How do you calculate cumulative probability?
12 February 2004, 01:47 PM
#61
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You don't need to double to infinity - bad idea anyway as a silly, 'how on earth did it happen' massive run would EVENTUALLY come against you and destroy your stack
12 February 2004, 01:57 PM
#64
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by imlach
So you admit it WILL happen! how do you avoid it?
just like since there are odds that you imlach will lose 10000 spread bets in a row.
how do u avoid it? u cant. but u can make sure that the odds of it happening are so small that it pales into insignificance because you'll get enough big wins to fund such a large number of losses and keep going.
12 February 2004, 01:58 PM
#65
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by imlach
A massive run will kill you whatever the system
although granted, knowledge helps with shares... a massive run will still kill you.
12 February 2004, 02:00 PM
#68
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course it will happen if you don't have a game structure. If you just took £10k onto the table every single night you'd probably make money for months and months and then you'd catch a run where you've got £7500 (max poss bet) on the two thirds and it would loose! You've just lost all you've won and more to boot!
What I'm suggesting is a race against a 0.54% event. Bob is your man who is racing and he has a value of £810. Bobs sole function in life is to produce two offsping, Jim and John. If he creates Jim then Jim is set a side to 'mature' while he sets about making John. If he makes it before dying (death by 0.54% event) then he retires to my bank account
Jim and John then set about the same life task of their own. Lets assume Jim gets killed but John makes it. His offspring both make it and so on and so forth. each time you are building more of a population to play with the massively increasing your resistance of having your family wiped out. This is why a big turn against you can't do any more damage than £810. Does it work?? I don't know, probably not but I'm going to play for fun to find out 
One thing we do know for absolute certain is that in every INDIVIDAL spin of a wheel the HOUSE has an edge. What is rather more difficult to know is if there is anyway at all to take advantage of this edge to nullify or even beat it. Everyone says its impossible and even I have said that in the past. But we once thought the earth was flat and we once said that supersonic flight was impossible, that it would destroy and aircraft to go faster than it. Now we have cars that can go faster than it.
What I'm suggesting is a race against a 0.54% event. Bob is your man who is racing and he has a value of £810. Bobs sole function in life is to produce two offsping, Jim and John. If he creates Jim then Jim is set a side to 'mature' while he sets about making John. If he makes it before dying (death by 0.54% event) then he retires to my bank account
Jim and John then set about the same life task of their own. Lets assume Jim gets killed but John makes it. His offspring both make it and so on and so forth. each time you are building more of a population to play with the massively increasing your resistance of having your family wiped out. This is why a big turn against you can't do any more damage than £810. Does it work?? I don't know, probably not but I'm going to play for fun to find out One thing we do know for absolute certain is that in every INDIVIDAL spin of a wheel the HOUSE has an edge. What is rather more difficult to know is if there is anyway at all to take advantage of this edge to nullify or even beat it. Everyone says its impossible and even I have said that in the past. But we once thought the earth was flat and we once said that supersonic flight was impossible, that it would destroy and aircraft to go faster than it. Now we have cars that can go faster than it.
12 February 2004, 02:01 PM
#69
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by imlach
...but my odds on stocks are not based on pure chance......
you have £10k of shares in company x. at 7am they announce a profits warning and are selling off parts of the business. you're screwed.
unless you're getting inside information before it happens (which is illegal), you're open to chance as well.
i agree not as much.. but some.
12 February 2004, 02:03 PM
#71
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by imlach
stocks and routlette are not the same
all i'm saying is that there's risks involved in both.
for everyone who makes money in stocks, someone else has to lose. and the brokers ALWAYS win regardless.
for everyone who makes money in roulette, someone else has to lose. and the houses ALWAYS win regardless.
where's the difference from that perspective?
12 February 2004, 02:08 PM
#74
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
where have i claimed you didn't use the word "pure"?
read my stuff properly!
read my stuff properly!
Originally Posted by imlach
Milo,
Yes, there is SOME chance....but I said the word "pure"
Read my stuff properly!
Yes, there is SOME chance....but I said the word "pure"
Read my stuff properly!
12 February 2004, 02:10 PM
#75
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ball is sort of flicked at speed on a banked oval in the opposite direction the wheel is spinning. It'll usually be on the oval for a few seconds before dropping onto the wheel. Its is utterly random
Of course everything I've been talking about is online so an algorythm (sp?) probably chucks the ball
Of course everything I've been talking about is online so an algorythm (sp?) probably chucks the ball
12 February 2004, 02:11 PM
#77
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Saxo Boy
Of course everything I've been talking about is online so an algorythm (sp?) probably chucks the ball
12 February 2004, 02:15 PM
#78
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Milo, have you ever replied without feeling the need to use the quote function?
Gotta be honest, i find it looks a little patronising. Is it necessary *every* time?
Gotta be honest, i find it looks a little patronising. Is it necessary *every* time?
12 February 2004, 02:17 PM
#79
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this is of course another issue... how good are software algorithms at truely generating random numbers (answer: not very)
Milo usually quotes to show you what post he is refering to
12 February 2004, 02:17 PM
#80
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: None of your business.
Posts: 11,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, if it is flicked in by someone, or the wheel is spun by someone physically, your stats etc must all be out!
I know, randomness, but surely, for all the mathematics to work out right, each occurance MUST be under the same conditions. Ball thrown at exactly the same velocity, angle, wheel spin etc. each time?? Know what I mean? I have 
myself
I know, randomness, but surely, for all the mathematics to work out right, each occurance MUST be under the same conditions. Ball thrown at exactly the same velocity, angle, wheel spin etc. each time?? Know what I mean?
I have myself
12 February 2004, 02:18 PM
#81
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: London
Posts: 4,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SB - i can see the logic in it, but another part of me says that it can't work for the reasons that Old_Fart and Imlach have given.
i realise that odds given by bookies do not necessarily reflect the actual chance of something happening, but, to use my example, if you randomly selected 3-1 nags, increasing your stake to compenstae for losses, sooner or later you would get a win and be ahead overall. you could then start the cycle again. AFAICS this is essentialy the same argument as you are applying to the roulette wheel.
i realise that odds given by bookies do not necessarily reflect the actual chance of something happening, but, to use my example, if you randomly selected 3-1 nags, increasing your stake to compenstae for losses, sooner or later you would get a win and be ahead overall. you could then start the cycle again. AFAICS this is essentialy the same argument as you are applying to the roulette wheel.
12 February 2004, 02:20 PM
#84
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The wheel spins at a constant rate all the time. When the dealer put the ball in his speed, the position of the ball relative to the numbers, etc will all be different everytime hence totally random. If we therefore know that whatever the ball lands in is a random occurance we can look at the pure maths of how many of those numbers would be a winner for your given bet and how many would be a loser
12 February 2004, 02:22 PM
#86
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TelBoy
Milo, have you ever replied without feeling the need to use the quote function?
replies like "i disagree" without the context of a quote sometimes lead me to wonder who's disagreeing with what.
sorry to patronise
12 February 2004, 02:23 PM
#87
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SB - i can see the logic in it, but another part of me says that it can't work for the reasons that Old_Fart and Imlach have given.
12 February 2004, 02:25 PM
#88
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Saxo Boy
Fair point - would such inaccuracy work in your favour or the house??
I was playing for fun the other day when zero came up 3 times out of 5 spins
12 February 2004, 02:26 PM
#89
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by eClaire
I know, randomness, but surely, for all the mathematics to work out right, each occurance MUST be under the same conditions. Ball thrown at exactly the same velocity, angle, wheel spin etc. each time??
it doesnt matter how hard you flip it... there's still a 50% chance it will be heads.
likewise with roulette... there's still a 13/37 chance saxo will lose however the ball is thrown.
12 February 2004, 02:30 PM
#90
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ProperCharlie
if you randomly selected 3-1 nags, increasing your stake to compenstae for losses, sooner or later you would get a win and be ahead overall. you could then start the cycle again.
the problem with your way is the 3-1 odds on a horse is not necessarily it's chances to win (as you've said).. it could well only have a 1 in a million chance to win and the bookies have put it at 3-1 because someone's placed a huge bet on it... so they're in effect hedging their bets.
so yes, you will win eventually... but if you're unlucky enough to pick all horses that only have 1:1000 chance to win, despite being 3-1, you'll be doubling up and betting millions of pounds on each race before ever getting a winner.