Roulette I've seen a new absurd claim that the gambler's fallacy isn't.....

Just out of curiosity .. Let's say we take EC, Laboucherre, & various 9s degrees of certainty into the equation. By binomial distribution; which intervals of spins would ≈ensure getting a ⅓ of outcomes within an x interval of spins, presented in tiers of ≈certainty.

99.9
99.99 -- x amount of spins for each -- ⅓ of outcome
99.999
etc.

y = ? -- 210 spins -- 70 outcomes


This would give another CONSTANT of max interval of spins, or a template to work within.

 

This would, in addition to the probability constant, constitute another CONSTANT of max interval of spins, or a =TEMPLATE to work within. ← & Enclose the Universe within, & you control the Universe. (albeit not all of it aspects, then again not required to).

 

You are saying the probability changes and pockets magically disappear. I have clearly stated probability does not and cannot change.

Even when written in concise dot points as CRITIICAL assumptions you still choose not to read what has been explained and can be verified in any math text, even your cut and past by your very own self from Wikipedia explains it painfully clearly.

Answer me this:

1. Is it more likely to get 1 million reds in a million spins or more likely to get roughly 500 million?
2. Is is more likely to get 50 thousand reds in a 50 thousand spins or is it more likely to get roughly 25 thousand?
3. Is it more likely to get 1000 reds in 1000 spins or is it more likely to get roughly 500 give or take a hundred?

If you chose the later in the above questions then congratulations, you are on your way to understanding what a probability distribution is and how expectations are bounded by a confidence interval based on nothing but the definition of probability itself.

You will of course understand that no gamblers fallacy can in principle apply because the probability distribution itself defines exactly what normal is and is the ruler for measuring what to expect, which is "the probability of the number of occurances of an event over a set of independent trials".

There is not much more sir-anyone-splaining I can do. You can choose to cling to your math-isms or you could actually take the time to properly understand the math and use it as a tool instead of being a tool with disappearing magic pocket nonsense and jester pictures.

Has anyone mentioned, hmm how do I put this, I only say this because I care. Well, best to say it plainly, I have noticed from your posts that you are showing all the signs of wizard forum induced cognitive disfunction. Sadly I'm not aware of any cure.

 

Liked. (I have no like button).

 

99.9997% (5 nines and will fail 1 in 387,476 times)

If you increase minimum expected outcomes to 80 in 210 spins you reduce the certainly to 99.9% and a failure rate of 1 in 1206 times so I think best to stick with 70.

You could use a smaller number of trails such as 40/120 and that has a 99.975% probability and failure rate of 1 in 4057. As you can see the more we reduce the trials the less certainty we get, but it can still be enough to multiply the bankroll.

Yes, exactly. It's a worst case with a precise rate of failure that you can still Bild a staking plan around. The certainty is large enough as there is a good chance to make many times the bankroll before it fails.

A labby is able to work with a 1/3 win rate and I've laid out the parameters of 70/210 and 40/120 which is 1/3 density of wins vs losses with a defined certainty.

There are other staking methods as well that can work within these parameters.

 

I've always found it interesting that in the past I used to preach "Random has limits" and took
grief for it every time.
The people who rant against systems and methods always point to "anything is possible" but they
never stop to think that what they are suggesting would in itself not be "random".
They can say "a dozen can repeat for 100 spins" as if that's what random does.
Or - "The fact that there were no hits on dozen 1 for 20 spins doesn't mean it's "due" nonsense.
It can't continue on not showing. When that happens we are no longer dealing with a random outcome.
With "random" there are limits. When limits are introduced then we have a predictable outcome.
Random can be predictable and has been demonstrated in the past and I'll continue to show it.
I've always told people that random is contained. It's even demonstrated on any chart you make.
RX does it as well in the "wheel statistics" section.


Now they want to argue that down there near the center circle there "could" be a dot.
Or somewhere outside of the other dots... but no.
We have a green circle showing the mean/average and those "RANDOM" outcomes
stay around it. Some go hot and some stay cold but they all are contained within the
limits of random. If they are not - like the creator of the thread implies happens -
then it is no longer RANDOM.
You can of course say this until you are blue in the face and it won't matter.
I would say #6 and #36 are due - wouldn't anyone using logic and their eyes agree ?
#16 and #30 on the other hand are above expected and someone should have already
made a profit playing them.

 

So I run off 37 spins. (should I predict 24 numbers will appear ? nah)

26 numbers spun (how was I so close Sir Anyone ?) Time machine !

Now I have 11 numbers that are due. Imagine that. As they appear I'll play them.

In only 6 spins, a number appeared and then showed a second time and I won on it. (amazing, right ?)

Now on spin 74 I'm down to 6 numbers. 5 of the initial group won twice in one cycle and...
"caught up". Strange, right ?
So I have 3 numbers that have yet to show and 3 numbers that have shown once.

Now at spin 111 I'm down to 3 numbers ! 3 of them from the last group "caught up".
I have 3 numbers left, all of them have appeared twice but not 3 times... Onward.

Now at spin 148 I'm down to 2 numbers ! 1 of them from the last group "caught up".

It's almost like there is some math calculation that shows why this happens and gives
such predictable results..... but that would be a fallacy.. shame. If it wasn't for that
fallacy this game would be so predictable.
I guess the 355 units of profit aren't mine, it was just all luck.
Or someone took some pockets off of the wheel when I wasn't looking.....
Or.... by waiting 1 cycle before I started and playing the sleepers as they showed up changed the math into my favor. Nah...

 

In RS 1/18 being a pretty common occurrence. I wonder which exact prng is in use by'em, anyone?

 

It would be amazing if this probability math stuff was used to predict outcomes and tolerances for quality assurance.

Imagine you could actually sample products in food processing plants to make sure they are safe for consumption and actually predict within a defined confidence interval that the sample is representative of the entire batch to parts per million.

I can see Sir Anyone standing there with his dissenting frown and jester cards in his back pocket advising management at the match factory saying "well you never know, the little leprechauns may have meddled with the watch-a-ma-call-it when you weren't looking and we must test every match just to be sure."

"But why, surely we can just test a sample and get some degree of confidence?" asks management. Sir anyone replies like a parent talking to a child."Oh no you're gravely mistaken, that's fallacy and a fool's errand, you can't predict the future with probability, and those magic leprechauns running around in the springenworks. Here's a jester card for being so foolish and some stuff you can read from Wikipedia".

 

ROFL

I heard he lost a job as a snow shovel salesman in the Sahara desert.
He was sure there was a 0.0000001% chance of snow. Shame.
They'll be the fools though when it does happen....this much is true.

 

Sir Anyone's fallacy repetition is disconnected to TwoUp's explanation of binomial distribution. TwoUp's explanation is simply the math of binomial distribution which Sir Anyone does not have a proper grasp of this subject.

Sir Anyone's error is in his first post that I highlighted earlier. It's hard on him to admit his mistake.

 

This binomial distribution for roulette outcomes is derived from 37pockets European wheel and 38pockets American wheel.

We can deduce probability, likelihood and other analysis from this distribution.

 

For those unfortunate to only have double zero wheels I provide some comparison below.

For 40 EC wins or more in 120 spins, a double zero wheel will fail 1 in 1489 times vs 1 in 4057 for a single zero wheel.

For a 70 EC wins or more in 210 spins, a double zero wheel will fail 1 in 71,906 times vs 1 in 387,476 for a single zero wheel.

That extra zero makes a HUGE difference in the degree of certainty.

 

all those naysayers keep looking into the sunlight with no glasses on, they were blinded and remain blinded until they put on sun glasses. a shame, this game is so easy once you you understand random.

 

... It's so difficult to lose.

To complete your sentence.

 

Like i said before, if you don't know how random works, you won't win in the long run.
every number will try to balance over time, also said it before. Every number no matter how long it takes will reach his 1/37 FACT!!!
Everyone who will say this isn't true then they need to play bacarat instead.
But everyone who says this isn't true, are the ones who don't take the time to test it for themselfs.

 

example...
if we would play everyone number for 35 spins, (never play more spins then the payout!) what will always happen?

Cycle 1.
you will see something like this...

 

In the above example after 35 spins you will have on average 24 numbers out, in this case 21 numbers have made their 1/35 appereance as they should.

 

In the next 35 spins (cycle 2 35-70)
25 numbers out of the 37 have reached their 1/35)

 

and so on.......