TurboGenius Gambler's Fallacy (absurd ?) Proof.

Have you(SirAnyone) realised your mistakes yet?

 

LOL

Any has been pushed to the door .. & knows that answering would open the door tumbling him & MJ both .. that's why he decided to push.

 

Ok. Sorry I didn't read your mind!

 

point is and it for al lot of people it is hard to understand is that they all converge towards 1:37 but it might take a long time.

a number who is 4 hits behind so 0:148 you start betting it. 10.000 spins it is around 1:37 (average) and its 10 hits behind.

you were flatbetting it. How much did you win?

20.000 spins it 25 behind it is at 1:37 etc etc etc.

 

No argue from me here you are right, although we are not talking about a singel number but a group of numbers. The further numbers are behind the more hits they will generate in future cycles to get to their average point (not all will). But when a number hits for example for the first time at spin 120, it's already in it's fourth cycle, so still 3 hits behind. This number can only reach it's 1/37 if it hits above average in the upcoming cycles, there is no other way. So when you start betting you will notice that the gap between hits will be smaller and smaller (on average). you don't have to wait for a sleeper to reach it's balance point to make profit on that number. it ony has to perform better they 1/37 when you start betting it. Agree it can take alot of spin before you reach a profit exit point, but it always will happen. Yesterday i was playing live and was betting 11 numbers in total is until spin 105 where i had an exit point. Beacaue the sleeper came all between spin 38-74 but after spin 74 they start hitting for the second time. But i won in the end after all, only 50€+ but still.

 

Point is MJ is wrong to write that bolded statement. I pointed it out. You are in agreement with MJ, so you are also wrong together with SirAnyone who wrote the same thing. All 3 of you are wrong. Yet you continue to insist otherwise while all 3 of you have ignored my simple question.

 

We've had enough talk, let's see some data. Here's an example -- not hard to find -- of never even getting into the black betting the unhit numbers.

Code:

 10
11
18
  0
  1
  3
32
  8
17
14
18
25
36
13
17
  4
34
10
  8
20
31
32
  3
23
21
23
18
  0
  3
10
35
17
20
24
36
29
26

There are 12 unhit numbers:  5  6  7  9 12 15 16 19 22 27 28 30
Bet on them as they show in the next cycle...

35   0
35   0
27   0  *
29  -1
35  -2
36  -3
23  -4
  1  -5
17  -6
  5  -7  *
15  -9  *
  4 -12
17 -15
  1 -18
11 -21
17 -24
21 -27
19 -30  *
32 -34
22 -38  *
11 -43
20 -48
22 -17
17 -22
  6 -27  *
35 -33
35 -39
21 -45
  0 -51
  3 -57
  7 -63  *
  0 -70
14 -77
10 -84
25 -91
23 -98
19 -69

 

Either your bolded statement is correct or wrong. I pointed out you are wrong.

 

Luckyfella, so you disagree that the probability of each number hitting is 1/37? I think you're just playing semantics now trying to score cheap points. Let's see some long-term data which shows that picking the sleepers is any better than random bets. That's all that anyone cares about, really.

 

lol what a waste of time. Low IQ is a serious problem.

These systems only work in hindsight.

And 200 years later not a single demonstration of any of these supposed successful "winning systems".

What some fail to understand is you can win for a million of spins on a bad system and eventually lose everything on the next million spins.

Some people still believe a martingale is the holy grail. Education is important.

 

So you continue to insist your bolded statement is correct when I pointed to you it's wrong.

 

LF, the problem is your lack of understanding. The probability is constant at 1/37. What you're talking about is variance. I suggest you read a book or take an online course in basic probability & statistics before continuing this conversation. Are you actually interested in learning or do you want to search for a winning roulette system for the rest of your life? If that's what makes you happy, then go for it.

 

Lets remind readers of the statement you wrote. It's wrong. Period.

 

What causes Variance?

"In statistics, variance measures variability from the average or mean. It is calculated by taking the differences between each number in the data set and the mean, then squaring the differences to make them positive, and finally dividing the sum of the squares by the number of values in the data set."

Still, even Variance will not tell you when a win streak will start, how long it will last, and when it will end.

It can never tell you if 20 reds will occur in a row in the next cycle. Only coincidence can cause that. It's just random coincidence.

Coincidence has been described as "two or more events coming together in a surprising, unexpected way without an obvious causal explanation."

 

You are correct in your assumption. But unfortunately it doesnt work that way. Trust me I wish I was wrong and you are right. In a group it will also be the same 1:37.

I programmed to play the 14 sleepers until they were in overall profit. (meaning not waiting for each individual number to be in profit, but once there was an overall profit I quit)

I only use flat bet. The results were it lost and it lost on average 1 unit on a combined spin count of 37.

You said you are playing for 2 years 5 times a week and you are using a progression. You see I had systems that went for 20 / 30.000 spins with profit when using a progression until it tanked. How many spins have you played in those 2 years? Also have you programmed it?

 

Has anyone here tried what I said a couple of times now.

GET 14 "SLEEPING NUMBERS" from excel.

Go to you're preferred casino or roulette simulator online or offline.

Start playing.

IS THERE A DIFFERENCE????????

 

Better have that IQ tested again.

These methods work in real-time by confirming continuation as you proceed. You might believe that all information data is in hindsight but the next event is part of that confirmation process. It's an accumulation of anything that has already shown continuation, hindsight, and the next event confirming continuation or not. The entire event is using the data of both.

Now the mathZombies of the past have hung all their arguments on not having the ability to predict the future. Only they always miss the point that knowing the future has nothing to do with continuation confirmation. Now please pick a side in this. Are you going to select mathZombie sophistry or actual discussions on information processing?

 

Strange math ahead - warning to the readers.

Well, first off if #1 appeared 2 times in the first 200 and then 52 times in the next 2000 then in total
it appeared 54 times, not 53 - but that isn't even relevant. A calculator will fix that right up for you.
If you look on page 2 of this thread you will see a chart where I showed that you win on numbers that are
"behind" and NEVER caught up. As long as I'm expecting it to appear "at expectation" as you said is true -
then I win. If you read that post you know why I win doing that. In the end and far into profit those numbers
still were pretty far behind where they should be. Yet here we are. It simply isn't enough to win ? Of course it is.
I don't need it to do anything other than appear 1 in 37 *like you agree is most likely to happen* and I win.
It's not that confusing.

For 20,000 spins and a number is 25 behind - it is in no way 1:37. That is impossible math.
You point may be that "now" it is appearing 1:37 after all those spins but in the total of the
20,000 spins it is behind. That's fine, I win - see above reply to Sir Anyone.

Page 2 - all the wins that mattered were on numbers that never "balanced out", neither of them
were 1:37 at all, far from. Yet I won on them the most. I think you are missing the point of what is
required in order to win... and maybe how random works.

I really don't understand how the people who argue this - post the same info that I do, but change
the wording and try to look right.
You all agree numbers appear 1 in 37 on average. So do I.
Then by default you have to agree that a number appearing 1 in 70 will catch up.
But no, that's the fallacy isn't it. You can't agree with that part even though it's exactly
the same thing you agree with.
How strange.

 

Too much talking. Not enough demonstration.