Roulette Random explained - somewhat

For a moment if you forget the madness and look into the math behind it, there are certain facts none of us can deny.

Fact 1 : there will be repeaters and that is because of probability. As the number of spins increases then the probability of repeaters increases. If we consider American wheel then once we are past 19 spins the chance of a repeater is more probable than a non- repeater. This fact cannot be disputed.

Fact 2 : repeaters of repeaters. Or a number appearing more than twice. If you extrapolate fact 1, then we do know that repeaters of repeaters do happen and applying rules of probability we do have a high probability of a set of 38 spins having at least 1 number showing up thrice than no number showing thrice.

Fact 3 : All individual spins are independent of the last spin or what happened few spins back. That's why we have always games based on the triggers and past spins fail. Because it is non-sensical and defeats spins being independent. But if you look at a set of spins then there are certain probabilities that none of us can ignore. One of them is the nonshowers and showers.

Rather than thinking about whether we can have something playable or not, i think these are the facts that none of us can deny. If we all agree on these facts then we all can move forward and discuss other facts and how to construct a game based on these facts.

 

It certainly does, that's just what I was thinking.

Never mind the spins that are there before you start playing, you certainly keep track of the spins YOU have played while you're actually playing, right?

Sorry to tell you this TG, but they are still past spins. No semantics will change that. It's impossible to have a bet selection based on repeaters without actually knowing which numbers you've played (or not played) have repeated, d'uh.

 

It is because whatever you bet was, is and it will be a repeat!

 

I'm almost 100% sure that you are just playing Devil's Advocate at this point - or it's a ploy to get me to explain it further with more details, which I will not do.
I spelled it out clearly in the posts here, things that even you agree with (anyone agrees with). So the only purpose of continuing to say it's nonsense is to get me to be more specific - and I won't.
The "last" spin is a past spin - however, it's in my "Current session" as a whole - and not my "last session" as a thing of the past. How you won't agree to see this obvious thing is beyond me, unless truly you can't see past a single spin as being the entire game of roulette.
You speak of contradictions in my posts, yet you agree that repeats are going to happen.
You don't see that the only possible numbers that can show 2 times are numbers that have shown once.
Or that numbers that repeat 3 times are only numbers that have shown twice ??
How could you not understand this. If you do (and I believe you actually do) Then you know that my odds are no longer 1:37 of picking a winning number when my possible list of potential winning numbers is a small handful of numbers. But regardless, I'm done explaining it. I'm getting the feeling it's just a game and I'm no doubt playing right along with it.

 

BlueAngel,

That makes no sense. You pay no attention to the numbers on the board when arriving at the table, ok. You pick a number at random and place one unit on it, say #15. The wheel is spun, #27 hits. Now what?

Do you pick #27? Why? because it just hit and you're playing for repeats, so your choice of number is determined by what has hit IN THE PAST.

Enough of the bullshit, it's getting tedious. We can see the emperor is wearing no clothes.

 

Michaela, look at it like this. I want to play for red appearing 9 times in 10 spins. If I wait for red to appear 8 times and then play for 1 more then it is playing based on past spins. But if I play on red from spin 1 and for it to appear 9 times in 10 spins then it is not based on past spins. There are no semantics here. Don't try to argue in your mind whether it is any different or is it going to be a winning game, just that there is a difference and odds of both plays are different. Odds of first play is 50:50 and is based on past spins. Odds of second game, I leave it for you to decide. That's the difference I believe TUrbogenius is trying to hammer through. Again, don't try to argue whether it wins or loses, just try to understand there is a difference there.

 

You still don't get it, everything has hit in the past, but what the majority calls repeaters is those which repeat during their observation period.
In other words they consider more probable those with shorter intervals from hit to hit to occur again in the near future.
Results don't start and stop during one's session, thus by maintaining a shortsighted view we cannot go far.

I've seen far but only because I was standing on the shoulders of giants...

 

For god's sake get over yourself. I couldn't give two shits whether you explain it or not, because it's a fallacy.

More semantics. A spin that's been spun is in the past, whether it was during the last session or the current one.

Of course they are, but that's not what's at issue. You claim that you can predict them and at the same time not use past spins, that's a blatent contradiction.

Again, of course that's true, but also totally irrelevant to your claim.

It's no game TG. Some people take you seriously and because they don't have the intellectual equipment to see through the smoke and mirrors, they might spend the next couple of decades trying to find your system, and that would be a shame, to put it mildly.

 

This is where TUrbogenius, you loose me. This doesn't make sense as you are shortening the number you are picking, but the odds or expectation of the number appearing in the next 37 spins is still going to be one. It is not going to be more. So in essence, your pick is same as any random pick and it works may be only because of your progression.

 

Ok. I think we should end this conversation. No point with two teams holding on to what they believe and not ready to listen to each other.

 

True but irrelevant, got it.
Irrelevant simply because you don't understand it. So true but irrelevant to you.
If anyone is wasting time, it's you - you won't see what's right in your face even though you agree with it.

No, because the only number(s) that can show 2 times are the numbers that have shown once.
The only numbers that can show 3 times are the numbers that have shown 2 times, etc etc etc for as long as you like.
We KNOW and all agree that this event IS going to happen - we're given what numbers have a chance to do this and are the only numbers capable of doing this - yet people still want to argue that they don't understand.
I'm done explaining it, as I've said.

 

Yes, there is a difference between the ways you describe, and I agree, playing a predetermined pattern does not necessarily entail looking at past spins. But that's not the way that TG is playing. How can it be when he adjusts his selections according to the way the numbers are falling? He's relying on past spins to make his choices.

 

And why can't you see that in order to pick a number to repeat you have to see that it has hit at least once. You are being SELECTIVE based on what has hit in the past!

Like you, I'm thinking this must be some kind of weird game for you. Perhaps you just enjoy the attention.

 

Then we'll never get anywhere. So that's how it is. Others are getting it though.

 

Agree on this Turbo. But tell me something, what will be the expectation of this number in the next 37 spins after it has appeared twice. Once or More than once. If you say once, then we are in same page. If you say more than once then I don't think you have explained why anytime before. I don't need an explanation, but wanted to highlight as you say that you have explained this case before.

 

They WANT to believe the carrot you're dangling is real, and that's one of things which is preventing them from seeing that it's a mirage.

 

Indeed he is. He may call it current spin and future event, but it is based on numbers that are appearing on the table. And even he can't deny he is placing his bets on the table based on numbers that is appearing when he is playing. For a moment forget semantics as we will not able to move forward without that.

My question is there any deniability on the fact that if there are few numbers that has appeared twice, few of them will appear a third time within next 37 spins. And what is the probability of that event not happening. If we know the probability, cannot we build a heavy progression like Turbo genius does and hope that the very rare moment that occurs only .0000000000001% do not occur and build a winnig game. I see a case there.

 

The only one that sees a carrot is you.

Yes, we can. On the other topic (yet again) - A session of spins is my current session of spins. It has nothing to do with past spins before I started playing. It's a big hangup with people who can't see that the game is a more than 1 spin - that a current session of spins isn't "past spins" but "current session of spins". People that think that way can never win unless they find/exploit biased wheels or computer trickery, etc. I'd hate to play Michaela in chess lol. If I kept moving my pieces randomly - he'd never figure out how to win. How could you plan ahead based on what's happened in the past ? The pieces are where they are but HOW DID THEY GET THERE ???? lol. "It's voodoo ! It's magic ! It's smoke and mirrors ! It's dangling carrots !!" Damn, that would be fun to watch play out.

 

This is the question I was looking answers from you Turbogenius. This will help straighten out lot of discussions happening here, as I don't think this was never explained before.

 

Turbo,

If the next spin has a negative expectation then the next series of spins also has a negative expectation. It's simple math.