TurboGenius Gambler's Fallacy (absurd ?) Proof.

That's like telling a wuss something counterintuitive eg. there's no point in supplicating & courting to, or chasing, a girl; but rather move away .. & you'll get the result (awakening an irresistible desire) of her chasing you ..
.. creating a vacuum she .. just has to .. move into

Yeah, from the beginning of counting or measurement, not from commencing the bet(ting sequence); got it ?

 

I hear you. How can a number appearing less than expected produce a massive profit.....
It's understandable that it sounds like nonsense, like I said.
But sure enough - numbers far behind.. hitting better than expected are never hot and you
can win on them.... by not betting on them when they went all those spins becoming cold.
If that sinks in, you'll understand. That of course means the "fallacy" is no fallacy afterall.

 

I showed this in the post on page 7 here in this thread.

The two charts are exactly identical, there is nothing happening any differently between them both.
However... in one the player didn't lose all those initial spins betting on the coldest number.
In the other chart they did. The math didn't change but the results for the player who
used "fallacy" and waited to get past spin data won twice as much.

https://www.gamblingforums.com/threads/gamblers-fallacy-absurd-proof.22620/page-7#post-125144

 

Good Post Eugene. Thumbs up.

Earlier I called out MJ post which is wrong.

It's simple enough for anyone to understand except MJ, SirAnyone and Benas.

 

That's exactly how I design my very, very, very simple system. Emphasis on simple.

If more people understands this they won't bicker on forums. Instead be collecting money from their casinos.

 

I have to make a confession.

I called out TurboGenius hot and cold theory as absurd before. I did call him a fraud. Check my posts history.

I did not understand what he was conveying.

I retract what I wrote earlier.
I was wrong.

I believe it's the same with everyone else - SirAnyone, MJ, mathboyz, naysayers, doubters and on the fence.

I did write a long post to explain clearly the math which proves beyond doubt that TurboGenius is correct. I decided against posting it.

Like Denzie wrote, there's enough TurboGenius posts to work with.

Here's the thing. You don't have to be an expert coder. In fact you don't have to code anything at all. You use Ayk tracker. Good news for all those who don't code. It's fair for everyone.

Try to understand TurboGenius message. I mean the math. Once you properly understand the math you know what to look for. Random will certainly churn random outcomes 100%. And because it does that the count for random roulette spins is certain.

I have written the answer all of you seek. Except you didn't understand what you read. Read, re-read, a million times if you need. Lol. For those who got it, collect from the casino. And stfu. Lol

 

What math? Point to where the supporting math and probability is located. LOL!

 

Here I’ll fix that last sentence you wrote, it should read
And “the rest of you” shut the fuk up.
Cheers

 

Can someone please post a link to the tracker?

 

page 9

 

Let's leave the naysayers behind now .. & focus on making this work optimally.


@TurboGenius from a conceptual point of view it works, making a method based on this math principle in principle a winner, more in terms of (at least learning) how not to lose.


Why at least?

From a practical casino session point of view it takes real long for (some) sessions to positive, eg. gizmodemo, half of the session of 688 spins was just one game .. similarly, adapting this to unhit Quads, =corners for some, there's times to that to positive a real long while ..

.. meanwhile;
rather than playing unhits straightaway, currently well-performing Q positions instead eg. 2Q based on & placing them within such-performing ds areas -- can resolve the whole avg 300 spin sessions rather quickly without even touching the unhits yet.


The point of doing the unhits is because they are 'gaining' in statistical advantage =tending to catch up, & being notified about that by a number actually showing up first. On the other hand we have currently well-performing numbers that are also statistically advantageous.


In essence, everything that's out of balance can be regarded as statistically advantageous;
except for those numbers/positions consistently in-balance .. you've mentioned DSAA being correct on impossible to win flat-bet on the overall average 1/37 performers, & @gizmotron put the whole principle in short ie. its about cold becoming hot, or paraphrasing unhits becoming hot, since for the profit/spin ratio being actually effective we'd rather not bet on the few of cold(est) remaining SUs/positions & expanding the numbers played per spin instead.

Excluding the average performers, that leaves us with HOW to combine the unhit & another option of currently already well-performing numbers, with the purpose of gaining overall efficiency with balancing the method out; thus in addition of 'not losing' - also being time-efficient & economically viable.

 

Sorry, but NO. Numbers are never due to catch up, that's the gambler's fallacy.

Gambler's fallacy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the incorrect belief that, if a particular event occurs more frequently than normal during the past, it is less likely to happen in the future (or vice versa), when it has otherwise been established that the probability of such events does not depend on what has happened in the past. Such events, having the quality of historical independence, are referred to as statistically independent. The fallacy is commonly associated with gambling, where it may be believed, for example, that the next dice roll is more than usually likely to be six because there have recently been fewer than the usual number of sixes.
The term "Monte Carlo fallacy" originates from the best known example of the phenomenon, which occurred in the Monte Carlo Casino in 1913.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy

https://easy.vegas/gambling/fallacy

 

Hahahahahaha....
Looking for hints again. Lol

It's only a handful of posts countable on your fingers.

 

I would give this quote 20 likes if I could.
That's what makes 13 pages of bickering and 33 pages in the main section worth it.

How players lose is because of the imbalance payout vs expected appearance of any location.
When are there the most numbers appearing "at expected" ? Right in the first cycle when everyone
starts playing. The more time goes on, less and less numbers are showing "at expected" but it
doesn't matter - most players are done after an hour or so, playing while it was the worst possible
time for them to be playing. They don't know this - the casino knows this.
They know how long the average person sits at the table and plays. Most players will play
until they have lost and then leave, and this period of time is the best chance the casino
has to get their money. It's all part of the game. Get you in, at a table and playing.
How many times do you see someone standing around charting spins ? I almost never do.

1850 spins.
Note that any number appearing on average from the start *if played* is a tiny win for them.
Any cold number *if played* from the start is a win for them.
Any hot number *if played* from the start is a win for the player.

Take note of how early on it's completely in the house's favor.
As time goes on that fades and then flips..... but by then most are done.
They aren't stupid - they know the best possible time is at the beginning
when your individual session/data begins... not farther down the road when everything changes.

Imbalance is where you win, balance is where you lose - balance is greater at the beginning
and is completely on the house's side. Imbalance comes later when you hopefully have got up and left.

 

Just to give a bit of guidance, what you wrote is the basic structure.
It's a must have understanding of this structure.
Up to this stage that you wrote the theory is still too complicated to "see" the advantage.

Seriously, there are many silent lurkers who do read this thread.
They do diligent homework check out for themselves.
Yes, they "see" the structure.
No, they don't "see' anything that indicate the advantage yet. Nothing.

What everyone wants to "see' is this math advantage.
Clearly, unambiguously, definitively.

You guys have to go deeper.
Understand what you "see" from this basic structure.
Problem is you still have not understand properly what you "see'.
And/Or you have not understand the full implication of what you "see".

Eugene pointed to this "when and why".

Answer both variables for the advantage.

 

DrTalos wrote ..

.. but most were with blindfolders too focused on & prattling about the hits/numbers played ratio --
overlooking the most important piece .. the origin & core of the 'revolutionary idea'.[/Quote]

 

Random spins don't understand this idea of "recovery". Roulette wheel simply churn out random spins 100% of the time. That's all it does all the time, every time.

There is nothing "revolutionary" about random roulette spins. Roulette wheels and ball have churned out this same random spins for 200 years. Same till eternity.

Soon we play video roulette wheel and ball. No more wobbly wheels in the future. Lol.

 

E pur si muove.

 

It's the Gambler's Fallacy if you count on it to work mechanically like a system player. You turn off your brain and bet that it will always work. But Reading Randomness has always said that there are conditions where trends or patterns only work in three types of characteristics or phases. When they do appear to be working then you also happen to be in a win streak phase.

Well knowing what I do about the hottest numbers, and the impressions made by 'Law of Third' changes I know that counting on hot streak hunting and catching the best hottest phase of a number is under the same conditional awareness. When you are on the hottest number and it is working then you are also in a powerful win streak phase. These are the three phases in case you are not aware of them. It works real good, it works flat or chaotic, or it doesn't work at all. What did not work one day, because of bad guessing or bad timing might work great on another day. It's not mechanical. It's conditional. It takes conditional awareness. This is something that our fine Dr AA will never admit that just got told to him. He can't listen. He won't allow himself to be aware of what was just said. It's not fallacy. It's not expecting anything to be due. It's in fact looking for temporary conditions that it only appears to be working.

I've seen things that continue, like a hottest number, go on for days at a time. I've seen the same 18 numbers dominate for 4 days in a row. That's while I was there for about 8 hours each of those 4 days. So I hit the working intervals perfectly. It's all pure timing and observation.

You can confirm this purity of effectiveness in every session that you play or even test. You can see when your systems go in and out of their best phases. That's if you are smart enough and willing enough to do the work needed to observe these phases. You, in effect, become a phase hunter.