1. Welcome to the #1 Gambling Community with the best minds across the entire gambling spectrum. REGISTER NOW!
  2. Have a gambling question?

    Post it here and our gambling experts will answer it!
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Discussions in this section are assumed to be EV- as they are outside of the Advantage Play section. For EV+ discussions, please visit the Advantage Play section.
    Dismiss Notice

TurboGenius Law of Thirds.....

Discussion in 'TurboGenius's Forum' started by TurboGenius, Nov 8, 2020.

  1. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,794
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    There are so many names and twists of this title being used, take your pick.

    I'll try not to. No promises.

    First I'll ask that you collect data.
    For the sake of this explanation - make it "3 of something".
    Only then will it make much more sense.
    We can of course cut up the table into lots of sections of 3, or 3 groups of numbers...
    For this example - to make it the easiest to demonstrate, I'll just use dozens.

    It's also commonly said here that "It doesn't matter what you bet, it's always the same chance of winning" or "the math never changes from one spin to another - every spin is a random event !" So fine,
    we can disprove that with little-to-no work at all, and everyone can replicate the exact same results.

    Dozen 1, Dozen 2, Dozen 3 all have the same chance of appearing, we can all agree.
    They have roughly a 1 in 3 chance of appearing... or do they ?

    Now here is the data when you record the first of the 3 to show, the 2nd of the 3 to show and the 3rd of the 3 to show.
    To the math people who make the quotes above, it's 1 in 3 odds of any of them appearing every spin - but it isn't as you can clearly see.
    I posted a chart just like this one on the forum, but I'll completely redo it here with new spins - the results will be exactly the same regardless.

    Dozens.png

    So, as I've always said when it comes to 3 random things happening....
    1 will always appear below expected, 1 will appear right around the expected number
    of spins - and 1 will appear beyond what's "expected". This once again proves it.
    And yes, on the other topic of horse races with random outcomes (analogy) the same
    applies of course.

    So our first result happens on average on spin 1.03 (not spin #1 due to the zero)
    our second result happens on average on spin 2.83 (or at 1 in 3 as expected rounded)
    and our third result happens on average on spin 5.46 (NOT on spin 3).
    The last location NEVER will average 1 in 3 even though the people making those quotes
    will tell you that it's odds of appearing are 1 in 3. 5.46 is not 3.

    So "repeaters" again, of course are what is happening and repeaters are how we win.

    Now using logic - look at the chart above and think about how you would play this
    in order to win.
    Well, you would need to pick a third of something on the table (various ways to do that)
    and then plan your strategy.
    The first outcome is more or less unpredictable - with no data we have to assume any of the
    three could appear.
    Now which is more likely to happen ? The same location repeating or one of the other two ?
    The data says that the 2nd location (or a new one for instance) will happen on spin 2.83 and
    not on spin #2.
    Now if a second location appears - which is more likely to happen ? A repeat of one of these
    two that have appeared, or the third location ? The data shows that the third and last location won't
    appear until spin 5.46 !!
    Is it still 1 in 3 odds for each location ? No.
    You can work your method around this info - but remember, betting on two of something
    that loses means you lose 2 units. It's not as simple as just waiting for 2 spins and then betting
    on the two that have already appeared. (or is it).

    Thanks for reading, more to come on this topic and others that are in the works.
    And yes, there will be horses, the Wright Brothers, and Einstein no doubt.

    If anyone who makes these quotes about 1 in 3 would like to dispute this data - please run
    your own spins and show the averages being 1 in 3 for each location. That will be an impossible
    task but feel free to try.
     
    Smitridel, Platton, Bitrock06 and 2 others like this.
  2. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,794
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    Another example would be to take a single street -
    #1, #2 and #3 in a single street.
    When the street appears, do they all have a 1 in 3 change of appearing
    after you begin taking data ? "They" are going to say "yes".. so let's see.

    Here's my quick runoff of spins as I make this post...

    1...2...1 repeat
    3...1...2 all 3
    3...1...3 repeat
    2...3...3 repeat
    2...3...1 all 3
    2...2 repeat
    2...3...2 repeat
    1...1 repeat
    1...2...1 repeat
    3...3 repeat
    3...3 repeat
    3...3 repeat
    3...1...1 all 3
    1...3...3 repeat
    2...3...3 repeat
    2...1...3 all 3
    1...2...3 all 3
    3...3 repeat
    2...3...1 all 3
    2...1...1 repeat
    3...1...2 all 3
    2...3...1 all 3
    1...2...1 repeat
    3...2...1 all 3
    3...2...3 repeat

    25 samples over 833 spins

    24% of the time the first result repeats and ends the test
    40% of the time one of the first two repeats and ends the test
    so
    64% of the time the first or second repeats and ends the test
    36% of the time all 3 individual numbers appear.

    Over a longer sample this would end up around 66% vs 33%

    And no, it's not valid to say "well, you're betting on 2 locations out of 3 so of course it's going
    to win 66% of the time" - because..... we are winning on a single number of the 3 possible - 24% of
    the time (and that is betting 1 number out of 3, not 2 numbers out of 3)

    Just pointing that out because that reply is coming...

    I pointed out in the other thread how playing 2 streets in a dozen of 4 possible streets
    does NOT win 50% of the time, but instead 66% of the time due to the wins when playing
    only 1 street that repeats before a second playing location happens.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2020
    Wolfie likes this.
  3. Bago

    Bago Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2017
    Likes:
    326
    Location:
    Mars
    You've already done this with straight numbers. Of course, AFTERWARDS of a definite session, there are always numbers showing above expectation, some at expectation and some below expectation. This is what is known as hot and cold numbers and they are shown on the number display board next to each wheels in Casinos. And your conclusion is to play hot sections/numbers because for you they have better odds to show on the next spin. WRONG.

    The exercise to do is not what you are advising to do, which is doing the weather of the day before. Instead, to realise if the odds change, you just record 100 consecutive spins of red/black for instance, and on spin 101 you record the result when it was red leading during the 100 recorded spins, and the same for the session when black was leading. Red and Black will show equal on the 101st spin, whatever colour was leading in the previous 100 spins.

    I am shocked we are still debating on those old stuff which are proven to be fallacies since centuries!. Geez.
     
  4. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,794
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    It is clearly about future spins. The data can be reproduced yourself.

    So your point is - that Dozen 1 appears, Dozen 2 appears - at this point you still believe that Dozen 3 has a 1 in 3 change of being the next spin ?
    The last location takes 5.46 spins to appear on average.....
    This was the easiest way to explain it and show it - but you are still going to tell us it's "1 in 3" just like when the session started ?
    If so, I'm not sure what simpler of an example is required to prove it.
    For the second example - number 1 appears and then number 2 - as a player betting on current and future spins....
    you would believe that number 3 has equally the chance of appearing as 1 or 2 ? I've proven this isn't the case and
    you can prove it to yourself as well.
     
    mr j likes this.
  5. Bago

    Bago Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2017
    Likes:
    326
    Location:
    Mars
    You don't want to admit that Roulette is an independant event game. Therefore, all your calculations are wrong because Roulette is not a "session" probability event game, it is a fallacy because a session is different for everybody, depending how many spins you are looking back.

    There is no advantage in chasing repeaters, we've already demonstrated betting on numbers as they appear like you suggested, after that you claimed it is because it needed an aggressive progression, we know how it ended, Elvis can tell you lol.
    Now here we go again but with Dozens, but the same principle applies, according to you, we should win by betting on the Dozens that appeared and avoiding betting on the cold one. Anybody, even newbies, have already tested this, it does show a beautiful bankroll downhill trend in the long run, so please show evidence how you get an edge, magical progression maybe?
     
    Nathan Detroit likes this.
  6. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,794
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    I've cleaned the thread up, posts were moved and not deleted.

    Again, if you are going to say that there is no advantage then show your examples.
    I have specifically shown that repeaters throw off the "1 in 3" odds of a location showing because the
    chances of the second and the third location are no longer 1 in 3 - This is the simplest way to demonstrate
    how repeaters can give the advantage to the player and follows what this thread is about.

    When it's proven that a location shows on average once every 5.46 spins, and you want to argue
    that it's really once every 3 spins - then I'm all ears.
     
    Platton and mr j like this.
  7. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,794
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    To prove this, you would have to explain some things.

    For example, the fist spin is Dozen 1
    Now, at this point - 1 spin has gone by, correct.
    On average - the other two locations have 2 spins now to appear (to keep it 1 in 3 as you said is the case)
    A second spin happens and Dozen 2 appears - now 2 spins have gone by.
    On average then - the last spin would be "most of the time" Dozen 3.
    Then all 3 kept the "1 in 3" chances rule.
    So then what happens when we test this ?

    [​IMG]

    Nope.

    This is where your mental roadblock might be - yes, each spin is independent from the one before it.
    Yes, each "session" of spins is independent from the session before it - no one argues that do they ?

    But once a session (more than 1 spin) begins - the future spins aren't going to follow along with that 1 in 3 average
    you are holding out for a single spin.

    But that is correct - and it's explained right above this quote.
    A number that hasn't appeared yet does NOT have the same chances of appearing as one that already has.
    As a matter of fact - any number that hasn't appeared has a chance of being invisible for 200,300,400 spins into
    the future. (no time machine needed is there ?) And you can't win by playing a number that doesn't win for hundreds of
    spins can you ?
     

  8. mr j

    mr j Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Likes:
    1,809
    Occupation:
    self employed
    Location:
    Milwaukee, WIS
    All good info AS USUAL Turbo, thanks.

    Ken
     
    TurboGenius likes this.
  9. Luckyfella

    Luckyfella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2020
    Likes:
    288
    Location:
    Japan
    This short and simple thread is the most important for all forums combined.

    Check out Galton probability.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2020
    TurboGenius likes this.
  10. Bago

    Bago Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2017
    Likes:
    326
    Location:
    Mars
    You are playing 2 dozens (24 numbers) in your playing session so it is not a surprise that you have a better probability to hit the winning number, but the payout is 1 unit net, and when you lose, the dozen you didn't cover hit, you lose 2 units net. And when zero/00 hits you lose 2 units too. There is no advantage whatsoever.


    Noone debates there are hot numbers and cold numbers, but again you can't predict which numbers will be hot and remain hot, and which numbers will be cold and remain cold. The first number that appears during your playing session can be the next 400 spins sleeper, and the coldest number in your playing session can become the next hottest number with a 4 winning streak !

    Your problem is you are looking backwards the results, as if you were able to REPLAY the session, knowing which numbers will hit above expectations and which won't, but DURING the playing session, you don't know how numbers will "behave". You will probably tell me again horse racing, n°1 is leading with X hits, so for you the odds for this number change, but it does not (of course) 1/37 even if it hits 15 times more than the coldest number.

    I can't do anything more if you don't understand, I believe you don't want to understand because I know you have extensively tested all your ideas either on RX or RouletteSimulator, and you know you crashed all your accounts, you even questionned the fairness of RS RNG because you could not win...
     
  11. Gigi666

    Gigi666 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2020
    Likes:
    153
    Location:
    Europe
    I ran simple test like you did for street (1-3), picked a random session I had saved, 356 spins that street shows 28 times so very close to mean value.

    upload_2020-11-15_12-16-25.png

    Smaller sample than yours, but yeah we got pretty much same stats
    -20% first number will repeat
    -70% first or 2nd number will repeat
    -30% that all 3 will show

    My question is SO WHAT, WHERE IS THE ADVANTAGE? as Balance shows betting flat waiting for a repeat gives absolutely no advantage. 5 of 10 "runs/races" give small profit, but there is no progression that can turn this whole session into profit.
    Similarly I can't see (and believe I tried a lot of things) how single number repeats in "races" as you described in previous posts can give a solid working method of play.
     
  12. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,794
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    You have to look at what is the most likely event to happen based on your test results and then bet on it to happen.
    There are tons of ways to do this with various approaches, but always use what you know is the most likely to happen.
    Sorry for the "generic" reply, but you will work it out.
     
    mr j likes this.
  13. Gigi666

    Gigi666 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2020
    Likes:
    153
    Location:
    Europe
    Most likely (70%) is that 1st or 2nd number will repeat, but as shown in my example betting from the time the 1st number shows, will lose a lot (-164u). Other option is to start betting only after two numbers show, so in my case it happens 8 times with 5 times (62%) a repeat happening before last number shows. Betting on this flat also produces a negative result although bit better (-94u). If we assume since betting a STREET expected hit should come within 12 spins from when 2nd number shows, I can improve the bankroll a bit getting +16u.
    Further "backfitting" shows that 50% of the times that we already have 2 numbers from that street the 1st number will hit, if I bet on it for 12 spins the final balance shows +42u.
    Unfortunately your longer test run shows only 31% of the time 1st number will hit after 2nd one shown, so that positive balance of +42u is just luck.
    If looking at it in reverse, most likely event would be that after 1st number shows the next one will not be a repeat with 80% (in your example 76%), but that also fails to produce a profit.

    I am sorry Turbo, I am really trying to "see the light", but I am not seeing a clear way of benefiting from the most likely EVENT to happen, unless of course I am looking at it wrong :/
     
    Smitridel likes this.
  14. Luckyfella

    Luckyfella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2020
    Likes:
    288
    Location:
    Japan
    Take advantage of this fact. All I did from here is to remodel this into a 50/50 bet.
    Event1 happen more often than event2
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2020

  15. Smitridel

    Smitridel Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2019
    Likes:
    134
    Location:
    Greece
    Great post. And great in depth testing.
    I've also come to the same conclusions as yours unfortunately.

    All in all Turbo, your threads are inspiring and they describe events that DO happen in a session, but in the end variance will find a way to make it unprofitable.

    That said, the most likely event is indeed the 1 and 2 number from a street chances combined, but in real terms you will have to make profit in maximum 17 spins(if in ghe course you add the second number).

    So gaps again.
    Its all about the distance between repeaters.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2020
  16. Gigi666

    Gigi666 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2020
    Likes:
    153
    Location:
    Europe
    How do you remodel this into 50/50?
    I can bet after first number shows on other 2 until the next one shows, but it requires progression. So unless you write down a progression needed for example for 100u total and at each spin your stakes are equal to amount that gives you minimum 100u, I dont see how to make it 50/50. Plus you'd need then a spin count you stop at if that street sleeps for a long time (46 was the longest in my example).

    Another question would be, then why wait for a repeat to start a new "run"? You could bet against "2" from spin 10 and when "3" hits on spin 24 reset already and wait for next number to hit from that street or even use "3" as 1st number now etc.

    I just tried approach that after 2nd hit on that street (so we either had repeat and lost or had other number and won) that we reset and wait for next show. Increasing stake every 8 spins if no hit, got me 312 u profit with lowest balance -126u. Of course that could be again "backfitting" a method to get good results.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2020
  17. Luckyfella

    Luckyfella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2020
    Likes:
    288
    Location:
    Japan
    The answer lies in the microstate applying the same principle.
     
  18. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,794
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    mr j likes this.
  19. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,794
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    This is a blatant lie - not to mention that I'm still in first place.

    Yes, I do question the RNG being used - as have many others I've talked to.
    Seeing things happen that Do not happen with other types of simulators and testing tools.
    One of which being 28 spins in a row without a repeat, and of course none of the numbers I was playing appeared.
    Somehow I managed the millions to 1 chance of picking the exact numbers that didn't appear over all those spins. Amazing.
    I've also recorded every spin that I've played there and entered them into RX which kindly gives a Wheel analysis - showing either a
    pass of fail result (which would of course be for a roulette wheel and not RNG) and after thousands of entered spins I
    still had a "Fail" result. Hence the spins I was being given by the site's RNG was not actually "Random". And yes, I know that
    RNG can produce a failed chi-square test result but it is uncommonly rare over that many spins - again - I was the lucky one
    who somehow managed to experience it. For entertainment purposes I would say it's fine. To prove or disprove something that
    works or doesn't work, then no. If it were live spins and failed the test - the fairness of the wheel would be in question, and a
    RNG that produces a fail result has to bring into question if it's giving truly random results, or if it's giving results based on
    what the player has bet. I believe my questioning of it's fairness is completely understandable.
     
    VeeDeeVee and mr j like this.
  20. Gigi666

    Gigi666 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2020
    Likes:
    153
    Location:
    Europe
    Thanks Turbo, but playing for first number in a street to repeat isn't the most likely EVENT as far as the % shows from tests. Plus the drawdowns are quite big as compared to potential gains from single session. Although little by little it sums up nicely so far for you.
     

Share This Page