/sci/ - Science & Math

>itt: lies and pleas for attention

>>2825483

You gonna explain the algorithm or just cry for attention?

>>2825508

>lies

im flattered you don't believe me, make your opinions on roulette all you like but that's pure evidence.

>>2825524

Not at this moment in time, but once I make 5k I will realise it so everyone can milk those casino's dry.

However, I would be interested your opinions on the game of roulette.

>Roulette...is now beaten
Nope.jpg. Or do you have a way to make the house payout on green?

>my algorithim is flawed.
FTFY.

Didn't you already do this once and get shot down?

>>2825483
OP, what is your uncertainty of your method?

Go to Vegas and try out your system then.

>>2825546
the zero is included

>>2825556
your quite right actually...it's not perfect, but it's pretty damm close.

>>2825563
Yes he did.
He's probably thinking that the math changes if he tries hard enough.

alright atleast explain your algorithm a bit more on what does it rely, if it is so brilliant that you are the first one to figure it out then a hint surely won't do damage

>>2825563
yes, I did post when I had around 500 spins, the general response was long-run is going to fall.

but as you can see I am doing quite well.

>>2825570
I was seriously thinking about doing this, but then thought, they would probably ban me since I am using a system and not 'gambling'.

Fuck casinos. They use systems against you all day long but then act all indignant when someone else is smarter than them. I will never give a dime to those fucking scumbags.

>>2825571
>the zero is included
I still don't think you know why it is included or its purpose.

>>2825588

it focuses on number patterns.

the reason why I am not releasing it just yet is because I am still slightly tweaking it.

is double 0 included? (00)

>>2825593

I'm pretty sure I know what it's for bro, it's there for an approx 2.7% house edge for singly zero wheels. and roughly 5% and double zero wheels.

regardless, my graph contradicts this.

>The reason why i don't reveal the proof of god is because you wouldn't see it

If you don't have evidence, get out.
This is math board and according to math, beating roulette is impossible.
If you wan't to claim otherwise you better have some good evidence.

your system doesn't pay out before roughly 250 spins...

maybe if you made a phone app and gambled a whole day you could be sly about it.

>>2825607

it can be, but I'm sticking with single zero for obvious reasons.

double zero is a no go zone

>>2825618
>regardless, my graph contradicts this.
I don't think you know anything about limits.

Also, the quality of the Excel random number generator could be skewing your results.

>>2825619
look at op's pic stupid

>>2825620
My point exactly, the algorithim is designed for long-term, most roulette systems out there make you win in the short-term but eventually the random-ness of the wheel will destroy their bankroll

it focuses on patterns? On an ideal roulette deck, there are no patterns. On every unideal deck, they won't let you check for patterns, cause that's illegal.

>>2825637

RNG is a no go zone, the results are actual real time betting results using a live wheel.

No.

>>2825650
Then this is a fluke. You need to do a few thousand of these runs shown in the OP pic to develop meaningful statistics.

>>2825650
better try it with a couple of other wheels bra

>>2825639
So if i post a pick of god you consider that to be evidence of him?

I would guess that this is some variant of Martingale system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_%28betting_system%29

You are probably betting something like 3 $ per round to red and if you win you do the same thing again and if you loose you double the bet.
Close?

>i figured out how to make a fake graph

>i rolled a few times on a roulette and won overall
>hey guys i just solved roulette

>>2825681

Martingdale is a dangerous progression...it has the tendency to wipe out your entire bankroll eventually. Furthermore, with that betting method you would have to risk 512 units in order to gain 1 unit. Plus roulette tables having betting limits

>>2825691
>>2825713
lol

>>2825666

nice trips, I've already lost with this a couple of times (see pic) but I still managed to recover...I think that's the beauty of this algorithim.

>>2825749
There aren't nearly enough data points there to make a meaningful statement on an inherently flawed problem.

far smarter people than you have tried and failed. and far smarter people than that have realised you can't systematically beat the house.

gambling is time wasting fun. it's entertainment. you're not going to make it rich on games of chance. don't take the fun out of it.

This faggotry again? You didn't break roulette. It's possible you broke a particular (flawed) wheel, but more likely you just got lucky, and you had a <50% chance of coming out ahead.

As I recall, you couldn't even show mathematically that your chances were >50% of coming out ahead, and were "testing." Math isn't empirical, dumbass.

>>2825483
lrn2 Taleb distribution
Looking at your graph, I see 5 huge, roughly equal sized drops. 5 is a small number, and these drops look independant events, triggered by your strategy. A sample size of 5 is too small to be meaningful.

Keep that bitch running.

The algorithm MUST be 100% autonomous; the algorithm MUST be true with consideration for table limits and initial pocket limits.

Program it, run it for 30,000,000 cycles, and then we'll talk.

Also: you don't lose anything if you give us the algorithm. We both win. But if you tell it to us and we disprove it, you don't lose your fucking house while gambling.

>>2825812

This 'Taleb distribution' came to me natrually when testing. I didn't know it was official so thanks for referencing that.

OP, if you give us the algorithm, one of us can program it. Seriously, we'd do that for free. At least I would.

But if you're just here to show us pretty graphs, then get the fuck out of my /sci/.

I guarantee you haven't done what you say you have, but I'd gladly run tests while the rest of /sci/ does the math on it. Want to work with us?

>>2825837
as in nassim taleb?

>>2825650
> using a live wheel
I would trust more a random number generator. Your live wheel more than likely isn't equiprobable. No wonder you have "number patterns".

>>2825837
You will want your significant events to occur at the very least 50 times, ideally much more. 5 times is not even nearly enough.
It's like waiting at the bus stop for a couple of minutes, and seeing 5 busses, and then concluding there must be 48 busses per hour.
Obviously, it could easily be 15 per hour, or up to 100 per hour.
Even though there were a thousand cars, and your estimate for cars is therefore quite reliable, the estimate for the bus/car ratio is not at all reliable. If the question is 'are there more people going by bus then by car', your answer is 'inconclusive'. The same holds for the graph you're showing here. The bad events didn't happen enough for a significant result. At the very least, 50 times, then we'll talk. Or rather, we won't as you'll lose.

ITT: lol upswingaments

bump

death

use truly random numbers from http://www.random.org/

>>2825773
You can on blackjack and poker though.

but you'll get thrown out

>>2825773
Far faster people than you have tried to break the four minute mile barrier, they all failed, it can't be done.

>>2828720
Medical science has determined conclusively that the human heart is incapable of it, you would die before you finished the mile.

This is the shit the first guy to break a four minute mile had to deal with before he went and did it, lmao.

>>2828720
>>2828725

samefag has shitty analogies.

http://www.futilitycloset.com/2005/09/08/roulette-in-the-age-of-science/

A "real spin", done properly, would take 15 seconds or so. Ignoring the time to record the data (maybe he does it while the next spin is happening), 1000 spins would take 4+ hours.

OP is lying or an obsessive moron.