[Probability spoofing] Evo's live roulette statistics are crazy [Ikasama] Evo's live roulette statistics are unreliable

That (Ikasama) happened when the Oscar Grind method was being validated for plural bets.

Using a table like this, I verified it with a 7-point bet (7 points in the zero zone) of the Oscar grind method for 1 yen per point.It feels like the price will increase by 100 yen each time you win.

Originally, the winning percentage is around 20%, and at worst, if it converges to around 17%, it will usually be a positive balance.

I will continue, but the winning percentage does not exceed 12% and the funds are disappearing.

This is the stats for the last 50 bets, but this is the stats for the 57th bet.

It's a common misconception, but when I calculated it again, the values ​​for the last 50 times were roughly correct.
AlthoughIt seems that the numbers after the decimal point are rounded up, and if it is 9.1%, it is 10%, which is slightly different from the actual probability..

By the way, there was no history at this time.This is often the case when in doubt.

Since the history is within the range of the last XX times, it will happen that the probability increases even though it is out of play as you play.

In the table above,At the time of playing 57 times, the winning percentage is 8.6%, but the winning percentage of the last 50 times is 10%..

As a result after that, the set ended because it turned positive at the 91st time.

I think it would be nice to have a drawdown of over 700 for a profit of (about) 13 yen, but it seems to be a plus if the winning percentage is about 15%. If it didn't converge even after doing 500 times, it would have died.

So, I decided to try again with the winning percentage of the last 50 times.
The 50th 10% is the number of wins (1) from the 50st to the 5th divided by 50, so it should be correct at 10%.

Like this, the rightmost percentage is the winning percentage of the last 50 times, so it should be equal to the statistics, but if it is not wrongA slightly different result is observed, such as 12% when it is actually 14%, or 10% when it is actually less than 10%.

In conclusion, there is no rough spoofing in the statistics,It means that there are minor spoofing of 1% or less. (Including decimal point rounding up)

When this happens, other statistics are unbelievable.

In the first place, you can only see the statistics in units of 10 times. Even if you can see the statistics of 80 times and 90 times, you cannot see the statistics of 85 times and 98 times at a glance.

In other words, all you can really believe is the data you have taken.Not everything you see is real.

I would like to write an article if a more unclear event occurs in the future.

By the way, it's best to see at least 300 bettings aimed at probability convergence where the statistics are biased (not out there, the numbers are low).

Well then