The Law of Averages
Before I get in to this I shall just make clear my level of education regarding
maths, and how that effects what I say. I have passed maths up to A-Level
standard. I have worked with statistics to a high enough level to be able to in
some ways analyze these systems.
The systems claim to take what the Law of Averages says (about probability) and
turn it in your favour...
For example, imagine a coin that is so thin it can only land on heads or tails
(it can never, unlikely as it may be, land on its side), it is perfectly
balanced and weighted so that it has an equal chance (ignoring all external
interferences like wind/air/or the way it is flipped) of landing on heads or
tails.
This means it has a 50% chance of each, so in theory if you flip it 1000 times,
500 of those times it will land on heads and 500 times it will land on tails.
This is what the Law of Averages says (and it is in theory, true).
Now with the pairs (black/red) system, it has been thought of almost like a coin
toss, however there's two things they don't factor in (because they can't be
accounted for):
Firstly - there are black numbers, red numbers and...a green number! Otherwise
known as the 0. Meaning your chances of getting red or black are not 50:50, and
there are 3 results relating to whether you win or not, not two.
This applies to odd/even or high/low too because green doesn't count as odd,
even, high, low, red or black!
You
have a 1/37 chance of getting green, 18/37 chance of getting a black and 18/37
chance of getting a red.
In terms of percentages this is roughly 2.8% chance of green, 48.6% chance of
getting a red and 48.6% chance of getting a black. This puts the odds slightly
against you already.
Secondly - the various systems I have read about suggest that the programmers
of the RNG (random number generators) built in methods to make the numbers
appear more random, and they claim this is why you will never get a streak of
lots of reds or blacks because it doesn't appear random. The green is good for
breaking up long streak without letting the user of the system win! Now the Law of Averages doesn't say
it will consistently alternate, it just means over time it will even out again.
Take this list of results:
R B R B
R R
R R G
R R
R B R R B R B B B
R B B B R B
B B B R B B R B B
R R
There are 18 blacks in that sequence, 18 reds and 1 green. In theory in 37 spins
you should get that many of each, but it probably doesn't happen, in time and
enough spins it should even out. When my software tested the casinos the results
weren't evenly distributed at first, thered be lots of one and not many of the
other, but over time they equalled out.
If I did say 370 spins and wrote out a pattern, as shown above, it would be
easy to slip in a streak of 20 or 30 where a colour doesn't appear and still
make it look random, and which would still have final results that fit with the
Law of Averages.
The RNGs are tested and certified, which means over time they give the correct
diverse range of results (within a certain tolerance). I suspect that they're
programmed to produce the occasional long sequence to clean out people using a
system, but then even it back out over time (possibly by doing an equally long,
opposite squence). Note, in my sequence above there is
a streak of 8 (underlined) where a Black does not show up.
The H/M/L system relies on the Law of Averages in the wrong way too, because you
can get a very diverse range of numbers and colours without them falling in a
specific group, and once again, a 0 doesn't correspond with any group.
My software logged how many times each length streak occurred, and the
results (which I haven't proven to fit the Law of Averages, but I suspect they
will) are as follows, say we do x spins these are the results:
1: 4096
2: 2048
3: 1024
4: 512
5: 256
6: 128
7: 64
8: 32
9: 16
10: 8
11: 4
12: 2
13: 1
Notice that every streak happens half as often as the one before it. So if you
change the period and make it longer you lose less often, but you also win less
often so are pretty much getting nowhere, or more likely you are making a loss.
This is because the short streaks come up often, but then the odd few long ones
get thrown in that don't follow the pattern. On one test I got streaks up to 11,
following the halfing pattern, then a 14, 15, 16, and 21! Had the ones after not
come up I probably would've broken even.
Finally, a computer generated number (and I believe nothing) is purely random,
there are all sorts of influencing factors, the a computer uses mathematical procedures
to generate a 'random' number, but it has to start with something, and it can't
just pull a random number out of thin air so it uses the system timer or some
continually changing number. But as this number changes over time you get the
number generated because of when you clicked spin, however it's such a rapidly
changing timer that you couldn't just click at a specific time to get a specific
number because it changes millions of times per second, so the odds of clicking
at the right time are small enough as it is, but when you add in network and
electronic signal delays and interference you have to conclude that it cannot be
predicted or cheated.
Overall you cannot rely on the Law of Averages or try to use what it suggests in
your favour because the Law of Averages is merely theory, it doesn't mean the results
will always turn out like they should.
If anyone is an expert any of the topics covered on this page please feel free
to contact me, especially if I have made any mistakes or omitted any important
information.
|
Page last updated
01/09/2009 10:36:56 UTC.
|
|