Roulette More on that so called Fallacy.

JekhbB1976,

My point is that even though the hit frequency reaches 1/37 in the long run, it's still not enough to win.
A hit frequency of 1/37 causes the player to fall farther and farther behind.

Example of a hit frequency on the single zero wheel after...
37 spins... a random number is 1 units behind break even.
370 spins... a random number is 10 units behind break even.
3700 spins... a random number is 100 units behind break even.
37000 spins... a random number is 1000 units behind break even.
370000 spins... a random number is 10000 units behind break even.
3700000 spins... a random number is 100000 units behind break even.

As you can see, the longer you play, the farther you will get behind break even if the hit frequency is settled in at 1 in 37. Where will all of the extra hits needed to break even come from?

Why is this so hard for you and Turbo to comprehend?

 

Turbo,

I need to add that to your list of "deep thoughts" and "insights" to winning at roulette. LOL!!!



"In order for a number to hit twice, it first has to hit once."
"In order for a number to hit three times, it first has to hit twice."

 

I guess there's still hope for you sir!
you just gave the awnser to you're own question.

 

What i still don't understand, is that everyone except for a select few, continue to say that they can't win due to the fact that they have to fight Random!
But what they don't understand is because of random you win!
I will go a step further,
Random, is making our outcomes predictable!
Because of Random, we know what is goin' to happen! Like turbo has explained over dozen of times already, that a number disapeared for an amount of spins and is performing below average, does also mean it will perform above and on average in future spins.
Do we bet on numbers that are performing below average? no.
Do we bet on numbers that are performing on average? we could, but we won't make money out of them.
Do we bet on numbers that are performing above average? you damn right we are, and we make sure that we are on those numbers to make us happy
We don't bet on sleepers! We only start once our number or location for that matter appears. Because of the simple fact, that betting on a number that hasn't showed up is the most foolish thing you can do, because you never know, hell maybe it's goin' straight at bago's 600+ spins before showing.
Only once a number appears, it has the change to become a hot number and therefore performing above average.
Can we win them all? no we can't but we can make sure that we are on them for most of the time.
I don't know what to say anymore about this subject. Or you get it, or you don't.
Hell, maybe i'm the only one on here who does understand, who knows!
I'm done explaining.
Cheers and have a great evening.
J.E.

 

That's the gambler's fallacy. I have demonstrated, numbers are never due to catch back up, and the opposite is true. The longer you play the farther and farther you drift away from break even. The reason is a hit rate of 1 in 37 is not enough to win.

Saying that random is predictable is also an oxymoron. Turbo is full of oxymorons as well, so I can see where your infection of stupid originates.

You're using past spins. Didn't you say that you don't use past spins? LOL!!! I smell another oxymoron too.

Also if you're relying on betting on a number that's just hit, isn't that technically a trigger?

FYI numbers that have just hit are no more likely than a number that has not hit to hit on the next series of spins. After all, why should they since the same number of pockets remain on the wheel from one spin to the next.

 

It's classic magical thinking DrSAA.

 

But Turbo is says that triggers are worthless?! I pretty sure that you said so as well!

You're using past spins. Didn't you say that you don't use past spins? LOL!!! I smell another oxymoron too.

Also if you're relying on betting on a number that's just hit, isn't that technically a trigger?

 

Elvis, what allows you, at the moment you sit at the Roulette table, to affirm that a specific number has a negative standard deviation or positive or is at zero STD?. From what I read from you or Turbo, your ass on the chair is enough to reset the Wheel stats, that's fucking funny like your story of playing past spins, I thought it was allowed you just taught me something thanks.

 

Bago,

They say that, "Random, is making our outcomes predictable!"

Consequently they can just changes wheels at every spin and ignore the last number to have hit.

Or can they? After all, isn't it random that makes the outcomes predictable??!



If random is predictable, then is it still random? Isn't that an oxymoron??!

 

Nope. It's an Ox & Moron.

 

They do not understand what they talk. Random is predictable - highest point to show that. Ok then will ask what is not predictable? Looks that answer will be - ALL is predictable...

 

Good morning everyone,
Another day, another attempt to teach you all something about random, well i'll try

For the sake of things, we sit down at one of our favorite roulette tables and start to track the future 37 spins, no they are not past spins (present spins since we begin our session - the moment we take part of the game!).
Once we have 37 spins tracked, we then look at how many numbers didn't got hit during these spins. We note these unhit numbers wich are performing below average.
No, this isn't about betting on sleepers or anything in that direction. All about RANDOM.

Will be continued.......

 

Then show me a stat from a non-defective wheel where a number goes from -5 STD to -6 STD to -10STD to -20 STD.
Nevermind, you can't. Random is contained - that is why there are limits to random.
You joke about it, yet you know it's fact. (which clears up your mental issues for sure)
You can't in a zillion years show me a number going from a negative deviation to a worse and worse and worse
value because "Random has limits". Not your bias wheel data (that's not random). Thanks.
Case closed. (Unless you reject math and reality of course).
Anyone can chart this, it's so easy that RX will do it for you... run off 1,000 spins and show me
a location at 10 standard deviation + or -.
Now you'll say random doesn't have limits - yet obviously it does, you just proved it yourself.
At some point you'll learn.

For something to not be predictable, we would need a infinite amount of possible outcomes.
That's not roulette. We have a contained number of possibilities and there are limits.
At a table where the numbers ran 1 to infinite - there's nothing you could do to win.
What if the table only had 2 numbers ? The outcomes would be random since either number
could appear - would you still say there's no way to win ? lol.
One number might appear 10,000 times in a row while the other never shows ???? Please.


I'll wait for that +10 Std Deviation stat Sir No One (or a negative one) - in the meantime you would
have to agree that random has limits. You'll of course argue both sides as always.
Sadly, there's no number that moves farther and farther away from expected.
We have a average, sorry. 1 in 37... and any chart you make, any data you take will show every
number on the table moving TOWARDS that statistic. Please stick with reality if you are going
to argue every post I make.

 

Look Turbo I again come back to the same example - we have wheel with only two numbers so whole round is divided to two boxes ..Payment for good guessing is 1.9
Point me the way how you can win? You can wait for 10 000 times and see how hit only one number - and what? On that 10 001st time, you are again in the same situation as in first attempt - what changed?


I opposite to you easy can say how I can win - usually, one box will be bigger than other - that is a bonus for me, then I can see the first stage how the ball goes - some way go more to one box, some - to other box. I can see many other things and can hear something. From all that I can collect a big database and run it through a program which will point me to what I must react when I predict the result.
So all is relatively simple - collect data and look for something that is 3STD or more from average . If such find - I am 99% sure that this is not dispersion, but the result of something, maybe defect, maybe my skill
You in all your examples point only to dispersion.

Two numbers wheel is so simple for all explanations. If you say that defect you do not need and you win always then you can do a public show and put all us to place. Why in so many years you that not done?

 

I now know why you have always gone after those that claim an ability to predict the future. They are really out there. Really out there.

 

Guys,
the problem you all have, is that you are looking to hard for way to win. You don't have to. Random is making sure that you too (the player) have a way to win.
If roulette wasn't random, do you think i would play this game? Hell no way. I would stay away from it as far as possible. But because they made roulette a random game, i can and will win everyday, for as long as possible. It's all about math notging more, nothing less. Don't think to hard, the awnser is closer then you might think. But you need to put some effort in it, to find the awnser.
For those that are willing to learn, will find the awnser. For those that are expecting to get the awnser on a silverplatter, forget it.
Spit on me, call me names, i don't mind. Only through study, you will learn.
have a great evening.

J.E.

 

How to learn what ? Learning to lose with educated guessing ?




ND

 

Turbo,

First off, random is only limited to the sample size and the degrees of freedom. Meaning, you obviously can't have a run of 11 in a row if you only have 10 spins. And you can't have a standard deviation of 100 if you're only looking at one spin. You also can't have 39 different possible outcomes if there's only 38 pockets on the wheel. Understand?

Regarding standard deviation and randomness. In roulette the standard deviation for a number could remain zero (no standard deviation), but as the spin sample grows larger and larger, the number of hits required to break even still grows larger and larger. I know this has you confused because you don't comprehend what standard deviations are or how they're actually calculated.(See the example below.)

38 spins... a random number is 2 units behind break even. Random. No standard dev. 0.
380 spins... a random number is 20 units behind break even. Random. No standard dev. 0.
3800 spins... a random number is 200 units behind break even. Random. No standard dev. 0.
38000 spins... a random number is 2000 units behind break even. Random. No standard dev. 0.
380000 spins... a random number is 20000 units behind break even. Random. No standard dev. 0.
3800000 spins... a random number is 200000 units behind break even. Random. No standard dev. 0.

This means, the longer that you play the random game, the farther you will drift away from break even, even if there is no standard deviation for a number.


You claim that random is what enables you to win. Consequently if you're predicting at random, you're still going to come up short!
Since there's 38 possible outcomes, but you're only paid as though there's 36 possible outcomes, and because there's no way to way to predict better than random, the player can't win in the long term when playing the random game of roulette.

 

Pinocchio,

No you can't.