What to expect and what NOT to expect from a criterion.
What to expect and what NOT to expect from a criterion. What to expect from a selection criterion? Streaks. Times when it is hitting above expected rate. Times for it to it below expected rate. Rarely will a selection criterion keep the perfect balance of its ideal hit ratio for a long time. The way I understand the game is a constant balance/imbalance, the perfect balance is reserved for large numbers, of we course talking about the SHORT term. Who plays in the long term? The casino. Who plays in the short term? We. As long as we are not playing 100% of the spins at a given table, we will only be seeing part of the whole picture it gives to the casino. When we sit at the table to play we shouldn’t be too worried about what happened yesterday, we must focus in the TODAY. How does this translates to practical play? BET ON WHAT IS HAPPENING. If there is a name for this philosophy of gaming it is “CONTINUITY”. You bet what is doing good will keep doing good. And you stay out from criteria doing bad, because it may get worse ( if it changes and does good again, then it is yours for enabling it as playable). Are there better selection criteria than other? YES and NO. It depends on what you want the selection criterion for. Do you want to beat the game flat betting in the long term? Then NO. Do you want to spot the best moment to enter/exit playing a selection criterion according to its tracked concentration/dispersion of hits? THEN YES! There are better selection criteria for situational play: They are DYNAMIC ones – They are tracking an “event”, not just a set of numbers. Example: “Hit on last two dozens = win”. You don’t know what the last two dozens will be beforehand. The tracking depends on what gets spun, meaning it depends on the current situation. They are forcing the wheel to generate a concentration of losses in a short time-span to even out the math. One thing I want you to consider when choosing a selection criterion for situational play is this: THE OVERALL TENDENCY. For instance, when considering only 1 dozen. They are 12 numbers out of 37. The overall tendency should be for them NOT to be appearing in a long streak of consecutive hits. 12 numbers covered is less than half of the 37. BUT: Think like the wheel! The overall trend is for a group of 12 numbers (a dozen/column) to “Jump”, but you MUST comply with your boss (the casino), meaning you must fight the overall trend to keep the balance your boss demands. Thing is, you can’t fight it for long, so you MUST BALANCE ABRUPTLY. You HAVE TO generate a concentration of misses for that common event, otherwise all it takes to win forever is to go with the overall tendency for a 12-number group to “jump” to the other. ----- Imagine a perfect distribution of you playing against last dozen spun in the short term. Since you are playing two out of three dozens, you are mathematically expected to hit two times (w w) and lose one time ( L ) as per 3-spin cycle, so the ideal should be this: wwLwwLwwLwwLwwLwwLwwLwwLwwLwwLwwLwwLwwLww… Is it how it goes for real? Not quite. Those are LONG TERM figures. Not too useful in the short term for more than a guide of what SHOULD be happening, and for a location the smallest short-term measure is a “cycle” (In this case 3 spins). Add to that the overall expected behavior playing 1 dozen is NOT to hit consecutively simply because there are more pockets for the ball to fall in than then twelve the dozen covers. ----- In the real world, you will see the last dozen NOT to repeat for long streaks, as well as the last dozen to stay for even more than a full 3-spin cycle. Let’s this real example TwoCatSam provided: JD:wLwwLwwwLwwLLwwwwLwwwLwwLLLLwwLwwwLwwLwLLwwLwLLL JD = Jump from last Dozen = w. Let’s make some “ideal-value play” to it and see what we end up with at the registry. We will highlight the real bets in brackets { }, the rest will be skips not played (in virtual). The best thing is the disk can’t tell the difference of a real-money bet from a virtual one. Commented 3 spins will be in square brackets < >. The ideal value is 1 lose per 3 spins. We will enter when it is at that or better for last 3 spins. wLw = 1 loss, two wins. Eligible entry-point. JD:LLwwLwwwLwwLwLLwwLwLLL
-
Lww = 1 loss, 2 wins. Ideal, valid entrypoint.
JD:wLwwLwwwLwwLLwwwLwwwLwwLLL
What to expect and what NOT to expect from a criterion. What to expect from a selection criterion? Streaks. Times when it is hitting above expected rate. Times for it to it below expected rate. Rarely will a selection criterion keep the perfect balance of its ideal hit ratio for a long time. The way I understand the game is a constant balance/imbalance, the perfect balance is reserved for large numbers, of we course talking about the SHORT term. Who plays in the long term? The casino. Who plays in the short term? We. As long as we are not playing 100% of the spins at a given table, we will only be seeing part of the whole picture it gives to the casino. When we sit at the table to play we shouldn’t be too worried about what happened yesterday, we must focus in the TODAY. How does this translates to practical play? BET ON WHAT IS HAPPENING. If there is a name for this philosophy of gaming it is “CONTINUITY”. You bet what is doing good will keep doing good. And you stay out from criteria doing bad, because it may get worse ( if it changes and does good again, then it is yours for enabling it as playable). Are there better selection criteria than other? YES and NO. It depends on what you want the selection criterion for. Do you want to beat the game flat betting in the long term? Then NO. Do you want to spot the best moment to enter/exit playing a selection criterion according to its tracked concentration/dispersion of hits? THEN YES! There are better selection criteria for situational play: They are DYNAMIC ones – They are tracking an “event”, not just a set of numbers. Example: “Hit on last two dozens = win”. You don’t know what the last two dozens will be beforehand. The tracking depends on what gets spun, meaning it depends on the current situation. They are forcing the wheel to generate a concentration of losses in a short time-span to even out the math. One thing I want you to consider when choosing a selection criterion for situational play is this: THE OVERALL TENDENCY. For instance, when considering only 1 dozen. They are 12 numbers out of 37. The overall tendency should be for them NOT to be appearing in a long streak of consecutive hits. 12 numbers covered is less than half of the 37. BUT: Think like the wheel! The overall trend is for a group of 12 numbers (a dozen/column) to “Jump”, but you MUST comply with your boss (the casino), meaning you must fight the overall trend to keep the balance your boss demands. Thing is, you can’t fight it for long, so you MUST BALANCE ABRUPTLY. You HAVE TO generate a concentration of misses for that common event, otherwise all it takes to win forever is to go with the overall tendency for a 12-number group to “jump” to the other. ----- Imagine a perfect distribution of you playing against last dozen spun in the short term. Since you are playing two out of three dozens, you are mathematically expected to hit two times (w w) and lose one time ( L ) as per 3-spin cycle, so the ideal should be this: wwLwwLwwLwwLwwLwwLwwLwwLwwLwwLwwLwwLwwLww… Is it how it goes for real? Not quite. Those are LONG TERM figures. Not too useful in the short term for more than a guide of what SHOULD be happening, and for a location the smallest short-term measure is a “cycle” (In this case 3 spins). Add to that the overall expected behavior playing 1 dozen is NOT to hit consecutively simply because there are more pockets for the ball to fall in than then twelve the dozen covers. ----- In the real world, you will see the last dozen NOT to repeat for long streaks, as well as the last dozen to stay for even more than a full 3-spin cycle. Let’s this real example TwoCatSam provided: JD:wLwwLwwwLwwLLwwwwLwwwLwwLLLLwwLwwwLwwLwLLwwLwLLL JD = Jump from last Dozen = w. Let’s make some “ideal-value play” to it and see what we end up with at the registry. We will highlight the real bets in brackets { }, the rest will be skips not played (in virtual). The best thing is the disk can’t tell the difference of a real-money bet from a virtual one. Commented 3 spins will be in square brackets < >. The ideal value is 1 lose per 3 spins. We will enter when it is at that or better for last 3 spins. wLw = 1 loss, two wins. Eligible entry-point. JD: