Mathematics of Horse Race Gambling

REALLY ?? Some guy won $1.2M in the 70's ? Woopie Doo ..

High rollers win and lose vast sums of money in casinos all the time - every day. Our Kerry Packer was even known to drop a few mil before tea on some days, and win it back before breakfast .. mostly ..

It never ceases to amaze me how some of you scientific types are so quick to call others cranks, ignorant, etc, but when it comes to the real world, have such little grasp of reality, and are devoid of common sense.

Roulette bias is an absolute furphy. Each pocket is red/black, odds/evens, high/low. To suggest that some pattern could develope, and more to the point, be detected as a consequence of such bias causing the ball to fall in one pocket and not the one immediately next to it, on either side, reminds me of Victors 'black hole bubbles' in Psuedoscience.

For how ever many claims of detecting and profiting from roulette bias there might exist, there might exist a higher number of those who sought such bias, never found it and lost heavily. Did you consider that ? The casinos did !

So you profited from betting the opposite to someone who was losing - that's what your statement amounts to. Ergo, you, anyone can duplicate this. Go to any casino, and bet opposite to anyone losing .. which would be the majority, else, casinos wouldn't exist.

For one who pretends to great intelligence, you sure have a dearth of it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Axe to grind, much?

The book I cited teaches you that. You only needed to read it.

Yep, axe to grind.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Axe to grind ? You are now seeing ghosts!

Worse, you are diverting from the issues I put to you as a consequence of your original post.

What DOES the book you cited teach ? Here's what you said ..
He did not cheat, he was able to determine the roulette "bias" from the sequence of numbers coming up via a model of the bearing wear and tear he had created (a true mechanical engineer genius).

So does it teach that the bias was detected by some 'true mechanical genius' and exploited for profit or that it was random ? The article seems to say both - what do you say ? You seem to be vascillating and having a few bucks each way now ..
And do you expect others to aquire and read whole books before they reply to your posts ?

You show extraordinary superstition in your ..
Knowing the Jarecki story, I figured that there was no way the management would let them play if their program was any good, so I tailored my bets to be exactly the opposite of theirs. One hour later I left with an extra 800 EUR in my pocket.

.. which you also haven't answered to.

But that's OK - you can continue to imagine you're been persecuted by someone who has an axe to grind!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Butthurt much?

 

No .. why ? Does your superstition extend to the practice of voodoo ? Do you have a voodoo doll in my image into which you are sticking pins, thus hoping that my butt hurts much ?

This forum is physics / maths, with strict rules of verification and adhering to established scientific principles. You are one of the first to jump on board in other incidents of pseudoscience posted here, and accuse others of crankiness, crackpottery, etc - more often than not in a very rude, highbrow manner.

You said;

Knowing the Jarecki story, I figured that there was no way the management would let them play if their program was any good, so I tailored my bets to be exactly the opposite of theirs. One hour later I left with an extra 800 EUR in my pocket.

This is resplendent superstition and crackpottery in my opinion. What is the established science / maths / physics upon which you base it ? It is incumbent on you to show it, or admit your error and withdraw it. Why should you be allowed to breach this forums rules ? Had you made them in a pseudoscience thread, you could probably get away with it - but why should you get away with it here ?

I read this forum for solid established scientific principles. Where’s yours concerning the above ?

 

No one cares about your "opinion". So, butthurt much.

 

I hope you don't include myself in that general remark.
Of course imperfections and imbalances in the wheel and pockets might have an effect on bets that covered those blocks and numbers.
That's why they check the wheels, to make sure they don't.

I suspect that the golden days are over for Roulette bias hunters.
Did they ever exist? I don't know. Perhaps they did.
With laser measurement, minimally off-centred wheels, and pocket faults would today be quickly found.
However, if some Casino was lax enough to leave a wheel unbalanced,
you could take over the cockamamie joint within a year or two.
You could be the new owner of "Stupid Joe's"

What DOESN'T work, and could never work, are methods which involve particular numbers, or sequences of betting amounts.

 

No, I didn't include you in that general remark, and can see that it was too general, so I'l rephrase it, to 'one or two', Tach being at the forefront.

Roulette bias; I suppose, unless you put together a roulette wheel, atom by atom, ie, with near infinite precision, it's always going to have some degree of bias.

Years ago I had some VERY close associations with some casino proprietors. Sitting in the central monitoring room with them, I recall their elation whenever they detected anyone digging in over a long period to detect roulette bias. I can also say that many of the roulette bias stories, are myths propagated by casinos themselves to get more wood-ducks in the door.

My contention with Tach is not about roulette bias. More on this soon.

 

The Great Tach .. defender of scientific principles, attacker of all things cranky and pseudoscientific .. is reduced to cheap clichés and one liners ..

Really ? How did you form that conclusion on a hard physics / maths thread ?
Perhaps you're assuming ? .. not a very scientific method.
Perhaps you're descending into the superstitious and mystical again ? Did they (everyone else) telepath this information to you ?

Maybe if you had done something scientific, such as check the stats over the last couple of days, you would have .. detected .. (lol) that the hit/view rate on this thread has significantly increased, particularly since my involvement. Using that vast intellect of yours (in a rigorous and scientific manner - of course) you could have then .. deduced .. (lol), that since it was just you and I, and since you were posting cheap clichés and one liners while ducking for cover, some, perhaps many readers DID care about my opinion, thus making your statement, manifestly wrong - again!

Here's the points that are very disturbing about you.

1) You consistently attack those you label as cranks, crackpots, etc, in this forum (physics, science).

2) Others do this too (as well they should) but you do it in a particularly nasty, curt, dismissive, condescending and insulting manner.

3) You constantly uphold and re-enforce the fact that anything here must be based on accepted mathematical and scientific knowledge, and that anything else is pseudoscience, crackpottery, etc. Well and good.

4) The higher mathematical equations and principles that you pretend to, and that you make so emphatically, have to be taken at face value and on thrust by many (dare I say most) readers here, because much of it would be incomprehensible to them.

5)Thus, you have developed a reputation for yourself, as a highly knowledgeable authority in many areas of maths, science, physics.

6) As you quickly condescend upon, and indeed attack anything that even hints at been remotely pseudoscientific, superstitious, etc, it would then, BE REASONABLE for a less educated reader, to believe that all your material is TOTALLY FREE OF of such pseudoscience and superstition.

7) In an earlier post, you said ..

Knowing the Jarecki story, I figured that there was no way the management would let them play if their program was any good, so I tailored my bets to be exactly the opposite of theirs. One hour later I left with an extra 800 EUR in my pocket.

8) I say this is errant, superstitious, pseudoscientific nonsense. My main (but not exhaustive) reasons being ..

a) No roulette result is determined by the previous one.
b) Even if there was a miniscule roulette bias (a MOST UNLIKEY thing) you would have had to be there for a vast amount of time to take advantage of it (a MOST UNLIKEY thing) and it would have had to be a higher effect than the houses 5% on roulette ( a MOST UNLIKELY thing) ..

9) Yet you say it had positive results for you in AN HOUR .. lol, Tach .. it could have been the power of manifestation .. what, were you simultaneously reading 'Think And Grow Rich' or something ?

10) And you say "I tailored my bets to be exactly the opposite of theirs"

Lol .. the dummies .. little did they know they were in the presence of The Great Tach !!!
And scarce could they divine for themselves that if their machine was giving them a predominance of persistent, losing results, that that would have been just as good as it giving them persistent winning results ..

NOOOOOOOOOO !!!!!!! .. It took The Great Tach to work all this out !!!

11) I have repeatedly put the nature of your superstition to you in this thread, but you haven't resiled from it, nor have you tendered any scientific basis for it. That's really bad.

12) What's much worse, is that for many years .. (by your terms, this happened many years after the 70's, so lets say you were in Monte Carlo in, what, the 80's, 90's ?) .. yes, for many years, and certainly for all those years you've been here, you have continued to believe your superstition, to the extent that you published it with some exuberance here - IN A HARD PHYSICS / MATHS thread.

13) Can you realise the ENORMITY of this ? You, The Great Tach, the accomplished high minded and never wrong mathematician, has believed the the most egregious error all these years .. and not on a complex, disputed, vague and nebulous issue, but on one as simple and fundamental as this one!

14) If then, you continue to believe this superstition how can anyone trust anything else you say that may be beyond their grasp ? What higher error and superstition and pseudoscience could THAT contain ?

15) In another thread in Pseudoscience, I asked a moderator why he had banned someone. The moderator replied (much more can be quoted, but this will suffice);

-I banned him for spouting nonsense in the main maths/physics forum,
-In the main forum I, nor anyone else who has any honest interest in physics and discussing physics, will not put up with that shit.

By those terms, you DO NOT have an honest interest in physics and discussing physics and you are spouting superstitious nonsense!

 

Neither was my strategy in bidding. You obviously did not comprehend my post.

I did not base my bidding on the "roulette bias". You obviously did not comprehend my post. You created a strawman and you are beating it to death.

Yep. One hour , 800 EUR richer.

I said, IF their algorithm was worth anything, they would have been banned. Since they were allowed to play, laptop included, it meant that their algorithm wasn't worth anything. I placed my bets in opposition to theirs and I made 800 EUR in 1hr, nothing to do with any superstitions, voodoo , et. There is nothing I can do to correct your inability to read and comprehend.

The guys with the laptop got the wrong results for an hour. I did not stay any longer to see what happened after. <shrug>

It took inspiration. Jealous much?

There is no need to answer to your inability to comprehend simple narratives.

Had you been able to comprehend the narrative (you didn't) what happened in 1970 (use of a mechanical model of the REAL roulette bias) has nothing to do with what happened recently to me in Monte Carlo in 2010. Tough when you don't comprehend what I write, not the first time in your case.

Realize what, Lakon? That you have failed to understand that , while the 1970 incident is real, scientifically documented it has NOTHING to do with the incident in 2010? That, quite contrary to your shrill claims, my strategy was based on NOT believing in the algorithm of the guys with the laptop?

You have been beating this strawman you created to death. Comes from your inability to comprehend my narrative. Tough.

Like I said, it is tough when you cannot follow a narrative. Gets worse with the age, especially in the case of pensioneers trolling physics and math forums.

 

@Tach
You were lucky and they were unlucky.
No scientific explanation required.


@Lakon
It's an anecdote, not a thesis. You shouldn't question it too deeply.
I might tell it myself some time.


@Tach
Perhaps you could add to the story that you started scribbling notes, and mathematical formulas, and they paid you an extra $200 for them.
Then you left the Casino with a cool $1000

 

You got it. Now explain it to Lakon.

I did , 800 EUR=1050 $. You need to pay attention.

 

But hopefully not in a math / science forum.

I think your attempted humour went over his head. I think he even wrongly took your wrongly calling of his euros dollars, and proceeded from that to some .. who knows what ..

 

Ah, Tach! I'll start with your last line first;

A fair enough self admission. Yes, I can see where you haven't followed your narrative.

Does it ? Nothing like personal experience, I say. Thanks for the heads up.

Again, I can see the truth of this in your case. Still, I wouldn't be too quick to used 'pensioners' as a term of derision 'round these parts. I recall looking at the 'how old are you' thread recently, and was quite surprised (maybe not so surprised) to see that some of the minds I have the highest regard for here, are in there 60's and 70's. But yes, I can see how a modicum of wisdom still eludes yourself.

Ah yes .. I'm just now recalling .. Did I see a big black line across your name here recently .. I did, didn't I (If I'm mistaken, please disregard the following).
What was that ban for Tach ? Trolling ? Abuse ? Don't worry too much about it at this stage. I'm not accusing you trolling - just persistent superstition in a hard physics / math page.

Talk about not comprehending posts .. not following narratives. I have consistently moved AWAY from attributing any importance to roulette bias. Staring you in the face (inter alia) is this, in the last line of my post #28

My contention with Tach is not about roulette bias ..

.. and ? What ? A million (say) people were playing roulette throughout the world at the same time as you. 550,000 of them were losing (you can take THAT to the bank). You happened to be one of the 450,000 that was winning at that time. What of it ? Some of the losers believed the devil did it. Some of the winners believed it was emanations from the star system Plaedius. Others from their dead mother. Others from the faeiry folk at the tip of the Horn Of Elfin. Others from anomalous cognition derived during geomagnetic fluctuations circa 13.30 sidereal time .. and you ? .. read on!

Here, Tach, we get to the heart of the matter, the crux of your ongoing superstition, and the nature of your double think and double speak. And the even scarier thing now, is that it appears you're not just been stubborn, but that you can't even see it yourself.

- So far as roulette is concerned, casinos positively encourage ANY kind of recording devise. Last time I went to one (around 2 decades ago) they were handing out clever, multi layered recording sheets to roulette players, together with neat looking corporate pens. About five years ago, some casinos here in Australia, were, on request, lending ipads to roulette players, loaded with software designed to catalogue, calculate, and predict winning numbers .. like .. you know .. (chuckle ..)
More recently, I am informed that there are a plethora of smart phone apps for the same purpose.

- Assuming an unbiased wheel (I've never seen otherwise) roulette is a game of chance. You would agree.

- Each spin recreates the initial conditions, and is totally independent - unaffected by previous results. You would agree.

- That's why casinos have no hesitation in allowing recording / calculation. You would agree here too.

So this is where you continue to commit your egregious error, and your grievous sin against mathematics and logic.

TO SAY THAT THEIR ALGORYTHUM WAS WORTH NOTHING, AND AT THE SAME BREATH, TO SAY YOU BET OPPOSITE TO IT, IS TO SAY YOU TOOK ALL HEED OF IT.

TO SAY YOU CONTINUED TO BET OPPOSITE TO SOME INFORMATION THAT WAS VALUELESS AND WORTHLESS, IS TO SAY YOU TOOK ALL HEED OF IT FOR A FULL HOUR.

YOUR BETTING WAS GUIDED, DETERMINED, DICTATED, BY WHAT YOU YOURSELF HAVE CALLED WORTHLESS INFORMATION - FOR A FULL HOUR.

Don't you get it Tach ? Please, please, PLEASE tell me you're just been stubborn and obstinate .. not that you STILL don't get it.

You know, I was going to continue to address your further comments, particularly your accusations that I haven't followed your .. narrative .. and I was going to give you proof - proof staring you in the face - that YOU haven't followed your OWN narrative, but in light of the above, it's all pales into insignificance. Just address the three sentences, in caps, above.


Edit
- changed my second line
- various spelling edits

 

The roulette tables in dr. Jarecki case were biased, the book I linked in is very clear on the subject. The book is also very clear in pointing out that dr. Jarecki broke the bank multiple times. You are still unable to follow simple narratives.

What is "ALGORYTHUM"? Why are you shouting? I bet opposite to the PEOPLE that were using a computer. You are re-affirming your inability to follow simple narratives. <shrug>

You are getting rather shrill, the bees under your bonnet getting rather active, I reckon. Demonstrating your inability to read and comprehend again.

Don't you get it Tach ? Please, please, PLEASE tell me you're just been stubborn and obstinate .. not that you STILL don't get it.

You should really try to learn how to read, is English not your first language or did you fail logic in school? Both?

 

Tach, do you have more details on how Jarecki computed it? Sound like a really cool idea.

 

yes i am completely agree with you mathematics is like a horse racing . Did you know ? there's one simple fact about which horse wins a race every time. In fact its so simple its almost hard to believe it's true. Like in any sport the horse that wins is the best horse. Just like in football, the best team wins the game, or in golf the best player needs the least number of shots to get round the 18 holes. The question is which horse is going to be the best on the day? The answer is to look at the form from previous races, together with other data such as trainers, jockeys, betting, weights etc

 

The odd thing is that the fastest horses do not always win top class races.
You would think that they would do so, especially on the flat and in short races.
But Class I races are generally won by the best thoroughbreds.
The only form that counts is when they have run against each other previously.

Horses that have won lower class races running very fast, often come nowhere in a high purse race.
So why don't they run as fast as they can, and win?
I don't know.

 

I posted a link to a book that has a whole chapter dedicated to him.

 

LOL .. now you're diverting back to roulette bias and some book written by some wack job ..

Anything, ANYTHING to obfuscate and focus attention away from your superstition. Even just these two earlier comments of yours alone, are suffient to reveal the depth of it;

their algorithm wasn't worth anything

followed by ..

"I tailored my bets to be exactly the opposite of theirs"

So your tailoring was precisely as worthless as their algorithm .. you clever little sausage you ..

You haven't disabused yourself of your superstition. I suspect you never will.