TurboGenius Gambler's Fallacy (absurd ?) Proof.

I did a sample already and can do others.
The 3 coldest numbers from the first sample outperform expected and the 3 hottest from the first sample underperform as "expected"

 

So have I, and both samples performed the same. Meaning it didn't matter if the numbers were hot or cold, they both had the same chances of winning. The differences are my samples are much larger than you puny trials, and I don't curve fit the results.

 

If the coldest remain coldest and the hottest remain hottest since their chances are the same in the larger sample non-curve fitted result, then is 1/37 a fallacy?

 

So today's end of day(large sample) max sleeper at 1/200 rate head towards 1/37 at the same rate as a random number at 1/37 today head towards 1/37(remained at 1/37) tomorrow.

Wow, interesting math and logic.
I didn't know that.
Or perhaps you need a larger law of large numbers.

 

Hi turbo, I have take your spins and after 74 spins i have played the coldest numbers, by my chart in the first 20-30 spins isn't like your chart.

Could you explain yours bets in the first spins?

Thanks in advance!!

 

It's really simple. Every number has a 1/37 chance. Numbers "in the lead" can suddenly sleep for no apparent reason, so picking the current leaders is no guarantee of anything. System addicts just can't or don't want to accept that not everything follows a pattern. If you need a reliable pattern you have to step outside the system box and embrace AP -- cause and effect.

 

What is AP please?

 

Could be wrong about the exact intention, but it seems to me you are curve-fitting

since you await that all hit 1/37, or set the test thereupon now having more experience & figured where/when out

 

The problem with MJ is two-fold

either he focuses on one spin basis
or he focuses on one number over many spins basis

but he doesn't know (or is not willing to) to work with averages in his favor
amount of spins &or numbers

he always applies averages through the above lens, turning the ocular around & keep flipping it
never seeming to be able to twist & turn the mind out of by now firmed/cemented views
merging'em in unison into something anew, transcending the self-imposed limitations

the trouble of 'learning' that something is impossible & minds-alike peer-pressure effect

 

15 min. at the table, stand up, give the dealer a big smile grap your jacket and go home. 10 min drive and home again, with another 600€ in my pocket. Not a bad night at all, lol.
Law if the large numbers my ass.
this is how it goes for the last 2.5 years. not ever been there for mor then 3 hours straight. As soon as i have reached my first profit or two, i'm off.

 

If numbers "in the lead(hottest)" can suddenly sleep for no apparent reason then their rate of approaching 1/37 cannot be the same as a random selected number that you wrote earlier.

So which is correct?

 

Luckyfella,

Why would a hot number be more likely to hit than a cold number?

 

I know I did not write that bolded.

You have to pose that question to the member who wrote that, Gizmo?

I have a question for you too.

If you claim the chance of a hot, cold and random selected number have equal chances of winning.

Then you are claiming that the hottest and coldest remain hottest and coldest. Since their chance of winning is the same.

Which of these 2 bolded statements is correct?

 

A hot number can turn suddenly cold, and not hit for 400 spins, or even longer sometimes. Sometimes a hot number can remain hot.

A cold number can suddenly turn hot, or remain cold for an extended period.

Why should it be any different?

How do past spins influence future spins?

 

No matter what the extended period is, do you agree that all numbers converge to the hit rate of 1/37?

Therefore their rate of converging towards 1/37 cannot be the same.

Or are you claiming the hit rate of 1/37 a fallacy?

Asking you for the umpteenth time.

 

Over large samples of spins, the hit rate of numbers will approach 1 in 38 on the double zero wheel.

Here's an example.

Over 200 spins, the number 1 hits only two times. The hit rate is 1 in 200
Moving forward, over the next 2000 spins, the number 1 hits 52 times. The hit rate during these 2000 spins was 1 in 38.46

Combining both samples, the number 1 has hit 53 times in 2,200 spins and the hit rate is 1 in 41.51

As you can see, a number doesn't have to hit above expectation in order for the hit rate to improve. We should always expect a number to hit at expectation moving forward, which simply isn't enough to win.

 

I ask you for the umpteenth time no matter how you extend the sample size,

Will 1/41.51 converge towards 1/37?

Or somehow your crystal ball told you it won't converge towards 1/37?

Or 1/37 a fallacy?

 

Lucyfella,

I'm sorry if you weren't able to comprehend what I have written. Perhaps I could attempt to explain it to you using smaller words, shorter sentences, or maybe you could have an adult at home explain it to you?

 

The point is you have not answered my question with a simple yes or no.

There is a correct way to answer my question but,

Both you and MJ have given wrong answers.

 

Why is it the less someone knows about probability, math, and the history of the game, the more certain they are that all of the experts, mathematicians, and history are all wrong?