TurboGenius Gambler's Fallacy (absurd ?) Proof.

You're correct but give him too much credit.

Sir Dickhead actually denies the 1/37 probability distribution. He keeps on about fallacy when the entire basis of what probability represents is a distribution of outcomes. He actually can't even count.

Three coin flips on a fair coin has the following possible outcomes:
HHH
HHT
HTH
HTT
THH
THT
TTH
TTT

With 3 coin flips, how many sequences above have at least 1 head?

For Sir Dickhead this is juat like Where's Waldo. Can you spot any lines above that have a H hiding in them? How many lines did you see? Can you count them up? Hint: You might have to use two hands.

Did you count 7? Well done, but if you only saw Oddlaw tails then try and look a bit harder.

The rest of us will plainly see that the probability of at least 1 head in ANY 3 flips is 7/8. But he says look, look there is a possibility of getting all tails!

Alas poor Sir Dickhead couldn't see the heads hiding and got too distracted with Oddlaw and all the tails.

But yes Sir Dickhead, we can also see Oddlaw with all tails too and we see that it happens 1/8th of the time, and that's why the probability of getting at least 1 head in any 3 flips is 7/8 and not 8/8. It's all accountered for, no lines left out.

But, but, but...

But now Sir Dickhead says there are too many sides to the coin, like too many pockets vs the payout and the scary house edge wizard is hiding there.

Yes we see the house edge wizard and he looks quite small in comparison to the tax man or the stock broker.

Then theres postcards of jesters and clowns at the ready and head shaking and so on. Copying and pasting and more about fallacy and maturity of chances and so on arguing against the probability distribution.

I simply say that in any three flips, past present, future, however randomly sampled we will see 1 head in 3 flips with 7/8 certainty.

And he says it's a fallacy, but clearly he can't count like a 5 year old can spot Waldo hiding in plain sight.

Sir Dickhead focuses on the extreme event of all tails always showing up for 120 flips like it happens all the time.

Sir Dickhead can't even calculate the probability of that happening. But it's pretty simple really, 120 flips of all tails is (1/2)^120 which is a very small number and much smaller than Waldo:

0.000... another 30 zeros...000752316385

Then he says that any 120 flips is a small number which is actually correct but his fallacy is that he completely ignores the full distribution of outcomes!!

The probability distribution says there will be 60 heads with 53% certainty (yes more than 50%!!) and for the pessimist we can expect AT LEAST 28 heads with 1,000,000,000 to 1 certainty.

I'm ok to be wrong once in a 120 billion flips.

So what do you think is more dependble, an outcome that is right 1 billion times for every time its wrong or do you bet on Sir Dickheads odds where it's that infinitesimally tiny number to 1 against you? His odds really are scientifically infinitesimal and is actually even smaller than the Planck length which is the smallest possible measurement in the universe. It's actually impossible to measure anything smaller in the universe while his number is smaller still.

Sir Dickhead claims that tails forever is just as possible as the normal distribution of outcomes we expect and clearly he is wrong because he argues against the 1/37 probability.

 

Luckyfella says there are other probabilities which we're not taking into account, and that 1/37 isn't the only one. Well, obviously that's true. There are countless probabilities in roulette which can be derived from the binomial, geometric, multinomial etc distributions. But as I've told him before, however sophisticated the math is or whatever distribution you use, the basic element in the sample space is a number, of which there are 37, all equally likely. Therefore any other probability calculation which uses some special distribution is going to start with 1/37 as the given, and so further conclusions can't magically conclude that 1/37 isn't true after all. You can't start with a negative expectation and conclude a positive expectation using the same premises (unless you've made a mistake). This is just the way math and proof works, which LF obviously doesn't understand.

It reminds me of a guy called Wendell back in the days of Gambler's Glen who tried to sell his "hidden math" system.

 

Exactly. This is too easy because you're making my argument for me. Regardless of what happened in previous spins the probability remains the same; the very definition of independence.

 

Simply here are war between these who understand when is possible win at all and these which that not know. And that is in all forums and many years. Reason for that is envy, because peoples understand that some group of peoples, simply know something better, no matter that is math of physic , or play at all... and that envy do peoples angry and that is why they like dogs try to find where they can to bite...
The same attacks was on Kaizan, on sir Anyone, on MJ , on me...

You write much, but in that writings are no some background. And that bacground is very simple and clear . Can be game with +EV and can be game with -EV.
We say that to win stabily is possible on game with +EV, you say - no - possible is to win also with -EV - here is background of war !!!

And that is the same like we say that human cant fly, but you say no - he can, but cant prove or show how that is done. And till you will not prove something or not show how you can fly - nobody believe in that, because never such saw and logic say opositte...

But can be that you himself understand that you here are not right and fly only in your dreams, then means that you are arguing simply because to argue without any aim !

Ok no matter who are you - you can have some aim about which I cant even think. But between you can be some peoples who want to learn something in forum and for such peoples you do very big damage - say in some other sittuation they can something learn here, but because war which you caused - not learned and because not learned - say lost many...

 

Notice the scam posting strategy make accusation to discredit the message of my post that hurt their forum agenda.

Their persuasive multiple scam posts is targeted at the reading audience.

Check their post history. The evidence is there. Their scam posting activity has gone on for the past decade.

Yup you read correct, last decade.

 

Similarly, DrTalos said that that way ultimately does bear no fruit.

 

This is what cracks me up about the notions in Reading Randomness. You can and will lose the number of bets that you should, more often than not, and still come out ahead. It's not by progression either. You can virtual bet until you are in a win streak phase and then place real bets. You then drop back to virtual bets when the win streak starts to break down. Now if your bet is $0 or $100 does not matter. You will still lose the expected number of bets in the long run.

The only argument against this simple method is that you can't know when you are in a win streak and that you don't know how long it will last. But as I have pointed out many times, the pit boss for some reason knows when you are in a win streak. And on top of that, math will never tell you how long the current win streak you are in will last either. You have nothing to go on that will give you a magical inclination. Got it. Not knowing cuts both ways.

So it stands to reason that you can't use math to see how long a win streak lasts. You can't use magical trends because they don't exist either. You must use something else. Now how long will it take you to figure out a way to exploit a win streak as long as it confirms that it is still continuing to be a win streak? That's what always cracks me up around here. All I ever get is crickets. Nobody can think of a way to exploit a win streak. Come on guys. You can do this. It's not rocket science.

 

All these quotes are from DrTalos

@Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone meanwhile I am at it - here
https://www.roulettelife.com/index.php/topic,3337.0.html
https://www.roulettelife.com/index.php/topic,2149.0.html
https://www.roulettelife.com/index.php/topic,3333.msg62401.html#msg62401

Have at it, meanwhile looking at his name I am pretty sure it fits as the answer to your question=name.

 

It has nothing to do with the cause→effect you're trying to imbue others responses with -- but with the probability of distribution @2up & the consideration below. None other.

 

So the probability of that eg. 37 numbers being re-distribute in pretty much the same way as before or ≈repeating itself in the same measure the second or third time over.

That's what Dycsexlic pointed out as well with his 'word roulette'.

&, as in Turbo's example, that's why the probability of unhits hitting on the second or third cycle revolution coupled with 1/37 overall is higher.


Reme,ber the point is not which exact number, but the 'correct' group of numbers.

 

Here again the 'amount of numbers' is emphasized.

Including with not sleeping on a bet or sticking to the same pool of numbers till there are too few of them .. but moving & adapting using to our advantage what the game .. read distribution above over its consequent (cycle) revolutions .. offers us.

 

Now wait a second .. what the hell [WTH] .. ain't that exactly what Turbo's talking about, all along, especially with the first thread's example?

Do you begin to see how both fit or better originate in the same context ..

 

Well at least we can agree that probability is not changing. I always said the math of the bi-nomial distribution function requires a constant probability.

Where the argument gets confused is when people start speaking of future spins and chains of events. The distribution cares not about past or present or future. Half the results can be known and half unknown and when you finally get the full set of results we can always expect the distribution count to hold with the level of certainty as I showed previously. So for a fair coin flip we will always see at least 1 head in 3 flips with 7/8 certainty, even if two flips have already occured. The distribution count doesn't recognise past or future. What I am NOT saying is that the 3rd flip has some magical increased probability. No it says the same, in this case 50/50. But if I repeat the 3 coin flips over and over and over I will see that 7/8 of those series of 3 flips will have at least one head.

You mention other probabilities...

It is worth noting that in roulette, betting 1 number 120 times to get a single hit does not have the same probability as betting splits for 60 spins, a street for 40 spins, a double street for 20 spins, or a single dozen 10 times, or two dozens 5 times.

Whilst each of the scenarios all bet an identical total of 120 numbers covered, the probability of success (at least one win) is actually different for each of them. Let that sink in.

 

Again, same as Turbo's .. except his knowing, per example of course, came out with tracking the first revolution.

& once he receives a hit, the amount of numbers is lowered ..
(from eg. 2Q = 8 numbers)

meaning that at those next hits coming out relative to ≈profit made with the first hit as in time or spins it takes for that profit to be leveraged at higher risk, minding that those numbers are a) now imbalanced thus statistically advantageous & b) that its better to receive those next hits which in the amount are nearby the mathematical/statistical expectation at any given point in time namely with a heretical term kind of due + c) that more number played increase the average probability of those numbers selected/opted for to be played.

if it does receive the next hit .. the amount of numbers ain't further deduced to a few of them only .. which is synonymous to progressing in risk with a parachute to the deeper districts .. 6 numbers = DS position, 4 numbers = Q position, 3 numbers = ST position, 2 numbers = SP position, 1 number = SU position --




.. & irregardless, if it does or doesn't ..

in that ad-hoc predetermined amount of spins as per the condition above .. the amount of numbers played ain't kept at the same amount -- but returns again to more numbers played, increasing the groups' hit probability

 

I daresay all winning systems bet is based on the same 1/37 basic probability that roulette wheel churns out. If this was not true none of us can have winning bets.

I wrote in my earlier post there are many "ways" to play this.

I have perfected the strategy that allows me to play with the smallest and simplest bet in the shortest session.

TwoUp you can repeat the explanation a thousand times, MJ will still deny it somehow.

And yes you described how I design my betting strategy. I did the detail work.

 

So its kind of, per example, tracking up till 8 numbers unhit - commencing the bet
+
upon hit reducing to fewer of those for the next several spins

& if the game not resolved in the nominal positive yet, reinstating the more numbers played;
but rather than sleeping on the bet (avoiding the terminal sleepers) .. re-tracking up to those eg. 8 numbers


thus inducing his own rhythm or revolutions into the game, keeping the (his) game in control
by alternating more/fewer numbers played with aim & purpose to get a) that hit on more numbers preventing the unnecessary risk of drawdown keeping it recoverable & b) counting on a more frequent appearance ratio of statistically advantageous numbers =congested intervals (due to 1/37) taking a higher risk on the subsequent hit


of course playing ≠su positions but grouped positions thus keeping bankroll requirement lower the advantageous numbers are not only unhit, but also what you may call hot or currently already performing well, into which unhit 'tend' to qualify into - resulting into a more balanced approach not siding on either unhits or cold &or thos hitting or hot; although thats true for the pivotal ones

which seems to be the Joe's & the a bridge to far crew when talking about Luckyfella's claim

 

It also reminds me of the old "hidden math" garbage. Now he's trying to introduce another diluted new clown named Tailos. I'm seeing a trend here.

 

I'm glad that someone has payed attention.

 

Guys, forget dyksexlic, His way isn't possible. Some things are great in fiction even on paper, but in reality impossible.
Always en in profit when atleast one repeat shows in a max of 38 spins isn't possible.
Also, regarding his word example, you will never and i mean never see the same numbers lined up the same way as the previous cycle, because of random.

 

Wow, wouldn't that be funny.