TurboGenius Gambler's Fallacy (absurd ?) Proof.

One final matter as a gift to forum members.

Remember Vaddi?

The neighbour is wrong.

The neighbour with math significance is,

x+y = 36

0+36=36
1+35=36
2+34=36
3+33=36
4+32=36
5+31=36
6+30=36
7+29=36
8+28=36
9+27=36
10+26=36
11+25=36
12+24=36
13+23=36
14+22=36
15+21=36
16+20=36
17+19=36
18+18=36

36 is the "equivalent" of birthday.

Enjoy this gift from me.

Take care everyone.

 

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I guess you must replace the tyres on your car after every trip, even if it's just a couple of miles.

And if the HE is so irrelevant, why do you need to keep sessions short?

Logic. It's always in the way.

 

@ Dr Sir, Benas, Ka2,

It's no good. LF has out-argued us with his damn capitals. We might have had a chance if it was just that, but bold and underlined too? forget it.

We have to concede defeat.

 

Too many .. ?!

No, they aint.

There's exactly 37 or 38.

Too many for what, for you to be able to count them all? Too many for you to carry their implications?
Is their/burden too heavy for your fickle mind? Seems you forfeited before you've already begun .. vocalbulary.

 

I haven't seen any promise on 29 pages of this thread nor on the relevant others, has anyone?

You have incorrectly twisted logic that has similar effects when concluding on roulette matters.

 

LOL oooooow LOOL .. so correct.

The house edge, as extracted % from the won amount,
'accumulates' in summed amount only if & when the system does not restart ..
specifically in the recovery when the remaining win amount does not overturn the total incurred & accumulated loses yet.

Basics of the basics. 8-year old children would comprehend that when explained to.

 

No, they ain't.

From the strict point of view there's a clear threshold of a sufficiently populated string of numbers =sequence to perform the satisfactorily that qualifies it as 'random' or 'not random' - synonymous to true or false.

What you are alluding to with your degrees of it .. is simply what you'd call positive & negative variance .. which admittedly does havr some degrees to it & can be quantified in form of std scale/spectrum -- BUT that's subjective ..

& measured to not only the type of the system but each & every system itself as its contingent on & the measurements always fall withing its defined scope.


Yep. Hogwash.

 

That's why its in your interest to keep the sessions short(er) → restart.

 

That's what I've written on Steve's forum .. as in PhP Completion. I guess there's more dimensions to it now.

Thank you for posting this, since you've mentioned the 'learning of the correct use of PhP'.
I was wondering when & where & if I eent oitbounds or even off-track.
Although at this point its still a bit vague with 36 having so many suboptions ..

 

Because you can't read or comprehend.

I stated my gambling sessions regardless of the game are never so long that the HE comes even close to dominating the variance. The session is based on a defined profit target, and the method of play which determines exactly how long it goes and precisely what theshold of negative variance is required to lose the session.

The probability of losing the session is precisely calculated using combinatorial analysis of the method, probability distribution expectations and other methods. I verify using software and methods which are typically used by data scientists and those who build pricing models to beat markets be they financial markets or sport betting markets. I test with real entropy.

My probabilty of a session loss is low enough that I can multiply a session bankroll a number of times between events. Session losses are effectively paid for from compounded wins, never the initial seed money or earnings.

Given I have tested many sessions, are my results at the casino now cursed? Does the past variance and house edge somehow accumulate in some hidden manner to curse a brand new session?

If you turn up at the casino with a fresh bankroll however obtained (a job or even from past wins) do the past sessions at a different casino reach up to extract some hidden tax?

Or is it a more reasonable position that variance is realised and wins and losses are actually captured and crystalised at the moment of the decision, when the card is turned, the coin is flipped, or the ball lands in a pocket or the dice settle? I prefer to not base my reality on hidden magical zombies and wizards of vegas reaching from the past into the present to extract a tax.

I say sessions are independent and you say they are magically linked.

Numerically you also say a loss has house edge, so every bet win or lose must pay the edge. But clearly it doesn't add up, 3 losing bets have no edge that must be paid or extracted on future wins in addition to the house edge paid on a win. The coin has enough sides to show up 50/50, the wheel enough pockets to fill all 37 outcomes which can be bet on. Losses are paid to the house at true odds by forfeiting our bet, and it is the wins that the house pays less than true odds.

I really am surprised the above facts escape you.

 

Twoup,

You've out bullshitted yourself this time. Now whether you know it or not, you're implying that you can predict and exploit the variance... meaning you're implying that you can exploit luck enough to win. So are you supposedly a precog now? Because this is utter BS. When you gamble all sessions are linked, from your first session, to your last. Meaning, in the long run, luck isn't enough to win because the house edge still rules...unless you're actually implying that you can predict when you're going to be lucky and when you're not.

 

Also, none us are sure as to why you're trying to argue that there's no house edge on a loss, unless you're now pretending that your losses are some how advantageous to you.

Psst...nobody is claiming that a loss is anything other than a loss, which is why your argument has us giggling.

 

Psst. See your supplicating wheel watching buddy MJ below. He repeatedly says house edge is on every bet win or lose.

You lot are a bunch of assclowns.

 

These are all your claims, not mine. You really are a shaddy fucker, claiming people say things they never do.

Your fallacy is that you say all sessions are linked but each spin, bet and outcome is also independent. I wonder how that works in your wonderland of logic. (Rhetorical question, I really don't care to know how you resolve any of your nonsense).

Does the variance and house edge of your practice sessions played from the comfort of your trailer park caravan table follow you into the casino? Because all sessions are linked. How does the wheel know it's me playing ? Or if I am even betting or not or just watching the table next to me? Am I exposed to variance and house edge rays emanating from tables near me?

At the end of the day you have a corrupt mind and you're a slippery casino cheat who breaks the law. A criminal yet to be caught. It will be a rude awakening when the hand off a detective lands on your shoulder one day, and a joyous day at that.

 

TwoUp, evidently you don't understand the concept of averages. I didn't think it was necessary to spell it out AGAIN, but it seems I do. Suppose there is no house edge and you bet on an EC 100 times. The chance of at least 1u profit flat-betting is 46%. Now assume the standard single-zero wheel. The chance now drops to 36% -- a 22% reduction. These are AVERAGES. On any particular session you may do better or worse, but averages dominate, not variances. This is why all your careful Binom. Dist. calculations amount to nothing in terms of getting an edge. On AVERAGE, you lose. That's what the math says, no matter how sophisticated it may be.

Firstly, how do you ensure that the positive variance outweighs the negative? To do that you would have to know what's coming next with a probability higher than the odds dictate. In other words, you need an edge. Are you claiming that you have one?

Second, how is it that a number of sessions don't add up? because that's what you're saying:

They are linked simply in the sense that each and every session you play contributes to the total number of spins played. Nobody is saying that bets and outcomes are connected between sessions. The fact that you don't seem to have realized that this is what we meant speaks volumes. Going back to the car analogy, it would be like a little old lady who drives 10 miles to church once a week being surprised that her tyres have worn out after 20 years. "How did this happen? I only drive 10 miles per week!". A lot of small numbers add up to one big number. It's not rocket science.

 

So maybe you are that detective from casino, who want to caught ?
This way aim of such your writings becomes very clear and logical ...

 

So on average numbers are expected to appear 1 in 37 and to expect numbers to appear 1 in 37 is a fallacy......

Not true really, each spin is independent from the last.
So your analogy should be that the little old lady drives 10 miles to church and each time she does she begins
with a new car with new tires. If they are worn out after only 10 miles then yes "How did that happen" makes sense.
She can drive 10 miles per week for 1,000 weeks and still have the same new tires each time.
Why would the 999 past trips matter 1 bit to her new tires she is using today, and each time she drives 10 miles ?

If this is the case, I need to give back a massive amount of money to the casinos. I need to lose each and
every session from now on and lose big. You can argue that everyone else who lost balances out my wins
and the house still wins in the end overall - fine. That doesn't mean my wins don't count and it doesn't mean
how I bet is worthless.

When the lottery gets huge people always say "You can't win, the odds are millions to 1"
No one ever tells the winner that though. Does the winner have to pay the costs back to the 99.9999%
of people who bought a ticket and lost. Does it mean anything to him with 700 million profit what
the odds are ? Does he owe it all back plus his $1.00 buy in ?

 

Yes, but I'm not saying that it isn't.

Say you make 100 bets on an EC and have a bankroll of $100. Is your BANKROLL in the next session independent of the previous session? Well, it would be I guess if you broke even. But suppose you 1) make a profit of 50% (of your bank) in the session, or 2) lose 50% of it. In neither of those cases can you say that your current bank is independent of the previous session. In general, it won't be. If the first outcome of the session is a zero, how can that mean that the house edge hasn't impacted your bank? You have just lost 1 unit which you wouldn't have done if there were no house edge.

That's what TwoUp is saying: that the house edge is reset and therefore his bank isn't affected by prior sessions. Of course the SPINS in the current session ARE independent of them, but not his bank. Surely that's obvious?

Even if you have an edge the HE doesn't disappear. Ask Dr Sir. If a bias isn't strong enough to overcome the house edge completely, you will still lose playing that wheel over time.

Where did I write that? TwoUp agrees that in the next spin the odds are 18/37, and never change. He doesn't use the Binom. Dist. calculations to predict the next outcome, but only to get an idea of what can be expected to happen over a series of bets in the long term.

 

The silly squad is now arguing that because they play for short sessions the house edge doesn't matter...even over a lifetime. Funny stuff!

 

hey turbowould you say hot numbers are just cold numbers catching up