Trying To Game The Roulette Wheel.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: [post=26813277]Degradation33[/posL

How about this one, there are twenty horses in a race, and each one is represented by a number, Only one can win. you put all the counters with the twenty numbers in a shaker and give them a good shake. The chances of pulling the winning number out with the first counter removed are twenty to one. Not good odds and so on till you have removed ten counters. From then on it's a ten-to-one shot. So probabilities should suggest that the winning horse should always be in the last ten. So here is game of chance. I often wondered if this is like the Monty Hall effect where how you make the decision has an effect on the outcome.

Hi there!
You're wondering if this situation is similar to the Monty Hall effect. So, in the case of the horse race, it's not exactly the same as the Monty Hall problem because the mechanics are different.
And while there may be some similarities between the horse race scenario and the Monty Hall problem in terms of probabilities and decision-making, they are not exactly the same. The outcomes in each situation depend on different factors

a reply to: Jeanetisme

Apparently, you must always switch. www.youtube.com...

Conclusion:

This isn't exactly counting. But it does tread into similar statistical territory. If anything it's playing to the belief you won't lose two or three times in a row. And If you do, it's unlikely to bust you out.

The sixteen percent hit rate equals a winning percentage of 80%. Slightly better than the 19:15 odds.

 I have yet try this full scale at a casino. Even in the proportionally smaller version it still takes 500 dollars that you have to commit yourself to the possibility of losing.  Still curious how it would go outside a random number generating app.

 I thought this was cool enough to share. In the 18 positive takes cutting off at 100 spins, after subtracting the two losing tries, the net gain was about $124,000.

This technique is known as the Gambler’s Fallacy — depending on your understanding of Casino table game odds, you do have a slightly less the 49% chance of being in the 49% chance of roulette players who beat the House and walk away. 51% of the betters will lose with this technique 51% of the time.

The only bet in a Casino table game that can be controlled to create a permanent edge against the house is at the Craps Table making a Don't Pass/Don't Come bet and betting only when the shooter (you or someone else) is a skilled shooter who can manipulate the dice throw just enough over 1,000s of throws that you can flip the odds slightly (very slightly in favor of you/the shooter).

The edge is tiny and it would take a huge bankroll to make this worth doing, and once you did it once, you would be banned from the Casino and probably all Casinos in Vegas or Macau, etc.).

Card counting, even with a huge shoe, and bet patterns like you describe can also flip the odds slightly in the players’ favor (if everyone at the table is playing optimally with smaller stacks than the sharp).

But again, it requires a huge bankroll at the highest stakes BJ tables to be worthwhile and even if successful one would be blacklisted from most Casinos for doing it (player skill edge is not illegal but Casinos don’t have to let you play).

The only game in a Casino where you truly have outcome control is in Tournament Poker, where you can, if skilled and trained, cash (get in the money) roughly ~40% of the time if you use a combination of ICM, GTO and can play at wildly different gears throughout the tournaments at different times to prevent pros and semi-pros from being able to read things such as your betting patterns, opening hand range, likelihood of naked bluffing, likelihood of semi-bluffing, and so on.

You also have to be able to control your heart rate, micro-movements of your hands when managing the cards and chips, and other things such as the timbre of your voice, galvanic reactions and so on (similar to beating a poly); or no strategies will work against a mixed field of pros and fish. On the upside a Casino will never ban you for crushing Tournament Poker, they make the same amount of $ regardless of who wins.

a reply to: JohnTitorSociety

I remember this.

Gambler fallacy noted and applicable.

Still, this seems to consistently work. I tried it over and over with multiple apps and rarely lost.

It started to seem like "there was more" to causality. Even though there's no statistical advantage ever gained, the best analogy I can make is this:

Is a 50 year period there will be overall statistical odds of major earthquakes doing damage. So many a year. But when you look at the data they seemingly clump together. Some years seem to have a higher number of 7's and 8's +, 2010 and 2011 are an example of this unpredictable peak. This concept is like recognizing you're in a peak of a certain statistical occurrence and trying to game THAT.

Like consider numbers 30-36 peaking in occurrence like earthquakes of magnitude 7's and 8's peaking in occurrence. In the shorter term, people thinking earthquakes are moon phase-related are just seeing shorter term statistical peaks (like weeks of calm followed by a bunch of 6.0's + in a few days) and trying to line it up with something. It may just be the weird way lumps of statistics balance out in the long run. It'd be like waiting for that uptick of earthquakes, recognizing it's happening, and betting the 6.0's will hit more frequently for a few days.

Trying to identify the ebb and flow of statistical cluttering and defy odds in one's favor. Might as well call it "The Intuition Chaos Method".

** Wait, I explained the wrong one again. Deja Vu. I did this once already. And clarified the wrong version once already. I have another more intuition/guess related one that is just betting 6 numbers on the board. Which also seems to work over and over. Just not as consistently as the 30 number one which is why I posted this one instead. The OP version was more using said gambler's fallacy to try to predict and avoid when you might be due to lose with 38:30 odds.

It should be worth noting I was able to do this on the first attempt to demonstrate it with screen grabs. Gamblers fallacy or not it always seems to work.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: JohnTitorSociety

I remember this.

Gambler fallacy noted and applicable.

Still, this seems to consistently work. I tried it over and over with multiple apps and rarely lost.

It started to seem like "there was more" to causality. Even though there's no statistical advantage ever gained, the best analogy I can make is this:

Is a 50 year period there will be overall statistical odds of major earthquakes doing damage. So many a year. But when you look at the data they seemingly clump together. Some years seem to have a higher number of 7's and 8's +, 2010 and 2011 are an example of this unpredictable peak. This concept is like recognizing you're in a peak of a certain statistical occurrence and trying to game THAT.

Like consider numbers 30-36 peaking in occurrence like earthquakes of magnitude 7's and 8's peaking in occurrence. In the shorter term, people thinking earthquakes are moon phase-related are just seeing shorter term statistical peaks (like weeks of calm followed by a bunch of 6.0's + in a few days) and trying to line it up with something. It may just be the weird way lumps of statistics balance out in the long run. It'd be like waiting for that uptick of earthquakes, recognizing it's happening, and betting the 6.0's will hit more frequently for a few days.

Trying to identify the ebb and flow of statistical cluttering and defy odds in one's favor. Might as well call it "The Intuition Chaos Method".

** Wait, I explained the wrong one again. Deja Vu. I did this once already. And clarified the wrong version once already. I have another more intuition/guess related one that is just betting 6 numbers on the board. Which also seems to work over and over. Just not as consistently as the 30 number one which is why I posted this one instead. The OP version was more using said gambler's fallacy to try to predict and avoid when you might be due to lose with 38:30 odds.

It should be worth noting I was able to do this on the first attempt to demonstrate it with screen grabs. Gamblers fallacy or not it always seems to work.

In professional gambler parlance you are experiencing the “upside of variance” — two equally skilled poker players can enter 5 consecutive tournaments and one will win the first 5 and one will lose the first 5 — along with all other permutations among an arbitrary number of gamblers (N) whereby if all are of equal skill, N gamblers will win a mean & median of 2.5 tournaments.

Since the odds are so close in certain roulette, craps and blackjack situations (near a coin flip that only slightly favors the House), there will be many people who only experience the upside of variance for extended periods of time, and proper bet sizing maximizes your normal upside variance outcome.

But there will be slightly more that experience some degree of downside variance, so with variance, one can beat the House; but collectively all of the players cannot beat the House.

That’s real world results.

Variance is generally higher and more lumpy with digital versions of table games because random number generation in digital casino table games is not truly random — so an individual player has a higher chance with a digital random number generator of experiencing upside variance (and another individual random player offsets that with a higher chance of experiencing downside variance with a random number generator).

From MIT: “On a completely deterministic machine you can’t generate anything you could really call a random sequence of numbers because the machine is following the same algorithm to generate them. Typically, that means it starts with a common ‘seed’ number and then follows a pattern.”

Now a real money poker website, for example, does take steps to inject non-deterministic outcomes into what is actually a pseudo-random deterministic number series that appears random.

How?

One common method is to change the “seed” number continuously for the RNG for all players, based on the screen space position of each & every players’ mouse cursor, when this is not enough, other non-deterministic variables are introduced, such as the ambient temperature to six sigma of the server room in which the poker site servers exist, of if the servers are virtual, then the seed can be further randomized by the collective connection speed between the virtual servers and the players, or more non-deterministic outcomes can be produced by using variables that have nothing to do with the system.

For example, use 100,000 temperature sensors that are on the planet that are public available data and use the ambient temperature at these sensors to induce a great deal of non-determinism in a rotating RNG seed. Or any similar method.

If the roulette site is not a real money site, it’s just for fun, there’s a good chance the engineers didn’t inject non-determinism into the RNG, and individual players may experience high sigma variance, and may also collectively experience variance in the RNG that is actually only deterministic (which can be reverse engineered).

Early online real money poker sites did use deterministic RNGs, until they realized hackers were reverse engineering the seed & RNG algorithm and gaining an advantage on other players.

Deterministic pseudo randomness can exist in real life at a casino table game as well, though it is harder to reverse engineer. A roulette croupier may possess a repetitive flaw in how they spin the wheel and/or toss the pill (ball).

Blackjack inherently has non-deterministic pseudo-randomness, which is why card counters can employ systems and why casinos have, overtime moved to ever increasing shoe sizes for the deck the dealer uses (it is extremely challenging to keep the count with a 5+ deck shoe for example).

Blackjack’s deterministic nature comes from the fact that there is a specific distribution of cards in the shoe which a player can observe and count.

Roulette is much less deterministic, as croupiers are trained to not inject deterministic behavior through their physical actions in spinning and tossing.

Craps has a higher variance of determinism than roulette because the croupier is not in control of shooting the dice, but a lower variance of determinism than black jack, absent a shooter manipulating the dice throw, as there is only one unpredictable and hard to reverse engineer deterministic variable (the shooter), compared to the relatively straightforward counting of cards in blackjack.

a reply to: Degradation33

I think there may be order in the roulette wheel of chaos because every time my daughter plays she has a system she uses and she always wins, but she always knows when to stop too. Once while at a casino, I gave her $100 and told her to turn it into $300 she came back with $600.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Degradation33

I think there may be order in the roulette wheel of chaos because every time my daughter plays she has a system she uses and she always wins, but she always knows when to stop too. Once while at a casino, I gave her $100 and told her to turn it into $300 she came back with $600.

The quantum concept of observation cannot be eliminated as a hypothesis for upside variance in table games.

On the other hand, to truly understand variance in professional poker, a simple fact makes it very clear.

If you start with 200,000 professionally skilled poker players and they play 100 tournaments in a row, and assume they do not make mistakes, it will produce a fairly regular bell curve, with about half of the players on the bottom half (losing) and half the players in the top half (winning).

The ironclad rules of variance can make professional poker highly frustrating to even very skilled players.

At least one of those 200,000 players will fail to cash in a single tournament out of 100.

At least one of those players will make the final table or be ITM (in the money) at a very large (perhaps huge “sigma”) standard deviation from the median (and make massively more amounts of money against the field).

The equally skilled players who end up in the bottom 20% of variance will never be able to catch those equally skilled players, who only through variance reach the top 20% in the first 100 high stakes tournaments.

The names people know in tournament poker are mostly players who randomly ended up at the high end of the variance curve, and the equal number of equally skilled players you’ve never heard of simply lost too many coin flips to begin with.

On the other hand, tournament poker when correctly played presents a surprisingly small set of requirements to succeed.

A skilled player in a tournament only has to win 3 to 7 coin flips in a single tournament to take 1st place.

The number of coin flips determined by the variance of their initial holdings & the size of the field of players.

The same is true of entrepreneurs. The difference between a millionaire and a billionaire is simply staring with $10,000 and winning 5 coin flips with a 10x return.

The difference between failing to start a business and starting a business worth $100M is simply starting a business with $100,000 and winning 5 coin flips with a 4x return.

Obviously you have to have a product that serves a need or want, and do many things, but if you take a set of equally skilled entrepreneurs with feature-comparable products, being a billionaire instead of a millionaire is mostly about luck (in a single run of startups).

The concept of hard work and persistence applies when you run multiple series of startups against each other — absent being on the wrong end of variance a skilled entrepreneur will eventually win 5 coin flips in a row.

a reply to: JohnTitorSociety

I also noticed when playing three card poker that winning or losing depends on which position you are in and if you push it (bet all ways), again, variance.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: JohnTitorSociety

I also noticed when playing three card poker that winning or losing depends on which position you are in and if you push it (bet all ways), again, variance.

Yes.

Pure live games with individuals, the most important information is knowing the odds of the table having starting holdings and understanding which plays have a wider opening range and which have a tight opening range.

First time I played Kansas City Lowball Deuce to Seven, no bet limit, it was a ~1,500 field and I placed third on a bad beat (had the second nuts, all in, I call, opponent knows he’s toast - draws 3, makes the first nuts) that’s poker, that’s variance, there was no other way for me to play the hand, just my opponent caught good.

That’s variance. You play enough tournament games (I prefer a game where my chip stack is a weapon instead of a cash game with infinite rebuys) and you will sometimes get the nuts cracked even if you play dead solid perfect in the final 1-3 tables.

I’m not a pro, I work in entertainment. But I’m a strong semi-pro, sometimes the deck / variance just knocks you out.

Would have won the Cal State Poker Championship one year, but the river made a straight (I was AA vs J10 all in).

Good enough to be in the top 200k money makers in tournaments in US all time.

But I don’t play enough tournaments to get into the top tier, though I do have an obscene ITM % (~40%), but I have never won a tournament, not enough iterations to guarantee I win the last coin flip.

It’s fun though!

a reply to: JohnTitorSociety

Would have won the Cal State Poker Championship one year, but the river made a straight (I was AA vs J10 all in).

Did you want to call the person who's river made the straight a river whore? Ha Ha That's what I've been called by taking chances/risks with the river card.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: JohnTitorSociety

Would have won the Cal State Poker Championship one year, but the river made a straight (I was AA vs J10 all in).

Did you want to call the person whose river made the straight a river whore? Ha Ha That's what I've been called by taking chances/risks with the river card.

He was a young 20something playing “game theory optimal” — I am not quite but almost old enough to be his dad who plays right aggressive, shorthands the odds and relies on muscle at the table to get the table to do what I want.

I had AA
He had J10 suited (opposite suits though he couldn’t know it gave him a slight additional edge).

J10 is about the best holding to take against AA, especially if you have to make a move.

And he was about to be out of position with the blinds getting extreme. He didn’t have enough chips to knock me out, but enough to cripple me.

When he made his move, it was his only move, he would have gotten blinded out before he caught another good opening holding (statistically).

If we played the hand open, knowing what we each had, I don’t think either of us would have played it different. He’s a good upcoming pro who is hyper number focused and I’m an older fashioned player, but not too old to do GTO if it makes sense.

I don’t think either of us made a mistake. I think we both made the correct decisions in our circumstances and he won that one and he honestly felt a little guilty about it, because everyone at the table knew I was the strongest overall player.

We shook hands and he moved on and I didn’t.

That’s poker. Since we were all in pre-flop, there were no moves left. He caught good. I was a favorite before the flop and after the flop.

If we each made a mistake…

My mistake was not being precise about the odds in a full ring — everyone folded, probably the deck was face card heavy.

His mistake was taking the short end on a draw without a made hand.

But at that point the blinds were so high he did not have a choice (IMO) and I’m not playing poker if I don’t get it all in pre-flop with wired aces.

So, “mistakes” weren’t really mistakes — they were just variance (and both of us were deep ITM at the time — so we’re mainly playing for 1st place at that point).

So not a bad beat.

The Kansas City Lowball bad beat on the other hand, a brutal bad beat. I was a 96% to 99% favorite pre draw. I had half the cards the other guy needed in my hand already. That one was was frustrating. But you can’t get frustrated and play poker well.

The cards are the cards. Shake hands. Play again.

a reply to: JohnTitorSociety

Well that explains how I kept beating the house. I did not know "random number generators follow a pattern and seed number. I thought they were all non-deterministic and truly random. Well, that kills it as something easily applied in real money applications.

How exaggerated is the variance with digital programs?

With the free apps I always won, good to know I was just gaming lazy programmers. Thought I unlocked chaos for a second. Tried the game the roulette wheel, and I gamed the roulette wheel program instead. Go me!

Thank you. Enlightening answer.

This does not compute.


Being that every single spin is independent of the previous spin, thinking you will win after a certain amount of losses doesn't hold water and is a recipe for disaster.

a reply to: RickinVa

I didn't make sense to me either. Yet this method kept working. Over and over and over. Millions in fake money won following that same bet formula.

This has recently been cleared up as a higher sigma variance (lumpy randomness) in non-deterministic programs. It worked because the program wasn't truly random.

I got the answer for why this worked in an above post.

Since the odds are so close in certain roulette, craps and blackjack situations (near a coin flip that only slightly favors the House), there will be many people who only experience the upside of variance for extended periods of time, and proper bet sizing maximizes your normal upside variance outcome.

But there will be slightly more that experience some degree of downside variance, so with variance, one can beat the House; but collectively all of the players cannot beat the House.

That’s real world results.

Variance is generally higher and more lumpy with digital versions of table games because random number generation in digital casino table games is not truly random — so an individual player has a higher chance with a digital random number generator of experiencing upside variance (and another individual random player offsets that with a higher chance of experiencing downside variance with a random number generator).

You are right to have it not compute, though.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: JohnTitorSociety

Would have won the Cal State Poker Championship one year, but the river made a straight (I was AA vs J10 all in).

Did you want to call the person whose river made the straight a river whore? Ha Ha That's what I've been called by taking chances/risks with the river card.

I was all in pre flop, first actor

The goal was to knock the most dangerous guy out and go to 1 table

He caught good didn’t happen

If I knew his cards upfront same move

originally posted by: RickinVa
This does not compute.


Being that every single spin is independent of the previous spin, thinking you will win after a certain amount of losses doesn't hold water and is a recipe for disaster.

That is mathematically true

But life has variance

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: JohnTitorSociety

Well that explains how I kept beating the house. I did not know "random number generators follow a pattern and seed number. I thought they were all non-deterministic and truly random. Well, that kills it as something easily applied in real money applications.

How exaggerated is the variance with digital programs?

With the free apps I always won, good to know I was just gaming lazy programmers. Thought I unlocked chaos for a second. Tried the game the roulette wheel, and I gamed the roulette wheel program instead. Go me!

Thank you. Enlightening answer.

Depends on the the engineers— good ones will inject enough non deterministic RNG. Bad ones will let RNG be deterministic

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: JohnTitorSociety

Well that explains how I kept beating the house. I did not know "random number generators follow a pattern and seed number. I thought they were all non-deterministic and truly random. Well, that kills it as something easily applied in real money applications.

Depends on the type engineering

And the stakes

Low stakes lazy programmers = deterministic RNG

How exaggerated is the variance with digital programs?

With the free apps I always won, good to know I was just gaming lazy programmers. Thought I unlocked chaos for a second. Tried the game the roulette wheel, and I gamed the roulette wheel program instead. Go me!

Thank you. Enlightening answer.