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

They usually play their systems hour after hour on paper. On paper they can look forwards and backwards in time while playing with an unlimited bankroll, unknowingly cheating/curve fitting their results. Such testing leads to results that just don't hold up in the real world for them.

 

No, to my comprehension -- that's one event only, the 40 appearances in 120 spins -- one calculation only with an already calculated & unchanging degree of certainty (with a near nigh possibility of failing, lesser with more 9s present after 99.x) -- & the countdown that fulfills the mentioned calculation (=minimum, could be more) in as many cases according with that already calculate the degree of certainty, & failing (could be less) as well, still in accordance with the precalculated degree of certainty! →So its in your interest to get that amount of 9s as high as possible proportionally to your staking plan eg. 70/210 or better.


There's is no 're-calculation' of probability along the way, as that recalculation applies to another set of spins -- not the original 120, but something else independent of it, although coinciding with it.

Its actually you who, perhaps yet unaware, wishes (with that doings in your example) to impose the co-dependency between those two otherwise independent sets.

 

That's why I get tired of them. Just take it to a casino and see if it works. Kablooey!

 

No, to my comprehension, both are not mutually exclusive true.
Its just a question of making use of additional intelligence gathered by spin9 vs spin1.

 

Turbo, are you saying that the chances of that 10th red is not 50/50?

 

And not a single one of you understand a probability distribution calculation and continue to confuse it with a dependent Markov chain.

Do you honestly believe that when a pharmaceutical company does a drug trial that the first 1000 results invalidate the remaining results in the drug trial?

Do you believe that the as batches of results come in they have to rebase their probability calculation on a smaller and smaller set until it all hangs.on a single batch because every previous result is now the past?

No, they collate the results just I did collating the possible sequences of events and the confidence is based on the entire sample and also on cohorts (age, sex, race, comorbidities, etc) within the entire sample. The confidence obtained in the probability adverse reactions is sufficient to project future adverse event occurances on populations of millions of people.

You then claim well that study was in the past it can't apply to future events when the drug is approved and administered to the population. Do you really think that's how probability works? Was order of events EVER a factor in the distribution calculation I showed previously?

I noticed you conveniently ignore selecting random samples from past and future events (as it does not matter) as I've explained, it all makes no difference when all you're doing in a distribution calculation is COUNTING OCCURANCES on a set of independent events with an inherent fixed probability described by a fair coin or wheel.

You can argue all you want there will be at least 40 EC occurances in any 120 spins past present or future or any random selection of past present or future events and that will hold true 4056 times for every time it fails.

If you disagree with that calculation then show your results.

If you disagree with that premise entirely then clearly I'm wasting my time with math illiterate and I'll let you all stand there in the match factory testing every match just to be sure because your philosophies imply you cannot use probability to predict anything and bell curves are a fallacy! It's all just a big mystery.

 

Just take it to a casino and put up your real money. You will be convinced the hard way.

 

Gizmo are you serious telling key board jockeys to march with money into a casino ?


Have a heart .

 

Why not? I cut my teeth on lost paychecks. Why should they get off the hook?

 

No point to repeat the history .. nothing to learn from there.

 

I'm saying that the 10th spin being red after spins 1 thru 9 were red is 1 in 1,376 as a set of 10 spins together.
If on the 9th spin of red I turn to someone and say "wow, a 10th red.. if it happens... only happens once in 1,376 tries"
I would be right. They could argue that the 10th spin is 50/50 chance of being red again. We're both right.

Why is it that we have data but ignore it ?

I see roulette simulator now has 47.8 million spins logged. Pretty impressive.
Are there limits that random had ? Yes.

So Red showing only once accounts for 26.8% of the results.
Red showing only twice accounts for 12.91% of the results. etc etc.
Red showing 10 times only account for 0.037% of the results.
The more repeats red has, the less and less likely it will continue.
It's certainly not foolish to think that as the streak gets longer, the chance of it being red
again is less and less and less likely.
I'm sure none of this matters, because someone will say "red can repeat 1,000 times in a row !"
It hasn't happened, there is a clear limit that random stays within... but they don't care about that.

 

Oh just imagine a table without limits.
You put $1.00 on #20 and POW it's #20.
Your chances of winning were 1 in 37 - congrats !
You let it ride......#20 !!!! Wow. Now you have well over 1 thousand sitting on it.
Let it ride ? Why not ? The odds are still the same right ?
No one in their right mind would say go for a third try because "the odds haven't changed".
Don't we know the math that says 2 in row being likely vs 3 in a row is a huge difference ?
How about if it wins, now you're up Huge ! Do you go for a 4th repeat ?
I bet the same amount as you that it won't be a 4th repeat and guess what... I win.
If we do this over and over, I win 36 out of 37 times. A 5th repeat ?
Hell, Sir Anyone said all the numbers can appear in order 1-37 - so 10,20 repeats of a number
are possible, right ? Every time that #20 repeats, it becomes more and more astronomically
impossible that it appears again... but nope, it's still 1 in 37 right ? Please.
RouSim has those spins (47.8 million+) and a number repeated 6 times. I find this hard
to fathom, but fine. Why not 10 times in a row ? Why not 30 times in a row with the
same number ???
Because THEN.. it would not be a random game anymore. There would clearly be a problem.
You can pretend "anything is possible" in your own mind, but "anything" isn't possible.. I'm sorry.
"Random has limits".. to pretend it doesn't and "anything" can happen is absurd.

 

If you can't see value or utility in knowing a worst case win/loss ratio of 1/3 with a precisely known failure rate of 1 in many thousands or 1 in many hundreds of thousands then that's surprising.

When you can expect at least 40 wins in 120 spins or even higher certainty with 70 wins in 210 spins there are many staking methods that can produce results within those parameters, a standard labby being an unexceptional crude example, but there are others I will not get into as then you will all be saying 1+1 doesn't equal 2.

I seriously cannot believe the cohort that can't grasp the basics of probability. So why don't you go write down every combination of outcomes up in 120 spins and count up the reds vs blacks and greens. When you deplete your life savings in pens and paper and your grandchildren's grandchildren finish the task they will have the answer. Or you can go to university and study math or just use the binomial distribution formula.

Heaven forbid I mention the unintuitive Arcsine law as it relates to random walks, that would cause spontaneous combustion because you are all absolutely correct and the benchmark texts on probability theory are all wrong.

 

Yes the probability of the streak continuing approximately halves evey single result based on the unchanging next event probability of 18/37. They say it can go on forever because it can theoretically happen in a multiverse theory of reality as our universe isn't old enough to have any probability of witnessing 1000 reds back to back yet. They worry about that and ignore the probability that their own mortality this year is roughly 1 in 120-150 depending on what first world country they live in.

And because of that they believe the probability of roughly 50/50 ECs over a large set of spins is doubtful and of course they are wrong as the casino depends on it being that way.

Despite all that the figures I have provided include all those extreme events in the failure rate including 120 blacks plus 120 zeros back to back, plus 119 blacks and 1 red and 119 zeros and 1 red and so on. They are just arguing the losing probability paths in a Markov chain, a probability which I have stated is precisely bound based on event probability and number of spins. I even showed that by writing the damn things out. They can feel vindicated that 1 in 4057 samples of 120 spins they will see less than 40 reds, we are getting and expecting exactly what probability dictates and nothing more.

 

doo doo pile

 

exactly, with every punch its more & more likely the fight is over
& with every slap less & less change bitch will argue back .. back in the days they knew very well

although some of us .. will just burn more intensely with each & everyone of them

some systems (like plants) thrive & flourish on doo doo .. making more & more of ching--ching

 

2up, Turbo, Dutch et al.: I wouldn't argue with these guys - you won't succeed. It's pretty much the same with evolution vs. creatonism or "intelligent design". Even though it has been proven a million times by countless scientists starting with Darwin that evolution exists - there is still a large precentage of the population (mostly in the US) who believes that this is all wrong and mankind and all other living things were created as they are today. This goes so far that in some US states evolution is not part of the curriculum any more. In other parts of the (2nd and 3rd) world you may well be stoned to death if you do not belive in God in its various appearances and names.

What frightens me is not whether these guys understand basic statistics or not - I couldn't care less because losing is punishment enough. It's the fact that such people with their votes decide the fate of my children and myself. Such idiots make a Trump, a Bolsonaro, an Erdogan possible.

 

there you go .. soon naysayers'll be no more

 

https://s1.gifyu.com/images/Animals_Are_Jerks_Sometimes-69c9b449f5e12019c.gif

 

Here's your big problem, as well as every other system junkie these days.

It's the spins that have yet to happen that matter, NOT what's already happened.
Again, in order to comprehend it, you need to realize that it's the number of available pockets on the wheel that determines the odds of winning, NOT past spins.

And yes, red could hit 1,000 times in a row since there exists ways in which it could happen. Think about this...every sequence of 1000 spins is an extremely rare event, since there's only ONE way in which such an exact sequence numbers could have hit.

Gambler's fallacy questions would fit nicely on certain IQ tests. It's a hurdle that's just too tall for some to overcome.