TurboGenius Turbo, do you remember the discussion on how to select the repeat?

How do you get anything like this workable with quads ..
since there are 23 quads .. in 37 numbers .. quads overlaying

according to this, I'd have to bet 6x Quads, or 24ⁿ, to give me 0.509 probability, or ≈1/2 chance
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=birthday+paradox,+6+people,+23+possible+birthdays
at a payout +3u on a successful spin, ±0 or breakeven on the second


although;
the relevant differentials for q=23 are
↓1Q = impossible
0.4348↓2Q = 0.04348
0.8322↓3Q = 0.1267
0.1139↓4Q = 0.2406
0.132 ↓5Q = 0.3726
0.1364↓6Q = 0.509
______________
0.1281↑7Q = 0.6371 impossible to bet,
0.1105↑8Q = 0.7476 impossible to bet, anyway differentials begin to drop -- best between 4Q-8Q = 4Q-6Q

& practically speaking since 6 quads max can be effectively placed at any time ..
the relevant differentials for q=23 are
↓1Q = impossible
0.1667↓2Q = 0.1667
0.2777↓3Q = 0.4444
0.2778↓4Q = 0.7222
0.1852↓5Q = 0.9074
0.0772↓6Q = 0.9846 ??? wtf, should be 1
_____________________

but again, that's inaccurate since there are not 6 quads ..
but 37 numbers with 23 possible quads = overlays



one big fucking ?

 

The only viable, that I yet see, way would be doing the streets =calculation based on streets ..
& placing Qs on contiguous (& favorable) areas

 

TRD, you are doing good work. thumbs up.

You let your logic and the experiential evidence guide you.

I have not posted anything on forum about the details.
So, don't misinterpret from my earlier posts that might influence you incorrectly.

All I will say is look at the place that normal thinking person surely won't look at.
That's where lie the answer.

The probability depends on the question you ask.

 

Being polite is a must in civil society, so don't brag about it. About the "umpteen times" you tried to lighten us up, you can't claim so if the only thing you do is point out that no one knows what you know and no one understands what you don't explain.

As far as it's observable, you claim we have an error in understanding probability. Yet the understanding alone is not a winner system, since you are for sure not the only person who has figured out the related probability topic. So be a kind and insightful person and educate those who are interested, totally straightforward, only in terms of mathematics, stop riddles and start science, and don't give up until the understanding is transmitted through words; OR stop boldings and underlinings, as well as name callings. You can't lay in the middle... but hey, it's a free world, do as you wish.

This is the definition of the Birthday Problem. It's very easy to understand. Translated to roulette, we know how likely it is to have a match (repeat) within X persons (spins). The problem again is that when you have 7 uniques with no repeats, the 8th spin does not have a probability of repeat equal to one repeat within 8 spins.

The probability of a repeat within 8 spins is a cumulative probability. The probability increases on every spin, but remember, you lose the probability of repeats on the spins you have already witnessed or played. So it doesn't stand the same throughout the cycle. On the 8th spin, the probability of repeat is exactly 7/37 (~19%), not 75.7%.

If you play each and every spin up to 8 spins, you have a probability of 75.7% to get a hit playing the latest numbers. Why? Because you have played a total number of 28 numbers, which results in 28/37 = 75.7%. If you wait for 7 uniques and then play all past 7 numbers, the probability of a hit is exactly 7/37 or 19%, not 75.7% obviously. The iteration through the cycle gives you that probability, not waiting for more people in the room. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

To lurkers: He is talking about the probability of an event (like repeating, defining the end of cycle, etc.), not the probability of a specific number showing up. Since he chooses riddles over clarity, I try to explain his intentionally skewed wordings. Cheers.

 

This specific topic of interpretation has been argued between MJ and TwoUp in earlier posts.

I chose not to get involve in such arguments.

 

It's fine, but it's exactly what you are talking about. It's not an argument, it's an objection. You spoke of this concept, I had an objection, you chose to leave the discussion. It's not a biggest dick competition, I'm not trying to prove you wrong, it's a conversation. Being wrong doesn't make anyone lose (except some Doctors around here). In fact, I wish for being wrong in this conversation, if you know what I mean.

However, take your time deciding. If you decided to keep the discussion constructive, this is a good start:

I guess the answer to the above problem is essential for relating the Birthday Problem to roulette. If you have an objection to my assumptions, I'd love to hear it, humbly. I know why I'm here.

 

Either you are correct or wrong.
There is a correct answer.

I have chose not to comment.

 

Remember this, I get where I am today because some faceless stranger took the trouble to post whatever hints on gambling forums.

It's my turn to do the same.
Same like the rest before me I will not post the entire detail.

If I am not wrong I posted the most details math wise. Because it make no difference to me. I am here to make money, not the biggest dick.

If you feel I have posted useless post, I have no problem to stop posting.

 

The casinos seem to think the math has everything to do with it, and they make more money from roulette than you do. Why should the math apply to them but not to you?

 

You have chosen to repeatedly bold and underline some specific words over and over again for the next few years. I understand you, but barely.

To lurkers: Read the discussion, your input is most welcome.

Not every mind sparks in the same ways. For the last few years, a gazillion forum members have told you that your so-called hints are contrary and confusing. Some worked with you closely. They have the same feeling. Compare your posts and hints to someone like TG. Try a new approach, you seem to be unorthodox in trying new things.

Maybe you don't know it, but you are refusing to share the science you think we lack, not the details of your system. Not the same thing!

I don't specifically care about you keep posting or not. I like roulette, I like roulette systems, I like relating roulette and science, I like to discuss it with fellow roulette-heads, you are one of them. The rest is your decision. If you don't enjoy it, then don't do it. If it's fun, keep doing it. After all, it has to be fun. I never did it for money.

 

No, you didn't. You bailed out as soon as I got into details, for the tenth time. I still can edit the posts, it's that new.

 

Ok, I'm here to give back. Period.
And I have written all that's possible to write.
I'm not here for fun or validation.
Posting on forum is a chore to me.

If there are specific questions, I may respond.

 

I have one:

Before starting a 9-spin cycle, we know that we have a probability of 97.3% to witness a repeat within 9 spins (let's call it a good cycle), and a probability of 2.7% to have one of those rare cycles with no repeats within the first 9 spins (a bad cycle).

On spin #8 with 8 unique numbers (no repeats) we might be witnessing one of those good or bad cycles, we still don't know since there is one more spin to find out. At this specific point (call it a "river" in poker analogy), the probability of this cycle being a good cycle is 21.6% (not 97.3%) and the probability of this cycle being a bad one is 78.4% (not 2.7%).

This is the problem with the Birthday Problem translated to roulette repeat cycles. Tell me where I'm wrong. I like to know the error in my understanding.

 

If the probabilities are as you posted why do you keep hammering your head where the numbers won't change?

It's the same thing why code and run millions of spins for repeaters and sleepers when it's - EV?

MJ test millions of spins to prove gambler's ruin?

 

To learn. I might be wrong.

To make sure what I guess is valid.

Ask himself.

I thought you really meant what you said.

 

Are you saying that what you are saying is a lie .. & thereof hands washed, caveat emptor.

 

Shank, if you have done the tests, why do you think you are missing anything, If the facts keep showing you it doesn't work?

 

Because I'm wiser now, after all these tests and researches. I used to believe many things that I now know are totally wrong. Who knows, I might be wrong again. Doubt is the biggest power of the human brain, IMO. I try to question my beliefs from time to time. It's free and fruitful.

 

Dog shit! Of course there is no capacity for higher probability. I guess you have accepted that there is no prediction capability as well by now. I'm whittling you down boy. If you want to use patterns or trends then you must select the best time to use them. Now you can go get axiomatic on that for a while. There ain't no math for knowing when it's best other than simple addition.