Roulette Magic Numbers
2021年11月26日Register here: http://gg.gg/x1qep
*Roulette Magic Numbers Games
*Roulette Magic Numbers Roblox
*Roulette Magic Numbers Generator
This is a very old but simple number prediction trick. It is not the kind of card or visual tricks where some objects will mysteriously disappear or appear out of nowhere. Ego casino no deposit bonus code 2020. As usual, you may find this a tad bland after knowing the trick behind but from an audience’s point of view, it still seems inexplicable. Added with a bit of showmanship and patter, your audience will still invariably be stunned!
*Alphabet Roulette by Royal Magic - Trick Spin to win!The magician and a spectator each select several letters, and spin the miniature routlette wheel to arrive at a combination of numbers and letters. The magician almost always wins - even when playing for low total.
*Count of the Hottest Numbers in 300 Spins of Single-Zero Roulette. In 300 spins, the average number of wins on a single-zero wheel for any number is 300/37=8.11. The next table shows the probability of each count of the four coolest numbers in 300 spins of double-zero roulette.
The gist of this trick is to correctly predict the sum of random numbers that you and your friend select.
*Take a piece of paper and ask your friend to write down a random 6-digit number between 000000 to 999999, preferably all different digits. For example: 156,289
*Based on this number, you will write a number on another piece of paper but do not let your friend know this number. Keep this number secret for the time being.
*Next, below the number that your friend has written in step 1 above, ask your friend to write another random 6-digit number, also between 000000 to 999999 and preferably all different. For example: 254,721
*Then you will write another 6-digit number below the second number that your friend has written. For example: 745,278
*Next, ask your friend to write another 6-digit number below your number. For example: 654,327
*Following that, you will again write another 6-digit number below. For example: 345,672
*Now you will have a total of five 6-digit numbers on the piece of paper.
*56,289 – written by your friend
*254,721 – written by your friend
*745,278 – written by you
*654,327 – written by your friend
*345,672 – written by you
*Sum up the five numbers and in this case you will have 2,156,287
*Take out the piece of paper and show your friend that the secret number you’d written in step 2 is exactly 2,156,287!
So how could you have known that the result of the summation (of random numbers) would be 2,156,287?
The following is a list of the prime numbers on a roulette wheel: 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31. Here is a list of the first 1000 prime numbers – it might give you some inspiration on those straight up bets! They are often popular roulette bets, as they are seen as “magic” numbers, but of course that may be just hocus-pocus. Here, numbers 3,6 and 9 do not exist and, according to Rodin, this is due to the fact that these numbers represent a vector from the third to the fourth dimension, which is called the “flow field.” This field is a higher dimensional energy, which has an influence on the energy circuit of the other six numbers.
The secret to this trick is to take note of the numbers that your friend wrote. Let’s first look at the second and third numbers that your friend wrote: 254,721 and 654,327. Whatever the numbers your friend wrote, the numbers you write after them must add up to 999,999. So…
999,999 – 254,721 (second number) = 745,278 (number you write after them) 999,999 – 654,327 (third number) = 345,672 (number you write after them)
So the sum of the last four 6-digit numbers will always be 999,999 * 2 = 1,999,998. Bearing this in mind, when your friend writes the first number, all you need to do is add 1,999,998 to your friend’s first number (156,289), and you will already be able to correctly guess the sum of all the five 6-digit numbers in step 2!
TIP:Follow the simple steps below for an easy way to add 1,999,998 to any 6-digit number
*Place “2” in front of the 6-digit number to make it a 7-digit number. In our example above, the first number written by your friend is 156,289. So placing a “2” in front makes it: 2156,289
*Subtract 2 from the 7-digit number:
As with any number prediction trick, we recognize that it can be difficult to comprehend by just looking at numbers and words. Check out the video below for a simple illustration!
Hope you have fun with this number prediction trick!Roulette Magic Numbers Games
Want to have some more tricks up your sleeves? Check out these other Cool Magic Tricks Revealed!
If you want learn more in-depth mind reading and mentalism tricks, you may be interested in this program review, on ’Mastering Mentalism Effects & Magic Tricks..in Less Than 30 Days’
Read also:Easy Mind Reading Tricks
GET THE 4 SIMPLE & EFFECTIVE STEPS TO MASTER ANY MAGIC TRICKS!
Subscribe to our newsletter to receive regular tips on Magic and get instant access to the method to Master any Magic Tricks.
100% free - No payment required.
We take your privacy seriously. No spam. See our privacy policy here
Want to master MENTALISM EFFECTS & MAGIC TRICKS?
Our step by step Mentalism Mastery Method will GUARANTEE you astonishing people in less than 30 days!
Thread Rating: BnittyAs many of you know, there is much debate about wheel bias and detection systems.
I am hoping that this thread can help me separate fact from fiction.
Here is what I have:
7500 Data Points on an automated Wheel.
Number Occurrences Expected Value X2
19 163 196.2105263 5.621202281
35 163 196.2105263 5.621202281
16 164 196.2105263 5.287779535
33 171 196.2105263 3.239228033
27 173 196.2105263 2.745665801
9 175 196.2105263 2.292876101
24 176 196.2105263 2.081770951
26 177 196.2105263 1.880858934
14 177 196.2105263 1.880858934
31 180 196.2105263 1.339281681
11 181 196.2105263 1.179142196
32 184 196.2105263 0.759882539
6 186 196.2105263 0.531341766
23 191 196.2105263 0.138369663
34 194 196.2105263 0.024903998
2 194 196.2105263 0.024903998
10 195 196.2105263 0.007468376
100 197 196.2105263 0.00317653
12 197 196.2105263 0.00317653
25 198 196.2105263 0.016320307
4 200 196.2105263 0.07318726
18 201 196.2105263 0.116910436
30 203 196.2105263 0.234936187
36 203 196.2105263 0.234936187
21 203 196.2105263 0.234936187
50 204 196.2105263 0.309238762
20 205 196.2105263 0.39373447
8 207 196.2105263 0.593305286
3 209 196.2105263 0.833648633
15 210 196.2105263 0.969110007
28 214 196.2105263 1.612886831
13 217 196.2105263 2.202747346
1 217 196.2105263 2.202747346
29 217 196.2105263 2.202747346
17 222 196.2105263 3.389710865
7 223 196.2105263 3.657682968
5 224 196.2105263 3.935848204
22 241 196.2105263 10.22420657
7456 68.10193133
Note: This is a double zero wheel. 100 = 00 and 50 = 0
The critical value appears to suggest that if your hypothesis is that the wheel is fair then you would reject this hypothesis.
1: If you accept this data then how would you use this data similar to other players who have attempted these methods for taking advantage of wheel bias.
2: What other tests should be performed to prove or disprove any suggested bias.
ThanksTumblingBones#22 ends up with the best EV (a whopping 16.36%) with the second best number being the #5 with an 8.15% EV. The fact that they are adjacent on the wheel would fit the hypothesis of this being a biased wheel.My goal of being well informed conflicts with my goal of remaining sane.RomesSo long as you have a sufficient sampling size, AND IDENTIFYING MARKS (so you’re sure the wheel has not ever been changed out during your trials), then the minimum number of trials to identify a bias is usually around 7500-8000. If you’ve come this far due diligence would push for 10k, in which you could identify biases with simple mathematics as you’ve done. Don’t really need another test as this is the brute force approach where the numbers don’t lie anymore.OnceDear
Administrator
As many of you know, there is much debate about wheel bias and detection systems.
I am hoping that this thread can help me separate fact from fiction.
Here is what I have:
7500 Data Points on an automated Wheel.
Number Occurrences Expected Value X2
19 163 196.2105263 5.621202281
35 163 196.2105263 5.621202281
16 164 196.2105263 5.287779535
33 171 196.2105263 3.239228033
27 173 196.2105263 2.745665801
9 175 196.2105263 2.292876101
24 176 196.2105263 2.081770951
26 177 196.2105263 1.880858934
14 177 196.2105263 1.880858934
31 180 196.2105263 1.339281681
11 181 196.2105263 1.179142196
32 184 196.2105263 0.759882539
6 186 196.2105263 0.531341766
23 191 196.2105263 0.138369663
34 194 196.2105263 0.024903998
2 194 196.2105263 0.024903998
10 195 196.2105263 0.007468376
100 197 196.2105263 0.00317653
12 197 196.2105263 0.00317653
25 198 196.2105263 0.016320307
4 200 196.2105263 0.07318726
18 201 196.2105263 0.116910436
30 203 196.2105263 0.234936187
36 203 196.2105263 0.234936187
21 203 196.2105263 0.234936187
50 204 196.2105263 0.309238762
20 205 196.2105263 0.39373447
8 207 196.2105263 0.593305286
3 209 196.2105263 0.833648633
15 210 196.2105263 0.969110007
28 214 196.2105263 1.612886831
13 217 196.2105263 2.202747346
1 217 196.2105263 2.202747346
29 217 196.2105263 2.202747346
17 222 196.2105263 3.389710865
7 223 196.2105263 3.657682968
5 224 196.2105263 3.935848204
22 241 196.2105263 10.22420657
7456 68.10193133
Note: This is a double zero wheel. 100 = 00 and 50 = 0
The critical value appears to suggest that if your hypothesis is that the wheel is fair then you would reject this hypothesis.
1: If you accept this data then how would you use this data similar to other players who have attempted these methods for taking advantage of wheel bias.
2: What other tests should be performed to prove or disprove any suggested bias.
Thanks I plotted count on a simple excel line chart.It screamed bias.
Then I realised the counts had been sorted so it stopped screaming.
Armed with map of the wheel, I sorted by number position.
Got the rather subjective conclusion that the numbers near 5 and 22 were ’hotter’ than those diametrically opposite.
If I were analysing this properly, I’d start by separating clockwise and anticlockwise spins.Take care out there. Spare a thought for the newly poor who were happy in their world just a few days ago, but whose whole way of life just collapsed.BnittyThanks for the replies.
In my case this wheel always spins clockwise but the speed varies on a pattern that I can’t quite figure out.
Let’s say that we can get 10-15k data points for this wheel.
Are we looking to flat bet the biased sectors or are we waiting for some mathematical inference that betting a certain number of times is profitable.
I assume that one could run a simulation on the presented data and try to optimize a strategy?RomesOnce you have all the data points and do the basic math to show certain numbers probabilities are higher than others (re:biased numbers) then a simulation is pretty much a moot point. At that point you could simply bet the biased numbers, which have been shown to mathematically have an edge over time. I haven’t done much more dabbling in betting the adjacent numbers of the biased numbers, but I’m sure an argument or some simple math from the previous probabilities could make sense.TumblingBones
So long as you have a sufficient sampling size, AND IDENTIFYING MARKS (so you’re sure the wheel has not ever been changed out during your trials), then the minimum number of trials to identify a bias is usually around 7500-8000.
I have to admit this issue of adequate sample size is something that has been bugging me for several months, ever since I read Stanford Wong’s book ’On Dice’. He seemed to be saying with carefully constructed tests, even a hundred data points would suffice. Granted, that was for dice rather than roulette, but it still seems a small number. It got me curious enough that even tho I hated statistics in college (my least favorite math course) I’ve started trying to learn more on the subject. From what I can grok, the greater the bias, the smaller the sample size required to generate a P-value that is sufficient to reject the null hypothesis. Sounds reasonable but until you sample a ton of data, how do you know if it is a biased wheel? The 7000 number FEELS right but is there any formula that can be used to figure out what a reasonable sample size should be in a given situation?My goal of being well informed conflicts with my goal of remaining sane.FleaStiff
I am hoping that this thread can help me separate fact from fiction. The problem is separating fact from EMOTION.
People WANT a biased wheel that they can walk up to and get rich with despite the fact that all the people who have been playing there do not see any bias, all the people working there do not see any bias, all the computers owned by the casino do not see any bias, all the managerial reporting programs from accounting do not see any bias.. but lo and behold when THEY walk up to the roulette wheel they will somehow detect and exploit that bias which only they themselves can see. And during that period of exploitation ain’t nobody gonna adjust the thermostat or use a vacuum cleaner or nudge the wheel or even give it a good hard stare.
Data Points? Heck, if you really want to believe in something you don’t need any datapoints at all. If the pornslapper’s photocard says ’Not An Agency’ you can choose to believe it. If you want the wheel to be biased you can believe it. You don’t need data points to feed a fantasy.
If you think the wheel is biased start betting octants, if your bank roll dwindles, it ain’t biased.RSTLDR: The more bias the fewer samples are needed. If my hypothesis is that this coin is weighted to heads is more likely to land, then I’m going to need far more flips to determine it’s weighted if heads lands about 51% of the time, whereas if it lands on heads 90% of the time, I don’t need such a large sample size of flips.
I haven’t gone through the numbers posted above on this roulette wheel, but I saw someone post a 15% or 8% edge looking post. If that’s the case, I’d go ahead and bet those numbers for a reasonable amount, such that if I’m wrong and there is no bias, I’m not giving up too much value, but if I’m right, then I’m still getting a fair amount of value. In doing this, I’d continue to track the numbers to verify or refute(?) the previous notion/data that the wheel is biased.
IOW: I just flipped a coin that landed on 15 heads and 5 tails. I think it very well might be biased. Instead of betting large amounts on heads, I’m going to bet a reasonable amount on heads AND continue to track it, to make sure heads is still showing up far more than 50/50. If it continues, then I’ll continue. If it doesn’t continue, then I’ll do the math again and assume the probability is 15/20 then see how unlikely the new results are.Ace2That number 22 is 3.24 deviations to the right of expectations, which is getting pretty convincing.
Only 1 in 1,675 chance this result just happens to be out there by luck.
There is no magic number for sample size. If this bias is true and you did 20,000 spins you could just state the same result with more confidence. But 99.94 % confidence (1674/1675) is pretty good..I would be betting heavily on number 22. Have to keep in mind though that single number bets are very high variance, so even with a huge 16.4% advantage, there’s still over a 25% chance you will have lost money after 500 bets. So you might need a few days of playing to successfully exploit this.
Roulette Magic Numbers RobloxThe sample size needed to give confidence is going to vary based on how biased the wheel is and what kind of bet you’re testing for. Testing a single number on a slightly biased wheel will take many more samples than testing a quadrant on a very biased wheel.
Roulette Magic Numbers GeneratorBy the way the ’quadrant’ of the ten numbers 17-5-22-34-15-3-24-36-13-1 is even more biased than number 22. It comes up 2,113 times vs expected 1,962. That’s 3.97 deviations out, and there’s only a 1 in 27,651 chance of that happening by chance alone.It’s all about making that GTA
Register here: http://gg.gg/x1qep
https://diarynote.indered.space
*Roulette Magic Numbers Games
*Roulette Magic Numbers Roblox
*Roulette Magic Numbers Generator
This is a very old but simple number prediction trick. It is not the kind of card or visual tricks where some objects will mysteriously disappear or appear out of nowhere. Ego casino no deposit bonus code 2020. As usual, you may find this a tad bland after knowing the trick behind but from an audience’s point of view, it still seems inexplicable. Added with a bit of showmanship and patter, your audience will still invariably be stunned!
*Alphabet Roulette by Royal Magic - Trick Spin to win!The magician and a spectator each select several letters, and spin the miniature routlette wheel to arrive at a combination of numbers and letters. The magician almost always wins - even when playing for low total.
*Count of the Hottest Numbers in 300 Spins of Single-Zero Roulette. In 300 spins, the average number of wins on a single-zero wheel for any number is 300/37=8.11. The next table shows the probability of each count of the four coolest numbers in 300 spins of double-zero roulette.
The gist of this trick is to correctly predict the sum of random numbers that you and your friend select.
*Take a piece of paper and ask your friend to write down a random 6-digit number between 000000 to 999999, preferably all different digits. For example: 156,289
*Based on this number, you will write a number on another piece of paper but do not let your friend know this number. Keep this number secret for the time being.
*Next, below the number that your friend has written in step 1 above, ask your friend to write another random 6-digit number, also between 000000 to 999999 and preferably all different. For example: 254,721
*Then you will write another 6-digit number below the second number that your friend has written. For example: 745,278
*Next, ask your friend to write another 6-digit number below your number. For example: 654,327
*Following that, you will again write another 6-digit number below. For example: 345,672
*Now you will have a total of five 6-digit numbers on the piece of paper.
*56,289 – written by your friend
*254,721 – written by your friend
*745,278 – written by you
*654,327 – written by your friend
*345,672 – written by you
*Sum up the five numbers and in this case you will have 2,156,287
*Take out the piece of paper and show your friend that the secret number you’d written in step 2 is exactly 2,156,287!
So how could you have known that the result of the summation (of random numbers) would be 2,156,287?
The following is a list of the prime numbers on a roulette wheel: 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31. Here is a list of the first 1000 prime numbers – it might give you some inspiration on those straight up bets! They are often popular roulette bets, as they are seen as “magic” numbers, but of course that may be just hocus-pocus. Here, numbers 3,6 and 9 do not exist and, according to Rodin, this is due to the fact that these numbers represent a vector from the third to the fourth dimension, which is called the “flow field.” This field is a higher dimensional energy, which has an influence on the energy circuit of the other six numbers.
The secret to this trick is to take note of the numbers that your friend wrote. Let’s first look at the second and third numbers that your friend wrote: 254,721 and 654,327. Whatever the numbers your friend wrote, the numbers you write after them must add up to 999,999. So…
999,999 – 254,721 (second number) = 745,278 (number you write after them) 999,999 – 654,327 (third number) = 345,672 (number you write after them)
So the sum of the last four 6-digit numbers will always be 999,999 * 2 = 1,999,998. Bearing this in mind, when your friend writes the first number, all you need to do is add 1,999,998 to your friend’s first number (156,289), and you will already be able to correctly guess the sum of all the five 6-digit numbers in step 2!
TIP:Follow the simple steps below for an easy way to add 1,999,998 to any 6-digit number
*Place “2” in front of the 6-digit number to make it a 7-digit number. In our example above, the first number written by your friend is 156,289. So placing a “2” in front makes it: 2156,289
*Subtract 2 from the 7-digit number:
As with any number prediction trick, we recognize that it can be difficult to comprehend by just looking at numbers and words. Check out the video below for a simple illustration!
Hope you have fun with this number prediction trick!Roulette Magic Numbers Games
Want to have some more tricks up your sleeves? Check out these other Cool Magic Tricks Revealed!
If you want learn more in-depth mind reading and mentalism tricks, you may be interested in this program review, on ’Mastering Mentalism Effects & Magic Tricks..in Less Than 30 Days’
Read also:Easy Mind Reading Tricks
GET THE 4 SIMPLE & EFFECTIVE STEPS TO MASTER ANY MAGIC TRICKS!
Subscribe to our newsletter to receive regular tips on Magic and get instant access to the method to Master any Magic Tricks.
100% free - No payment required.
We take your privacy seriously. No spam. See our privacy policy here
Want to master MENTALISM EFFECTS & MAGIC TRICKS?
Our step by step Mentalism Mastery Method will GUARANTEE you astonishing people in less than 30 days!
Thread Rating: BnittyAs many of you know, there is much debate about wheel bias and detection systems.
I am hoping that this thread can help me separate fact from fiction.
Here is what I have:
7500 Data Points on an automated Wheel.
Number Occurrences Expected Value X2
19 163 196.2105263 5.621202281
35 163 196.2105263 5.621202281
16 164 196.2105263 5.287779535
33 171 196.2105263 3.239228033
27 173 196.2105263 2.745665801
9 175 196.2105263 2.292876101
24 176 196.2105263 2.081770951
26 177 196.2105263 1.880858934
14 177 196.2105263 1.880858934
31 180 196.2105263 1.339281681
11 181 196.2105263 1.179142196
32 184 196.2105263 0.759882539
6 186 196.2105263 0.531341766
23 191 196.2105263 0.138369663
34 194 196.2105263 0.024903998
2 194 196.2105263 0.024903998
10 195 196.2105263 0.007468376
100 197 196.2105263 0.00317653
12 197 196.2105263 0.00317653
25 198 196.2105263 0.016320307
4 200 196.2105263 0.07318726
18 201 196.2105263 0.116910436
30 203 196.2105263 0.234936187
36 203 196.2105263 0.234936187
21 203 196.2105263 0.234936187
50 204 196.2105263 0.309238762
20 205 196.2105263 0.39373447
8 207 196.2105263 0.593305286
3 209 196.2105263 0.833648633
15 210 196.2105263 0.969110007
28 214 196.2105263 1.612886831
13 217 196.2105263 2.202747346
1 217 196.2105263 2.202747346
29 217 196.2105263 2.202747346
17 222 196.2105263 3.389710865
7 223 196.2105263 3.657682968
5 224 196.2105263 3.935848204
22 241 196.2105263 10.22420657
7456 68.10193133
Note: This is a double zero wheel. 100 = 00 and 50 = 0
The critical value appears to suggest that if your hypothesis is that the wheel is fair then you would reject this hypothesis.
1: If you accept this data then how would you use this data similar to other players who have attempted these methods for taking advantage of wheel bias.
2: What other tests should be performed to prove or disprove any suggested bias.
ThanksTumblingBones#22 ends up with the best EV (a whopping 16.36%) with the second best number being the #5 with an 8.15% EV. The fact that they are adjacent on the wheel would fit the hypothesis of this being a biased wheel.My goal of being well informed conflicts with my goal of remaining sane.RomesSo long as you have a sufficient sampling size, AND IDENTIFYING MARKS (so you’re sure the wheel has not ever been changed out during your trials), then the minimum number of trials to identify a bias is usually around 7500-8000. If you’ve come this far due diligence would push for 10k, in which you could identify biases with simple mathematics as you’ve done. Don’t really need another test as this is the brute force approach where the numbers don’t lie anymore.OnceDear
Administrator
As many of you know, there is much debate about wheel bias and detection systems.
I am hoping that this thread can help me separate fact from fiction.
Here is what I have:
7500 Data Points on an automated Wheel.
Number Occurrences Expected Value X2
19 163 196.2105263 5.621202281
35 163 196.2105263 5.621202281
16 164 196.2105263 5.287779535
33 171 196.2105263 3.239228033
27 173 196.2105263 2.745665801
9 175 196.2105263 2.292876101
24 176 196.2105263 2.081770951
26 177 196.2105263 1.880858934
14 177 196.2105263 1.880858934
31 180 196.2105263 1.339281681
11 181 196.2105263 1.179142196
32 184 196.2105263 0.759882539
6 186 196.2105263 0.531341766
23 191 196.2105263 0.138369663
34 194 196.2105263 0.024903998
2 194 196.2105263 0.024903998
10 195 196.2105263 0.007468376
100 197 196.2105263 0.00317653
12 197 196.2105263 0.00317653
25 198 196.2105263 0.016320307
4 200 196.2105263 0.07318726
18 201 196.2105263 0.116910436
30 203 196.2105263 0.234936187
36 203 196.2105263 0.234936187
21 203 196.2105263 0.234936187
50 204 196.2105263 0.309238762
20 205 196.2105263 0.39373447
8 207 196.2105263 0.593305286
3 209 196.2105263 0.833648633
15 210 196.2105263 0.969110007
28 214 196.2105263 1.612886831
13 217 196.2105263 2.202747346
1 217 196.2105263 2.202747346
29 217 196.2105263 2.202747346
17 222 196.2105263 3.389710865
7 223 196.2105263 3.657682968
5 224 196.2105263 3.935848204
22 241 196.2105263 10.22420657
7456 68.10193133
Note: This is a double zero wheel. 100 = 00 and 50 = 0
The critical value appears to suggest that if your hypothesis is that the wheel is fair then you would reject this hypothesis.
1: If you accept this data then how would you use this data similar to other players who have attempted these methods for taking advantage of wheel bias.
2: What other tests should be performed to prove or disprove any suggested bias.
Thanks I plotted count on a simple excel line chart.It screamed bias.
Then I realised the counts had been sorted so it stopped screaming.
Armed with map of the wheel, I sorted by number position.
Got the rather subjective conclusion that the numbers near 5 and 22 were ’hotter’ than those diametrically opposite.
If I were analysing this properly, I’d start by separating clockwise and anticlockwise spins.Take care out there. Spare a thought for the newly poor who were happy in their world just a few days ago, but whose whole way of life just collapsed.BnittyThanks for the replies.
In my case this wheel always spins clockwise but the speed varies on a pattern that I can’t quite figure out.
Let’s say that we can get 10-15k data points for this wheel.
Are we looking to flat bet the biased sectors or are we waiting for some mathematical inference that betting a certain number of times is profitable.
I assume that one could run a simulation on the presented data and try to optimize a strategy?RomesOnce you have all the data points and do the basic math to show certain numbers probabilities are higher than others (re:biased numbers) then a simulation is pretty much a moot point. At that point you could simply bet the biased numbers, which have been shown to mathematically have an edge over time. I haven’t done much more dabbling in betting the adjacent numbers of the biased numbers, but I’m sure an argument or some simple math from the previous probabilities could make sense.TumblingBones
So long as you have a sufficient sampling size, AND IDENTIFYING MARKS (so you’re sure the wheel has not ever been changed out during your trials), then the minimum number of trials to identify a bias is usually around 7500-8000.
I have to admit this issue of adequate sample size is something that has been bugging me for several months, ever since I read Stanford Wong’s book ’On Dice’. He seemed to be saying with carefully constructed tests, even a hundred data points would suffice. Granted, that was for dice rather than roulette, but it still seems a small number. It got me curious enough that even tho I hated statistics in college (my least favorite math course) I’ve started trying to learn more on the subject. From what I can grok, the greater the bias, the smaller the sample size required to generate a P-value that is sufficient to reject the null hypothesis. Sounds reasonable but until you sample a ton of data, how do you know if it is a biased wheel? The 7000 number FEELS right but is there any formula that can be used to figure out what a reasonable sample size should be in a given situation?My goal of being well informed conflicts with my goal of remaining sane.FleaStiff
I am hoping that this thread can help me separate fact from fiction. The problem is separating fact from EMOTION.
People WANT a biased wheel that they can walk up to and get rich with despite the fact that all the people who have been playing there do not see any bias, all the people working there do not see any bias, all the computers owned by the casino do not see any bias, all the managerial reporting programs from accounting do not see any bias.. but lo and behold when THEY walk up to the roulette wheel they will somehow detect and exploit that bias which only they themselves can see. And during that period of exploitation ain’t nobody gonna adjust the thermostat or use a vacuum cleaner or nudge the wheel or even give it a good hard stare.
Data Points? Heck, if you really want to believe in something you don’t need any datapoints at all. If the pornslapper’s photocard says ’Not An Agency’ you can choose to believe it. If you want the wheel to be biased you can believe it. You don’t need data points to feed a fantasy.
If you think the wheel is biased start betting octants, if your bank roll dwindles, it ain’t biased.RSTLDR: The more bias the fewer samples are needed. If my hypothesis is that this coin is weighted to heads is more likely to land, then I’m going to need far more flips to determine it’s weighted if heads lands about 51% of the time, whereas if it lands on heads 90% of the time, I don’t need such a large sample size of flips.
I haven’t gone through the numbers posted above on this roulette wheel, but I saw someone post a 15% or 8% edge looking post. If that’s the case, I’d go ahead and bet those numbers for a reasonable amount, such that if I’m wrong and there is no bias, I’m not giving up too much value, but if I’m right, then I’m still getting a fair amount of value. In doing this, I’d continue to track the numbers to verify or refute(?) the previous notion/data that the wheel is biased.
IOW: I just flipped a coin that landed on 15 heads and 5 tails. I think it very well might be biased. Instead of betting large amounts on heads, I’m going to bet a reasonable amount on heads AND continue to track it, to make sure heads is still showing up far more than 50/50. If it continues, then I’ll continue. If it doesn’t continue, then I’ll do the math again and assume the probability is 15/20 then see how unlikely the new results are.Ace2That number 22 is 3.24 deviations to the right of expectations, which is getting pretty convincing.
Only 1 in 1,675 chance this result just happens to be out there by luck.
There is no magic number for sample size. If this bias is true and you did 20,000 spins you could just state the same result with more confidence. But 99.94 % confidence (1674/1675) is pretty good..I would be betting heavily on number 22. Have to keep in mind though that single number bets are very high variance, so even with a huge 16.4% advantage, there’s still over a 25% chance you will have lost money after 500 bets. So you might need a few days of playing to successfully exploit this.
Roulette Magic Numbers RobloxThe sample size needed to give confidence is going to vary based on how biased the wheel is and what kind of bet you’re testing for. Testing a single number on a slightly biased wheel will take many more samples than testing a quadrant on a very biased wheel.
Roulette Magic Numbers GeneratorBy the way the ’quadrant’ of the ten numbers 17-5-22-34-15-3-24-36-13-1 is even more biased than number 22. It comes up 2,113 times vs expected 1,962. That’s 3.97 deviations out, and there’s only a 1 in 27,651 chance of that happening by chance alone.It’s all about making that GTA
Register here: http://gg.gg/x1qep
https://diarynote.indered.space
コメント