Roulette The "fallacy" of "Gambler's Fallacy"

Of course - a defective wheel that is that obvious is probably a gold mine until they figured it out.
But using nothing other than recorded spins leaves the room for error and false positives.
Systems don't worry about that, it wins or it loses.

 

Sometimes boards aren't accurate, but they're easily distinguished. Some data has to come straight from a wheel. Human error is trivial when someone experienced is collecting the data.

Since you have no experience tracking, most of this is simply going to be well over your head.

 

I cut my teeth on tracking the hottest three numbers in a 300 spin cycle more than two decades ago. That includes changing numbers along the way. All the research was done flat betting. I discovered that long sequences of 300 spins take up a very long time and even though they tend to win a little, they are not as volatile as the effectiveness trend. In other words, you can have just as much fun in a shorter term of 50 spins if you look at the other kinds of sequences based on groups of numbers like 12, 24, or 18 in size. They do expected things too. And they do them more often. They come in all kinds of characteristics too, not just hottest. If you have a trained skill set to see them then it becomes impossible not to see them.

You can argue with people on the internet that they are there, right in front of your face, if you just look. But you can't make people look. The arguments for certain things that must happen tend to happen all the time goes right out the window if the people you are talking to can't see what you can't ignore.

Here is a softly associated coincidence for you. In 6 individual sets of 12 numbers belonging to two groups of 37 numbers as a whole, there will occur 2/3 of those spin results as singles. The same goes for sleeping dozens. Now that follows the basic mathematical expectations too. But what is more interesting there is an expectation for how long these singles and sleepers will streak at different lengths. So if you like hottest numbers you will love the different characteristics of randomness that you can count on occurring.

I've been treated to a basic argument that you can't know when to back a trend. But you can know when it works or when it does not in a trend of its own if you bother to remind yourself. I cut my teeth on flat betting the effectiveness trend. It's the only trend that matters. There is never an expectation that my bet selection will improve my effectiveness. To win you must remain in a state of real awareness. ... and as I have pointed out, that is not the easiest thing for me to do.

 

Caleb,

Why dont you show some examples of the difference you spot on a random vs a bias wheel instead of just saying how experienced you are in finding a bias. You said you can spot a bias wheel within a couple of minutes, so what is it that you see that noone else at the table does?

 

Above RNG 30k spins. Chi is about 28 Nothing special. The shape looks random. The max/low standard deviations are very low.



Above a live wheel. 30k spins. Chi is 310.46. The shape of the graph doesn't look random. And the max/low standard deviations are significant for a section.

One has a chance of randomness of about 1 in 1.17
The other has a chance of randomness of about 1 in 1.574E+44

So still can't tell the difference?

 

Wow a whole 300 spins huh?

So what.

 

Live casino. But not all spins are from the same wheel, pretty obviously.

 

That's what inferential statistics is all about. There are tests which can prove with a very high degree of probability whether a hypothesis is true or false, based on the data. As little as 10 samples of 5k spins each would be enough.

The charts you posted don't really mean much. For one thing, how do we know you didn't cherry-pick the results?

 

I didn't Cherry pick the spins, but I did indeed cherry pick the wheel. After all, it's what I do. I have the consecutive spin data if you'd like it.
As a matter of fact I have over 100k of them. Complete with dates, dealers, etc.

My point to posting it was to show Turbo that it's actually quite easy to determine when a wheel is biased and when it's not. (For the record, it took me all of five minutes or less to spot this wheel as being biased.) Also to show the differences between a live wheel, and an RNG. Most live wheels are indeed biased, but not always to the degree that this one I posted was. And that's the point. If you collect enough spins, eventually even a fool can tell the differences between a live wheel and an RNG wheel. And yes, of course you can spot some wheel by collecting data in far far fewer spins. The reason I have so many spins on some wheels is because they often remained on the floor of the casinos year after year.

By the way, the charts are standard deviation graphs, which may not mean much to you, but they do to me.

-Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone

 

Then what's the point of the data if you don't have a relevant number of spins from each wheel? If you combined the data all together as one then it's going to look pretty washed out/random don't you think?

 

Yeah, there's only 1 or 2 things in this world that piss me off - you did one of them like a pro.

Writing down numbers is over my head ? Understood... you're being an asshole.
Make your "art" look so complicated and complex that surely NO ONE else could figure out how to do it.

I'll stick with Wikipedia's definition of your fallacy issue.. "Detecting a bias that will lead to a favorable outcome takes an impractically large amount of time and is very difficult, if not impossible, to do."
You can always edit the page if you want, show them what's so complex about writing down fucking numbers and looking for bias.
Stuff like "impractically large" and "impossible" don't mean much I suppose - whoever made that page is obviously in way over their head and can't possibly understand the delicate intricacies of that level of BS.
Sheesh, you know what - I'll continue to post non-BS topics and you can reply with whatever BS you like to counter it.
Great, now I'm all angry. Ha. Time for dinner.

 

Relax Turbo,

It's just banter. I don't think you're stupid or a fool.

Besides, I know that nothing goes over your head... as you are over six feet tall and have lightning fast reflexes!

 

I might be a little upset - I just spend hours fighting a "play site where they let you win" to get enough profit to make it to first place out of 1,000+ people - finally after weeks and weeks of playing. But I did.
Yeah - I might be grouchy, I'll calm down and come back tomorrow. I retract my above comments.

 

So 300 spins is one session, about ten hours of real play. Try that more than a thousand times. You've been around long enough to do that too. Of course I didn't have a biased agenda where confirmation bias colored my expectations like you do. You expect to find a condition for the wheel you are studying is concerned. I'm expecting to find 100's of coincidences found in randomness. So what now snowball?

 

(was quite busy but needed to chime in on this)...... That was my past point. Why is it, Judy, the waitress that works at the local diner and knows NOTHING about the game.....only bets on her "special" numbers. How come Judy is not up there near the top?

ANSWER: Because Judy doesn't know shit about the game. I said it before, too much of a coincidence that its none other than Turbo at/near the top. Knowledge SHOULD pay off (I would assume).

What I really do want to see though.....% of players under their starting BR and the opposite. Point being, if they "want you to win on purpose", I would think perhaps 85% of players are way beyond their starting BR. In the real world, would it be 85%? Not even close.

Ken

 

Exactly Ken - there are thousands of people playing the few table games.
You don't even rank on the leader board unless you are in profit for the week - so that eliminates the
majority of people playing already.
From what's left - people have to stay in profit and grow their bankroll throughout the week or else they will end pages behind everyone else.
Of those who make it - if and when you do make it - everyone will say it's all fixed and "everyone wins" because they are too simple to understand how it all works lol.
I'm glad I made it this far - will truck on forward (and at Celtic) and then in July at G. Nugget.
There will always be some excuse from the anti-system people as to why someone wins while other lose - they
can't admit that it's possible that something they didn't think about actually works.

 

Question >> I'm not asking for names. I'll bet you have received emails asking you for MORE detailed info on your method? (lol)......then they say, I promise to not tell a soul.

Ken

 

Well, of course.
A few people have it 90% correct so far as well - which is good.
It's always better that way I think. Posting step by step instructions on a forum is a terrible idea.
Someone who works on it and figures out the steps get rewarded I'm sure - they don't need my help
much beyond what I've already posted.

 

Hi Guys


I have been following you guys on here and even back at RF for a long time. First time posting here so hoping I can also contribute to the forum.


I am impressed with Turbos repeater method, I have spent a lot of time on RX but still not clear on a few things and narrowing down the bet selection when there are a lots of repeats. I am having some problems with the tracking at the casino. Any input would be much appreciated.


Andrew

 

Because [removed, pay to advertise] Judy doesn't play nearly as much. Lol