TurboGenius For the naysayers

So here is the circle of contradictions they argue with us about -
Maybe they can post in this thread and clear it up so everyone understands.

So scenario #1 -
I go into the casino and play, a few hours later I leave up $2,000
According to what you believe - the next visit I have to the casino, or over the next
visits - I will lose it back and then some. At some point I will have a loss near the house edge.
That's what they say. So that means the next time I go after winning, the wheel knows that
I won before and now I'm more destined to lose than I was if I hadn't won the first visit.
Correct ? If I win 10 times in a row, then I really really will lose big because the house
edge is figured into this session to make up for the 10 winning ones ?
This is what they say. The big picture. So that means past sessions matter to my current
game play which is clearly what the fallacy is all about - but in this case it's ok.
I'm "due" to lose because I'm so far ahead in profit.
Do they understand that past sessions have nothing to do with the current one ? No.
They think it's impossible to just keep winning and never ever end up negative, even
though past sessions don't matter....Someday if you play long enough you will lose it all
back.

Scenario #2
I go into the casino and I lose everything - I lose way way more than the house edge
says I should. What a bad day !
Should I keep going ? Why not ?
Don't you also then agree that if I am losing at a rate well beyond what I should - if
I keep going I will win ? I don't mean win and be in profit overall, I mean I will end
my session in a much better position than if I had stopped playing.
Surely this has to be the case - you can't have it both ways.
So I'm down $2k and the math says I should be down $300.00, Wouldn't
it be logical to keep going and expect to recover ?
Trick question I suppose as that's a fallacy too, but only if you are winning.

Either way it's running in circles.
The fallacy exists but doesn't apply to your bankroll I suppose...only spin outcomes.
They seem to have different math and opinions based on if you are winning
or losing. If you are winning, you have to lose it all back of course.
If you are losing, you'll keep losing - even though logically you should have lost
less and to keep going is the smartest play.

Spins are independent and sessions are independent - but they also say that
the longer you play - you will lose. Past spins and past sessions don't influence
future sessions... but the more you play and win - the more and more likely you
will lose it all back somehow. Past results only matter if you are winning ?

They seem determined to convince everyone that losing is your only option.
If you win, you'll lose it all back.
If you lose, you'll lose more.

I'm not sure how their logic works but maybe it can be explained more clearly.
There had to be 50 pages of fallacy posts in the last two weeks and nothing
was resolved. Past spins don't matter - past wins do though....?
You can't just keep winning even though "random" has no idea that you have won
10 times in a row and are now overdue for that big loss... strange.

Random doesn't have limits, but there is a limit to how many times you can win.....?

All of these contradictions just end up with posts going in circles as they argue one
side and then the other side and no one gets anywhere - only more confused.

It can certainly make your head spin to keep hearing that numbers aren't "due" to
catch up - but your bankroll is "due" to decrease the longer you play.

 

Think of it like this, you and a thousand friends go into the casino. That will help you realize the distribution.

Also, some win, some lose...but probability rules. Every person, win or lose, won an amount that probability predicted they could. Nobody can side step it.

 

If you play randomly this is true. The biggest tool you need to have in your belt is knowing when not to bet, is knowing that if you bet you're going to lose. If you have that ability, none of this applies to you. Knowing when not to bet is actually bigger then knowing when TO bet. Because if you don't know that you're screwed. How do you get that tool? By knowing when the outcomes are playing or not playing your game. Vast majority of people just walk up to the roulette table and start playing. Spin after spin. That's like a hunter going into the woods and starting to shoot his gun in all directions hoping he hits something. Everybody knows that would be ridiculous. The players do that in roulette without hesitation. A hunter learns how to hunt before he ever takes a shot. To win at roulette you have to find a method that lets you see if there's a good possibility you might win.

Here's a really simplistic almost stupid example. So don't come back and tell me gee Spike, that was a stupid example. Say your method consists entirely of following red or black streaks. Why would you walk up to the table and start betting if a streak was not even happening yet. You would wait until the outcomes tell you you might have a chance a betting into a streak. Because five or six Reds just happened in a row.
I told you it was a stupid example but it makes the point. You bet into the streak and you can only lose once. Move on and wait for the next streak. You will never be a big loser if you know when not to bet. This is much easier to do at home in an online casino with a live wheel. You can sit there for 12 minutes not betting and nobody cares or notices. What I play is much more complicated then the example I gave. But it does tell me very effectively when not to play. And the great thing about online casinos is, they produce so many more outcomes then the land-based casinos.
The Evolution Gaming roulette wheel the online casinos in my state use spins about 90 outcomes an hour if it has a good dealer. A dream come true for a roulette player.

 

So I offer you game - we take coin and throw it up five times , if are 5 heads - you take from me 500$ , if not - you gave me 100$.
You want play such game ?

 

If you are Nostradamus - maybe you can know when you will win. But for normal peoples that is luck.
Anyway is possible to know - where to bet , that to have more chances to win ! This is really important ! You himself write the same :

Important is not when, but in which direction...

 

Very low level discussion ......



I accept the bet but paying 10$ and you 500$ and playing 33 games.

What do you say prof?



Turbo writes things other than these banality ....... if you really want to lose time, think more!

 

I never said you can know when you will win. I said you can find where you have a better chance of winning and a good chance of losing.

 

And why is this not the same as knowing when you're going to win? For every bet there is a nemesis. Black is going to lose, therefore bet red. Job done.

 

@ Turbo, not sure if your post was intended to deliberately distort what the mathboyz are saying or you genuinely don't understand. Anyway, not one of your better posts.

 

Because winning is a positive, and losing is a big negative. When you lose you need to recover. When you win you have nothing to recover from. Therefore you should be far more aware of the times when you might lose.

 

Lord...the logic on this forum pffffffffffffff...

 

Maybe, better ask key, from room where money lye...

 

I agree... but I do have a point.

If I'm down more than the house edge says I should be... would you agree that I can
expect wins to happen and I will recover to the point of losing at the house edge ?
It has to be the case, since if it's flipped and if I'm far into profit I'm supposed to expect to lose it back.

 

Turbo, if you have advantage, then loss normally is because variance so - shure in long run will take back. But if not have avantage, then loss is what is expected, not variance, then - you normally will go only deeper in to loss...

 

I'll run off an example with RX quickly and demonstrate - maybe that will help.
I have 6,000 spins as sample size.
Player A) bet on #2 from the start, it didn't appear until spin #285 and it was obviously the worst
possible number but there we have it. He is at -249 units.
The house edge says he should be at -7.7 units.
So I'm asking at this point - should he keep playing being down 249 units ? I say so.
You say he'll keep losing.
So at spin 1,000 he is -280 units and his number had a huge comeback, but eventually
dropped again. The house edge says he should be -27.02 units. Should he keep going ?
At spin 4,000 he is -220 units, the house edge says -108
At spin 6,000 he is -168 units, the house edge says -162
First off, he's still negative (agreed) but he improved over time and now has lost at
a rate expected by the house edge. It's not magic, it's just math.
He was much better off to keep playing and lose only 168 then to stop at the beginning -249.
I added the expected house amount in red.




So where is the fallacy ?

If he were ahead 500 at the start, you would say he is expected to lose it all back over time.
If he is behind - what actually happens is that he loses at the house edge over time, but
that is an improvement over leaving at spin 2,387 when he was well well well below what
was expected and then recovered.

It's easy to play both sides, that being ahead means you will lose - but when it's flipped
and being down also means you are expected to do better and recover.... well, that is
then called a fallacy. It doesn't go both ways, it either is or isn't a fallacy.
This is yet more proof again of this not being a fallacy at all - and so long as we use
a player that is winning... it's ok ? If we use a player that is losing then suddenly
there is a fallacy.

If you understand this and agree (I would hope) - then you have to also agree that
numbers are "due".. meaning they are expected to appear at 1 in 37 like we all agree on.

It's easy to settle it "once and for all" but no one wants to do it and expose themselves
as being wrong. So we look at data, ignore it and then argue on...... it's nonsense.

 

Agreed to some point.

Let's say you are 2000 in minus (flat bet) and the house edge is 10%. So your logic says the house edge should get less.

X amount of spins later

you are 5000 in minus (flat bet) and the house edge is around 2.7%.

What was the advantage?

 

I think we all could agree on the following logic:

YES if a number is at 1:50. Future spins should show hits above the 1:37 range.

But you never KNOW WHEN! Meanwhile the number get more and more behind in hit rate and after x amount of spins you are at 1:37 and are still 10 hits or more behind!

 

Absolutely. You won't lose or win more than the expected HA over time, assuming you have no edge.

Your "edge", which is net profit divided by total staked, will likely fluctuate before settling down to the expected value of -2.7%. So depending on how many numbers you're betting, the edge may oscillate wildly either side of -2.7%. That's just variance, which will be overtaken by expectation as you play more sessions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that you're assuming the expectation somehow depends on what happened previously, which seems like denying independent outcomes -- gambler's fallacy. But that's not right, because "expectation" is a technical term which means a weighted average, that's all. It doesn't mean that future outcomes are dependent on past outcomes.

Think about it like this : if you're betting red/black then you "expect" that the probability of red coming up next is 18/37, right? There are 18 of each colour plus 1 zero, so "on average" you will see red 18 times in each cycle. You don't think "ah, well it depends on what happened in previous spin(s)". Notice that to accept the probability that the NEXT outcome is red with probability 18/37, you already have accepted that probability itself IS an average of a series, so why does history suddenly become a factor when thinking about a series of future outcomes?

 

lol. His answer completely ignored my point, which is that if you know what's NOT going to hit then you can just make the opposite bet and win. But that's Spike's MO.

 

I really don't mind being exposed as wrong, as long as we really have settled it "once and for all". Apart from arguing back and forth, which doesn't work, how would you suggest that it be done? : using data such as you have shown in your chart? I hope you agree that the few charts you have posted doesn't settle it. We will have to agree first to accept what data proves it one way or the other, otherwise it will just be like arguing -- which goes nowhere.

I guess the point I was trying to make in my previous post is that expectation doesn't depend on previous history. We expect the average outcome for each session, so in 100 spins we expect there to be "about" 50 reds -- that's our best guess and it never changes from session to session. If in one session there are only 30 reds or 70, we "expect" there to be 50 in the next, but there no dependency between 30 in the first and 50 in the second.

There's no contradiction. We don't expect a worse result because the outcomes are dependent upon each other, we expect a better result because we saw one that was below our expectation. The expectation itself is constant and doesn't change as a result of seeing prior outcomes.