TurboGenius Gambler's Fallacy (absurd ?) Proof.

Name one book...

 

I won't name the BOOKS.

Why would I educated you? Lol

Continue to claim you are correct. The harm is upon you and those who believe you.

 

Of course you wont... because they don't exist!

 

Wow! Don't exist. No books on this topic.

Ok ok sir. You are correct. Lmao!

 

I've never claimed what you suggest.

But I also understand many facets of probability, variance and statical characteristics do impose practical limits and expectations. These are not the typical fallacies that you are so eager and keen to claim are being made.

You have argued against probability distributions and have consistently twisted and misconstrued what I have written so there is clearly an agenda to protect your little turf here.

 

I am not entertaining this argument for no reason.

I take this opportunity to highlight the error made on important math fact that has been misled and misguided by SirAnyone, MJ and Benas.

I am interested in the math fact.
Not the person.

So, it's important to do YOUR own research into this specific topic of math. That's my advice.

 

Your posts are ambiguous, I'm not sure whether this is deliberate or not. You're denying that you said Dr Sir is wrong? It's in black & white in your post. Just what is your point? And regarding the earlier post I'm not sure what you were trying to get across. The fact is that many people use the Binom. Dist. in a misguided attempt to get an advantage, and that was suggested by your post because you said the prob. is 7/8 even after 2 flips of the coin. You have also made contradictory statements in other posts.

So what do you believe? It sure is hard to get a straight answer from you.

 

And the error is? Let me guess -- spins are NOT independent? Sorry, it's a non-starter.

 

You shallow knowledge tells you the academics discussed about "spins are not independent".

Wow! The math books write about roulette independent spins.

I have all the evidence posted here.

 

I have lost interest in responding to your post.

Write whatever you wish.

I won't respond to what you write.
Same no response to whatever SirAnyone and Benas posts.

I have written enough today to alert readers about this math issue.

 

I've explained at length the probability distribution calculation applies to any set of random independent results however obtained and is in fact blind to past present or future events. I really have done it to death explaining the probability never changes and is required to be constant. Doesn't matter how many times I say it, you keep arguing against it saying that I'm suggesting the probability changes. Even after I've said it's impossible to calculate with a binom dist function with changing probability.

So It will always be 7/8 times I will get at least one head in 3 flips of a fair coin. Can't be any other way as I wrote out the truth tables and the only other combination is TTT and that is the missing 1/8th.

It matters not if I'm on coin flip 1 or 2 or 3 or if it's past, preset or future events or even sampled from past present or future events. Sample every nth value or use a random process to select outcomes, it matters not as the calculation is based on a SET of outcomes. It's not predicting anything other than what can be expected over the set of outcomes, not one event in the set, not two events in the set, not the next event in the set or next two events, but the full set.

Again I will repeat for the avoidance of doubt despite already saying it. The probability on every flip is 50/50 and that is what defines the probability distribution. Any 3 results however aggregated will have at least 1 head 7/8 of the time. That doesn't mean I'm saying the next flip has 7/8 probability of being a head or a tail. I'm saying that 3 flips, all independent events combined always have a 7/8 probability of at least 1 head (or tail).

How painful it is to explain basic math here.

But the problem is you keep making the fallacious argument and suggesting I'm saying something else, claiming victory that I agree with you. No it's the other way around, you are starting to understand what I've been saying all along.

 

Correct you will win 7 out of the 8 times
How to win?

Let's try marty.

1 2 4 = 7 units

We win 7 times 1 unit (7/8) we lose 1 time -7 units. Perfect math it all evens out (on a fair pay out) zo again no advantage, whats the point?

 

One last post and I'm done.

Read Benas post carefully.

Read every word carefully.

Do you detect the contradiction?

If you did,

Bravo, congrats.

You understand the math.

Else too bad you don't have the level of understanding.

I'm not pointing to Benas the person,

I'm pointing at the math contradiction he wrote.
Using his post to show the typical error.
Strewn with layman understanding.
Perfect example.

Job done. I'm out of here.

 

Bye bye!!!

 

The fact is that many do contradict themselves without realising they're doing it. And I'm not "claiming victory", I'm trying to understand what it is you actually believe. You're avoiding my questions. On the other thread you say that because sessions are independent, the house edge starts anew every session, and so if you keep sessions short you can rely on variance to make a profit time after time, unhindered by the HE forever! But your use of the term "independent" is equivocal here; spins are independent in the sense that past spins don't affect the probability of future spins, and one session may be independent of another in the same sense, but it doesn't mean that the HE is somehow reset between sessions and those bets you made in prior sessions don't count. That's just silly. What counts is the total number of bets made, regardless of whether they happen over 10 sessions or 100.

You do realise what the compounding effect of the HE does to your bankroll, don't you? This is another reason why progressions are a bad idea in a NE game. You don't lose 1/37 of your bank in a session, but 1/37 of every bet made, and the difference is huge. That's why the hold isn't 2.7%. So relying on progressions may magnify the variance, giving you the potential opportunity to quit with a profit due to positive variance, but the HE bites harder, and of course because variance is two-edged, the potential for a disaster in increased. I agree that in many cases the negative variance is what kills players in the short term, but the answer is not to use progressions or a bigger bank, it's to get an edge over the casino. Only then will variance become irrelevant.

 

If you cannot stand the heat get out of the kitchen .

 

I dont know why everybody is attacking turbo.
Just like you do he identifies an imbalance and goes with it. Your AP ways arent guaranteed either.

 

@Luckyfella, if you think that you better know math - that is welcome , but that is very simply to check...
I am almost sure that can gave you low school level task which you will not solve, if you think the same about me do that , only remember that later if i will not solve must show sourse from where task is taked ...

 

Mathematically speaking .. assuming, the word that the rainbow-bridge team likes to use a lot, considering the hair grow & cells divide through the passage of time, in infinite time a single hair will be indefinitely long ..

No, it won't.

Because you don't bother yourself with that at all & cut'em as they grow. Even if you left it grow, your body will die off long before that ie. if you don't perform certain transmuting things only.


The mathematical probability (as an incomplete inadequate incomprehensive & incongruent model of processing all the forces of that are determining & forming the reality - in existence & unmanifested) of something happening doesn't mean it will come into the existence, no matter how long.

Yet, using your logic, you pretty much claim .. in an infinite amount of time there will be a universe of an infinitely long single hair filled with itself.


What .....