TurboGenius Gambler's Fallacy (absurd ?) Proof.

Catching up with some posts..

Again you fool yourself. Everyone understands that any series of outcomes has the same identical probability. Nothing new or groundbreaking you have told us there.

Where you go wrong is insisting the sequence of RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR is just as likely as getting ANY other sequence that is not RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

Note the ANY.... I'm quite damn pleased to inform you that there are 65535/65536 sequences that are not RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR vs your 1/65536 you want to die in a ditch over.

We don't care which of the 65535 sequences it is, ANY will do, whilst you stand there like a monkey caught with his hand in a jar holding onto a little peanut of probabilty, we bought and sold the whole damn farm.

The probability is always 1/2 and doesn't change. It still holds that any set of 3 coin flips will have a head 7/8 times.

Why are you insisting that I am saying otherwise?

I have stated this numerous times, the probability cannot change and the binomial distribution function depends on it remaining constant. If it was a changing probability we could not use that function period.

You think I am taking about the probability of the next event somehow changing. You are trying to force a fallacy where there is none.

I am always talking about the set of 3 independent flips as a group will always have 7/8 probability of at least 1 head and it matters not if I am at flip 1, 2 or looking at past or future events or any random mix of events. 1/8 of the time in any three outcomes I will see all tails and not a single head.

There is no contradiction as much as you might like there to be one. I wrote out the possible events and stated it's a fair coin even chance, never changes. I can't be any clearer than I've already been.

The truth table demonstrates there is only one series that does not contain a head. I am always talking about the group of outcomes, not the next outcome.

The distribution calculation is a useful tool because I can determine minimum number of outcomes in X trials to understand the limits of random (the worst case) with precision on the certainty. It's a planning and evaluation tool, not a tool I use within the session to select bets, it it used in my analysis to know how pear shaped a series of bets could go, to know the minimum occurances of an event I can expect over a set of outcomes with a defined certainty.

 

Will do jake later look out for it

True but that's the nature of it
...
Tell me what is the difference between a system player and a wheel confined in never ending 37 spin cycle or whatever amount you regard for the overall cycle
player

Do you know or think there is a difference?

 

I thought the same thing for a couple of weeks, a.k.a. jekhb1976 the TG copycat.

 

Thank you, I suppose. It was really a yes or no answer and for some reason you avoided the simple question.
Is there a way to measure the data and know if a roulette wheel is producing random results or not ?
I know there is - you should know that there is...Sir Anyone knows there is - hell, he has software that tells
him if a wheel is reliably bias because the results are not random as they should be.
Therefore random does indeed have limits. When the wheel performs outside of these limits it is producing
results that are NOT random, but due to a bias. Other wheels stay within these limits and therefore are
producing random results. Tell me again that what I just said is wrong ? Anyone ?
Surely we can all agree on this ?

That's good. Suddenly with gambling and roulette - it's the 1 in a million thing that kills you every time, isn't it ?
I wonder if he stands at a door and tells people not to go outside because there is a 1 in 10,322,234 chance that
they will be hit by a satellite crashing to earth. As the nice people in white take him away he screams "IT CAN HAPPEN !"

 

Imagine the answer given is in infinite time!

 

I had the same feeling a few posts back. It's the same way of talking eddie did a.k.a elvis

 

There's some ambiguity here because "limit" can be used in several different ways. You are right that we can only identify bias when the wheel strays outside of the expected behaviour. In that case the distribution is no longer Uniform. Nobody is saying that a wheel can REGULARLY produce the same number 20 times in a row, or 1000 reds in a row, that's a strawman. In that sense I agree; there is what appears to be a practical "limit". But you don't see sequences like that because the probabilities are infinitesimal, not because there is any absolute boundary. But even there, the supposed limits aren't as cut & dried as you think. Take the law of the third for example; you regularly see 12 or more numbers unhit after 37 spins, but how often do you see this happen with a layout dozen? That would be considered an extreme event. You see this because a layout dozen is preselected, whereas the LOTT sleeping dozen is "selected" by the wheel, so to speak. The probability of some particular group of numbers occurring is always less than the probability of ANY group of numbers (of the same size) occurring.

But the main reason for saying there are no limits is because outcomes are independent. Roulette is a "with replacement" system. That's why Dr Sir keeps going on about the number of pockets on the wheel not changing. I know the constant repetition can be annoying but it gets right to heart of the issue, and nobody can explain why some event should be more likely than any other when all numbers are equally available (on an unbiased wheel). If there was a true limit (a boundary) then waiting for virtual losses would actually work, and the more virtual losses you waited for the less would appear when you start betting, which would give you an edge. But this doesn't happen. If you wait for a number to sleep for 10 cycles it won't appear any faster or more frequently on average than if you hadn't waited at all. I know you disagree with this but that's what empirical results show, and it agrees with the math.

 

Must be very warm and cosy the wool over your eyes!

 

I stick my neck out again to call out MJ post is wrong. Lol

There are more issues to what he posted from his basic statistics knowledge. His simplistic explanation barely touch the core issue.

Anyone interested can check this topic up.
It's good to check up the correct facts.
So you have proper, correct and complete knowledge. Instead of being misled by MJ's self taught erroneous post.

Btw no beef against MJ. Simply highlighting the error.

 

Yes the chance of event x happening is very small. We probably never see it in our lifetime. Will you win with it? FLAT BET??? Nope, so you use a progression.

HAVE YOU BEATEN THE MATH???????

 

Btw I purposely posted the series of questions to stir a reaction. I wanted to read whether MJ, SirAnyone and Benas got it correct.

Hmmm.... No, none of them got it correct.

You can't get it right even with pre-uni math. Worse with basic probability. And self taught. Now I know who knows what. Lol

Should I tell more?? No.
The best is to keep the blind all seeing. Lmao!

 

It must be wonderful to right all the time just because you say so, lol.

No suggestion of what I'm supposedly leaving out, no counter-argument, nothing. Mere assertions are worthless from a rational point of view, but I guess they can be useful if you're trying to persuade people who want to believe, or just to sow doubt. The question is, why would LF want to do that?

And of course, TwoUp agrees with me. Doesn't that pose a dilemma for you, LF?

It certainly does. But you won't get them from LF. You need a reliable source, or better yet, do your own tests.

 

I can also tell nobody has the level of knowledge to understand math. I have reasons. I will explain the details with reference to academic literature to one veteran member when we talk later today. He deserve this knowledge.

 

Omg you just posted more evidence of your lack of knowledge. Loooooool!

Do your own test.

Test is the magic math knowledge and understanding solution.

This is the best from you so far.



Hahahahaha........

 

I don't disagree with some of what you wrote there but that's only part of the math and I won't excuse Sir Anyone.

Practically there are limits and we both agree on that. We won't witness a number occur more than 12 times in 37 spins except in the very rare 1 in a 10 billion event. Similarly it's a 1 in a billion event for a number to sleep more than 757 spins. You can check the math using the binomdist() function in excel or Google sheets.

These are rare events and close enough to what I regard as hard practical limits or "boundaries" with 9+ nines of confidence. I'm not losing sleep on a 1 in a billion or 1 in 10 billion rate of failure when my own mortality is a crude 1 in 125 probability in any one year. Don't go outside, travel in a vehicle, live near a nuclear power plant or catch a plane if the above confidence is not good enough for you.

Not saying rare events can't happen as probability has an infinitely long tail and the events above will happen eventually somewhere and probably have happened since roulette wheels started spinning, but I don't let a rare outlier event invalidate an otherwise sound betting method. It's a gold standard to aim for having that level of certainty.

Even if it the event does happen, losing a session bankroll to a 1 in a billion event is not the end of the world unless you subscribe to the fallacy of Dr Sir where he says it's both foolish and complete BS to use bankroll and money management and can't possibly help.

 

He's not wrong. Why do you think he is? All permutations of the same length have equal probabilities. All Combinations don't have the same probability, of course, but so what? You have the exact same chance betting for or against RBBRBRRRBB as RRRRRRRRRR.

Ok, so you believe that past spins are worthless for predicting future spins. Glad we agree.

 

The more I read your posts the more convinced I am that you're about 14 years old, lol.

 

Clearly you didn't read what I wrote. I said all sequences of that length have the same probability.

I also distinguished his RRRRRRRRRR from ANY other sequence. His specific sequence is a 1 in 65536 event and ANY other sequence that is not RRRRRRRRRR is a 65535/65536 event.

When you're betting for anything but RRRRRRRRRR it's 65535/65536 which is closer to 1, whilst RRRRRRRRRR is closer to zero. Opposite ends of the probability spectrum.

Why can't anyone read what is written? (Rhetorical question as I know the answer).

 

On roulete we cant say that this spin will produce random number , but another - not ! But we can say about some groups of spins, that them is easier predict and about some other group that them is harder. If that is possible to name - measuring - I not know.
And because that are some wheels which produce more random results than others - claiming that randomnes has limits is not possible , because random to you can be absolutelly not random to me, or oposite !
Every roulette as device produce not really random results, but that is only for some players they are not random...for main mass they are random enough...

I cant answer like you want yes or not, because are no only two possible answers ...
And is quite hard to understand what you want, because you ask about randomness on devices which produce not completely random events...

 

Now I understand the level of math knowledge on gambling forums.

I also understand why the arguments in the last decade.

Central to the argument is the math.

One party got it wrong.

You guys know which party from my posts above.

Now here's the thing.

If you get the math wrong which you are,

Then this misleading perception will impact your understanding and limit your progress.

So it's best for everyone, for your own personal interest, check out the actual math facts.

I will let you know this much.

There are books that address this topic specifically. There are academic discussion on this topic as well. It's a topic of interest to the academics as well.

However, you need to have certain level of knowledge to be able to comprehend these academic literature. So, that's going to be a problem for many of you.

I'm just telling you guys the facts.

So this current senseless arguments is a waste of time. When the math fact is wrong.
This decade long argument is farcical.