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

My reply was to TG, not you, and I was referring to the sessions he played and posted the charts for to "prove" that gambler's fallacy is not a fallacy. I said they don't mean much because (a) The number of bets made was relatively small, and (b) He could have cherry-picked only the winning sessions to show us. I'm not sure why you thought the post was addressed to you. Regarding my spin file, the spins are separated by wheel and clearly marked, so there's no question of them being washed out.

 

Main thing for RNG and airballs is that numbers are much more balanced and this is clearly showed in "Sir Anyone's" graphs.

Hmm, I did not understand why TG got upset because of those graphs.

BUT I will say this, it can be a big difference when testing a "systems" on past spins AND when playing them in live on RNG and airballs!

Turbo, you could try to play your system on some slot machines with roulette game (RNG) and also try to play on airball machines too. I am not saying that you will lose, BUT I am 100% sure that you will not be a winner ALL the time and every time, except if maybe you have unlimited bankroll.

Turbo, you also mentioned that out there are some people who know 90% of your system, is there someone who knows 100% ???

 

Doesn't play, meaning currently or does not have enough experience over MANY years playing? I think there's a difference. Judy vs. Turbo? Come on, the two are not the same and in all fairness to both, they shouldn't be treated the same.

Ken

 

Unless of course....Turbo is Judy?

 

How did that picture get on the internet Ken ?????????
That was years ago !!!!!! I'm ok now lol

 

Nope. I always run off spins as I'm making a post.

 

So the reason you can tell the difference is simple because you don't believe live wheels are random due to their biased nature. Somehow this manifests itself more quickly than one might believe due to the centrifugal force happing?

If you took the data from 50k different wheels vs 50k RNG spins on the same RNG machine you wouldn't be able to tell the difference?

 

Here is yet another test using another method.
It is completely based on "fallacy" and no progression is used (no bets are raised on numbers after they win or lose).
It's proven that "Gambler's Fallacy" is indeed a "fallacy" in itself and was no doubt manufactured.
Yes - things are "DUE" and yes - you can make money playing this way.
This was a completely fair test that had no input from me whatsoever - the only thing that controlled the betting locations was exactly the "fallacy" mentioned in the definition

 

It's very unusual for a live wheel to "look" and test as random as an RNG wheel after 50k spins. This doesn't mean that every live wheel is playable biased, but it does mean that every live wheel is biased to some degree.

I'm sure I could find some live wheel data that could be confused with RNG data, but after 50k spins, you can usually immediately tell the differences.

 

Ken,

My point is that Turbo is playing a cartoon wheel. It's not a real wheel, and it's not for real money. He's winning more than so called Judy simply because he's playing more. Experience is irrelevant on these "game app wheels." It reminds me of the old Nintendo roulette. I won a zillion on that one too, just betting on the outside.

Now if Turbo could hit two million on Celtic or GN live wheel, then I'd be impressed. But it's not going to happen.

 

And if it happens ?
(evil grin)

 

Oh my...well yes a test of 200 spins definitely proves that all of the experts, mathematicians, and history are wrong!

 

It does actually. It was a fair test with no input from the user. Nothing but "fallacy" that something is due.

 

Nope.

1. That's not how you'd disprove the gambler's fallacy. The test was silly.
2. The number of spins tested was absurdly small.

 

So if you say there's no such thing as a flying elephant, and I show you a flying elephant -
You then want to see 10 flying elephants before you'll believe me. Got it.
How many billions of spins do "you" require ? I mean - a few cycles of spins is more than
enough to show what happens... but ok....

 

I can re-word my point. So do you believe that if Judy the waitress (knows nothing about the game) was playing EQUAL to Turbo, she could finish ahead of him week after week? I know my question is a bit on the odd side but none the less......

I know little about the Parx site. I think Turbo said it cost nothing to get started playing?

Here is my point.....if we took another member from this board (not from the roulette board) who knows shit about roulette, or RouletteGhost (same thing) and put them against each other WEEK AFTER WEEK at Parx. They both have to play the *SAME* amounts (your rules) but they can choose any method.....

Turbo is not allowed to "play more". Are you saying that perhaps they might be close to each other week after week?

If no, why not? We'll call the other guy, Bob. Won't Parx also let Bob get ahead in regards to BR? Won't Bob kick Turbo's ass from time to time, maybe even beating him after a six month contest study? If no, why not?

Ken

 

Ken,

My point is that Turbo simply spends more time playing than most of the others. On the Celtic game he's not going to win like that.

 

I've already tripled my bankroll at Celtic Sir Anyone. On a live wheel and dealer.
You said at Parx when I tripled my starting amount that it meant nothing.
That's my point. There is no point.
Any amount won't be enough, any test isn't "enough" spins - you are 100% confident
that nothing can win "long term" (you're definition of long term is however long it takes to fail -
if it hasn't failed yet - it wasn't played for enough spins. lol)
If I had a $50,000.00 bankroll like some of you AP guys (that's probably a low amount, but anyway)
and I tripled it to $150,000.00 in a few weeks - you would be impressed.
The chip value means nothing to the math - only to the person.
I surely can't start that high so doing a triple from 1k to 3k seems like nothing and I'm sure
it's "not enough spins".

Ken - there's someone else from here that plays there, he can certainly back up my claims that
it's not easy at all to win against that "toy wheel" or "pretend site" or whatever the nay-sayers
call it.
What I would do for a competition that would be completely fair and balanced (FoxNews (c)2017)
is for.. say me... and Sir Anyone to start fresh with equal bankrolls - he has to start from scratch
finding a bias wheel to play on and I can (of course) walk up to any casino table and play.
After a week we can compare bankrolls. He won't even have found the wheel yet though - he'll
need more time so that's fair too, I'll play for as long as he wants to.
Make it a few weeks perhaps.
Then we see who's ahead ? He should be. I should be close though. The only advantage that I would
have is what "they" say doesn't exist. So there should be no problem.

 

@Snow >> The spins at Celtic are much slower, just to clear that up. I hate to put Turbo on the spot but.....

They start us off with 1K (fun money). If he got up to 30K (fun money) and posted it, I would be impressed. Thats just me but I would be impressed.

Then again, I cant really say 30K because its all in the percentage that you are UP in regards to how much your unit sizes are. Meaning, I only play there with $1 units and I bet three numbers. So me getting up to 30K is nuts. When I start, I write down my starting BR. I then add on 20% of what my BR would be (in reality) as if walking into a casino. When I hit that, I stop. Yes I know, some will say a win goal is stupid but whatever.

On the other end, I write down what I am willing to lose (in reality) and I'll keep track if I get to THAT point in the game, then stop. Been saying it for years....ALL OF YOUR TESTING MUST BE AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO A REAL CASINO SITUATION. Thats the problem with Ignatus (as I have pointed out). He does his testing and we'll say one such session dropped 2K but finished up, $200. He calls that a win, I dont.

Its UNrealistic in the real world. Point being, I think Celtic is a pretty fair playground for testing and posting impressive BR's after a few weeks/months.

Ken