TurboGenius Gamblers Fallacy The Final Verdict?

Well wouldnt it be great for once and for all to get the verdict out from the above?

It can be so simple:

The Final Test

According to @TurboGenius Math, a number that is last, should "catch up" sooner than a chosen random number.

According to his logic the number that is "behind" should and will catch up better than a number chosen at random.

Then here is simple test we can do:

I will provide 200 strings of

A. 100 strings of the last number from 36 (fair wheel no zero) that is at least 300 spins behind. (The average is about 150 so this number is well behind!)

B. 100 strings of a number chosen at random.

@TurboGenius can choose how long the strings should last to his liking.

I promise I will not cheat, that is not in my interest because I want this to work to!

After the 200 strings there should be a clear advantage to the strings that are behind. Shall we say 70% correct?

So what do you say @TurboGenius?

To be extra clear, I want him to succeed!

 

Love to see a response, can't imagine it making much sense. Just a shit load of riddles designed to confuse.

 

There should be no riddles. He has to provide nothing on how te test was done. He only has to pick 100 strings that according to his logic were "behind" and did better than random.

 

Here's one for you...All fallacy at work

Track spins until the end of 2 cycles. (74spins) Note the numbers without a hit . (Probably 6ish )

3 questions:

What's the maximum gap before the first appearance of one of those numbers? (Rare event)

How many sessions on a 1 to 100 ratio did you get without a hit within the next 37 spins ?

Now pick 6 random numbers and play them for 37 spins and compare the results

I'm curious

There's a part 2 but let's start with this easy one first

 

Last step should be , pick random X numbers where X= non hits from those 2 cycles

 

Challenge accepted

 

Ok Results are in!

2000 Sessions

The data for the non hits. The average was 4.8 not around 6. (maybe fault in your data?)

First Question

6 RANDOM Numbers played until first hit.

Average was 37.15

Max Gap was 408 spins.

4.8 NON HITS AFTER 74

Average was 36.89

Max Gap was 413 spins.

Second Question

6 RANDOM Numbers without a hit in 37 spins

There were 0 sessions without at least one hit below 38

4.8 NON HITS Numbers without a hit in 37 spins

There were 40 sessions without at least one hit below 38 (This is because due that some sessions have more numbers than other sessions)


Second Question Bonus Info

6 RANDOM Numbers

12000 numbers played. 7620 hit below 38. 1.57 average

9664 numbers played 6157 hit below 38 1.56 average

Your welcome to the original data ofcourse.

 

The Second Question Bonus Info

9664 numbers played 6157 hit below 38 1.56 average

Is ofcourse from the NON HIT numbers played after 74 spins.

 

My results over 12.000 games:

Whats the máximum gap before the first apperance of one of those numbers?

These are the worst scenarios found:

157 spins with 2 non-hits = 314 bets
60 spins with 5 non-hits = 300 bets
99 spins with 3 non-hits = 297 bets
42 spins with 7 non-hits = 294 bets
72 spins with 4 non-hits = 288 bets

How many sessions on a 1 to 100 ratio did you get without a hit within the next 37 spins?

2.42% os sessions.

Tomorrow, I will recode the program and show the results with random numbers.

 

Remember Priyanka.
Well she asked a question on why wait for last remaining 9 non-hits from the starting 37 numbers.
Its over at roulette forum, In notepad page 2. Called ROTT. Replies 19 to 25.

 

What about waiting until the non hits get a hit, then start betting on those numbers. Does this reduce the average. Does a rolling 74 numbers make a difference.

 

7620/12000=0,635 it’s the same as 25/37=0,67
6157/9664=0,637
Don’t let the law of the large numbers dictate the cycle!
300/400 spins in b+m is 10/12hrs, way to long.

After 37 spins, 12 unhit next 37 spins (12x0,33=) 4 unhit next 37 spins (4x0,33=) 1 unhit
So no need for any testing of this kind.

 

That’s a good starting point! But how many spins you play it? If you think about, do you need to know a max gap of anything? The race starts until the horse (any #) makes it first appearance. A rolling 74 numbers is way to much in b/m.

 

Your logic is the law of large numbers, TG is short term. The horse race is about riding the waves getting out on a ‘+’.

 

Ok short term then you agree there should be a difference between your played number and a random number right??? If so, it would have shown up by now.

And according to @TurboGenius, A number that is behind should do better than a random number that is exactly what he said and if you test this then you see there is no difference. We could this short term as well say the last number after 300 spins should have more hits in x amount of spins versus a random number. But you would see there is no difference.

 

@HAL Question for you:

Would a number that is 3000 spins behind, perform better in x amount of spins?

 

I could test this no problem,but with all respect why should it matter? What law would dictate that after the first hit there would be more hits better than the average? I would do this test ofcourse with a random number as well, so after the first hit play for x amount of spins.

 

And that's some golden advice. I'll give it 100 likes if I could

 

Thx Karl . No worries, my data is fine.

Part 2 :

Start playing those non hit numbers flat-betting from spin 75 until spin 111.

Start playing your 6 (or 4.8 ) random numbers flat till spin 111.

Let's compare the results

 

You know that emoji is a middle finger right? Lol