblers fallacy is
false. You have assumed that it is false in order to make your points, but you cannot then assert that you have proved it false,
if you have already assumed it.

I mentioned previously that I have been using this type of system for some time now in fact several years. I have not assumed
that gamblers fallacy is itself a fallacy as it has shown itself to be a fallacy in that I have made a profit in the long term.
 
Producing and explaining the system won't prove that it wins long term, but what follows from the explanation of the system
showing A,B,C,D and E formations is that when gamblers fallacy is followed through and more losses must be produced than wins,
it will be seen from logical reasoning that gamblers fallacy has produced a paradox and shown to be itself a fallacy.
 
Mr Chips

[MiniBaccarat]

G'day,

There's a lot I don't follow & understand on forums but I'm not having a problem with this thread!

Maybe that's because it "flows" with my beliefs / system, (BTH)!

My system finds the trends on "same" & "change" and only needs a positive count of a max of 7 out ot 400 decisions to be a winner!

IMPOSSIBLE not to happen!!!

Glenn.

[sebix]

This thread is about the fact that Mr. Chips wants to demonstrate that the gambler's fallacy is itself a fallacy. OK, so far so good. He made a statement that goes like this (approximately): "I have a system that is constantly winning (no need to prove this, trust me), so if this is true (and it is), the gambler's fallacy is false".

Good. As I already said, I really trust Mr. Chips and his winning system, and I think we must not try to prove that his system is not winning on the long run. Due to the fact that he described a little bit his system (with the P, M, OOO, A, B, C, D and E), he put us all to question it. So, when you wish to contribute to this constructive debate, don't question his system. We should take is as granted.

Now when we look at the second part of his statement, the one with the fallacy. Here I have some problems with understanding the link between a winning system and the gambler's fallacy.

As far as I know, the gambler's fallacy is related to random events that are independent, and it has to do with the false assumption that a "run" should end now and the "anti-run" should begin (because the law of the third says that when the number of outcomes tends to infinity, the "runs" and "anti-runs" will be equal); so basically it has to do with the wrong assumption that short term results must have the characteristics of long term results. This is the gambler's fallacy.

So, if one has a winning system (as Mr. Chips does), it doesn't mean that the gambler's fallacy is wrong or false. A long term winning system just beats the house edge of 2.7% (which we all know that is due to the non-fair odds of the roulette game itself).

Mr. Chips, you are talking about patterns that your system exploits (it I understood well your system); so, you will tell me that if you see that the last  spin was red, you will play the next spin on black (and this to you will mean that you commit the gambler's fallacy); or at some point, you will play red after red (and commit the inverse of gambler's fallacy); and doing this bets on red/black you think that you defy the gambler's fallacy because you win. This is the most important part. You win more than you lose on long term (yes, I think that 10 years of playing the system with hundreds of sessions per year could be considered long term). This means only one thing: when you play that black or red, you actually do have more chances to win than normal (the normal is 18/37); and this leads to the conclusion that if that happened -and you claime it did-, the game is not random anymore! So, the consequence of the game not being random anymore and the spins not being independent is very simple and immediate: you cannot apply the gambler's fallacy here , because in it's definition it is stated that it appears only at random and independent events.

So, in conclusion, if you want to prove the gambler's fallacy wrong, try to find an environment where this fallacy does apply to.

Thank you,

sebix

[Mr Chips]

G'day,

There's a lot I don't follow & understand on forums but I'm not having a problem with this thread!

Maybe that's because it "flows" with my beliefs / system, (BTH)!

My system finds the trends on "same" & "change" and only needs a positive count of a max of 7 out ot 400 decisions to be a winner!

IMPOSSIBLE not to happen!!!

Glenn.

Hi Glenn,
 
It's good to hear that you understand it and thanks for looking in.
 
I know you have done some excellent work on your system.
 
All the Best
 
Mr Chips
 

[Mr Chips]

To All Members,
 
This debate is not just for my benefit, it is for the benefit of the whole forum.
 
I have put forward a logical argument and it could well have one or more flaws in the argument. By people making a contribution to
this debate we could well improve the logical argument and if we did succeed in proving that gamblers fallacy is itself a fallacy it
would be a tremendous achievement for the whole forum.
 
If there is a major flaw in the logical argument, it will not be a waste of time and effort, as in X months or years time someone may
come up with a solution and seal the proof for ever.
 
As far as I am aware this is the first time that any attempt to prove gamblers fallacy is itself a fallacy by using a logical argument, so
I hope that all those who are interested in this debate please do post any queries, suggestions, etc.
 

@sebix,
 
I should like to thank you for making a contribution to this debate.

"I have a system that is constantly winning (no need to prove this, trust me), so if this is true (and it is), the gamblers fallacy
is false".

I haven't said no need to prove this. I did say that it would be impossible to absolutely prove it wins in the long term, because someone
could say after a billion spins it could lose. In Mathematics, there could be a theorem that has shown to be true for numbers up to a
trillion, but that won't prove it's true to infinity, obviously impossible. Therefore other proofs are used and a logical reasoned argument
to prove in all cases, that the theorem is true and it will be an irrefutable proof for ever.

So when you wish to contribute to this constructive debate, don't question his system. We should take it for granted.

No, I don't expect anyone to take it for granted. I have said that the system exists and that it makes a profit in the long term. If at
some point I don't reveal it in some way, then the logical proposition here fails, as I have to prove it exists as shown in point 1 above.
 
What is important is producing worksheets, which show A,B,C,D as winning formations and E as losing formations.
 
It will take some work and time obviously to get this all together, but that is not a problem as I have already shown from the 4Selecta
thread that I can produce a number of results and analysis when necessary.
 

the gamblers fallacy is related to random events that are independent.

Gamblers fallacy given a balanced wheel expects random numbers to be totally independent of each other and it is expected that in the
short term certain players will get lucky and win more than they lose. If the same player returns and plays time after time and subjects
say a system to the house edge, they will lose in the long term to the 2.7% house edge.
 
The Signum system doesn't rely on a series of reds or blacks or any noticeable pattern. In fact it works very well in a complex R and B mix.
The reason for this is the use of symbols P and M. The range of P and M is far greater than just R and B, which is simply that, Red and Black.
 
P and M will represent R and B on each entry line (each time I note P or M on a card) it will often change and P or M can represent either
colour.
 
As mentioned previously there are 4 winning formations A,B,C,D and I losing formation E. Every one of those formations will have a mix of
R and B, which will be identified by the use of P and M . The number and variety of the formations will confirm the greater range, as
previously mentioned over just simply R and B.

Gamblers fallacy is caught in a paradox. It states that a system, the Signum system must not make a profit in the long term, using random
numbers from a balanced wheel. If it does then the numbers and associated colours are not independent and gamblers fallacy fails.
 
The Signum system would therefore have to prove beyond any doubt that it can win long term. Gamblers fallacy is certain that this cannot be
achieved, because it would mean carrying on to infinity to absolutely prove it.
 
Therefore if we submit to the gamblers fallacy assertion, that there must be more losses than wins, the Signum system must produce more
losing E formations than winning A,B,C,D formations. The system is still subjected to the same random numbers.
 
The problem now for gamblers fallacy is that in order for it to make it lose, the system has to produce more of the E formations, but gamblers
fallacy demands that all numbers are independent of each other and therefore it should not produce numbers, that will produce more
E formations than A,B,C,D ones.
 
Worse still, is that the system is designed to produce more winning formations than losing ones and as there are now more E than A,B,C,D,
the system will require E to be a winning formation and A,B,C,D losing ones.
 
Gamblers fallacy has therefore shown itself to be a fallacy on a number of points.
 
The problem with random numbers is not under discussion here only in so far as it relates to it's use here.
 
Mr Chips

[Tangram]

Mr Chips,

We need to be clear about what the gambler's fallacy actually states before trying to refute it. On reflection, I think I was incorrect to say in my previous post that you are guilty of assuming it. In fact, I don't believe it applies to your system at all.

In all the references to it I've ever read, the fallacy is stated by giving an example, usually something like: "someone sees 10 reds in a row, so they bet black on the next spin, reasoning that black is due".  There then follows an explanation of why this is a fallacy:- because each spin is an independent event and therefore the probability is still 50%, and it will always be 50%, that Red will hit.

Surely no-one can seriously argue with that. if there is any self-evident "axiom" or assumption in roulette it must be this one (assuming a fair and unbiased wheel).

The gambler's fallacy seems to generate paradoxes. Isn't it a paradox that "anything" can happen at the table and yet no-one has ever seen 100 reds in a row? So it's not the case that "anything" can happen at all, is it? What we mean is "anything" can happen within the confines of the probability distribution in question, the standard deviations etc. But does this not conflict with the gamblers' fallacy? is it not a paradox that probability theory states that outcomes are at the same constrained by particular distributions and also that "nothing is due"? are these assertions not in conflict? how can they co-exist?

The gambler's fallacy seems to be invoked as a catch-all by the nay-sayers in any discussion of systems (not mentioning any names  ), but I don't believe it's appropriate in many scenarios.

I found an article which explains quite nicely the difference between the gambler's fallacy and what seems to be the same thing, but isn't. The statement at the foot of the page is crucial, I believe:-

The gambler's fallacy is about the probability of the next **single** event.

nolinks://nolinks.financialwebring.org/gummystuff/coin-tossing.htm

So really what I'm trying to say is that there's no need to try and disprove the gambler's fallacy. It's my contention that it's self-evidently true. The odds of each single event will always be absolutely fixed, so long as the wheel is fair, and nothing will ever change that. But that in itself does not preclude the possibility of a system winning long-term. There is no mysterious law in probability that needs to be discovered to show that winning is possible. If it is possible, creative use of existing laws will be enough.

[gizmotron]

Mr Chips,

We need to be clear about what the gambler's fallacy actually states before trying to refute it.
...

So really what I'm trying to say is that there's no need to try and disprove the gambler's fallacy. It's my contention that it's self-evidently true. The odds of each single event will always be absolutely fixed, so long as the wheel is fair, and nothing will ever change that. But that in itself does not preclude the possibility of a system winning long-term. There is no mysterious law in probability that needs to be discovered to show that winning is possible. If it is possible, creative use of existing laws will be enough.

Isn't it a kind of heresy to actually understand the so called "gambler's fallacy?" I mean that the assumptions about it are commonly used to refute the attempt to accurately express interest in changing direction while observing what is happening. Common sense  must have a fancy expression too, don't you think? I've failed in my attempt to express any interest in any common logic from a process of reading randomness. I wish you all luck in having objective intelligence regarding the true nature and limitations of the "gambler's fallacy." It's a holy grail for many arguments regarding gambling.

[gizmotron]

Yes, the wheel cannot conclude anything. 

My understanding of the "Gamblers Fallacy" was the point that the errant gambler made assumptions that something was a predictor, and therefore something was due.

I've tried to argue the point that conclusions can be researched for a degree of trueness. At no time in that real time research is anything expected to be due. Is is possible to observe past spins without expecting anything specific? I don't see a problem with discovering 20 reds in a row. The last time I was in the casino the marquee board was completely red numbers. Is it possible to come to conclusions without expecting those conclusions to be predictors?

[Mr Chips]

Tangram,
 
I agree of course about the 10 reds etc.
 
Yes gamblers fallacy can be a catch all, but to various aspects of gambling. There is I think particular aspects of gamblers fallacy
that relates to roulette.
 
Certainly there is specific maths concerning roulette and mathematicians advise casino's on the house edge and they are certain
it is impossible to win in the long term.
 
house edge:

nolinks://gaming.unlv.edu/subject/casinomath.html
 
A logical proof along the lines I have proposed would certainly prove the maths was false. The maths comes under the umbrella
of gamblers fallacy.

I take your point about the paradoxes relating to gamblers falacy, but I have never been able to relate any reference to coin
tossing and roulette. I would accept 90 heads, but would say 90 reds is impossible from a balanced wheel. I am certain a casino
would rush to close the Table at the most 40 to 50 spins before they got cleaned out.
 
Mr Chips

[gizmotron]

 
A logical proof along the lines I have proposed would certainly prove the maths was false. The maths comes under the umbrella of gamblers fallacy.

That's a profound statement. I must agree too. The normal distribution aspects of long term Roulette have very little to do with the next combined 10 spins. I have never seen an accurate estimate for the next 10 to 20 spins based on long term odds. I've always believed that it's the "House's Edge" when it comes to playing long term only. All that is left is bet selection accuracy rates and luck. So is bet selection accuracy in the Gambler's Fallacy category too?

[gizmotron]

-