TurboGenius Gambler's Fallacy debunked (again) and roulette math.

I keep seeing videos from popular math/science channels that keep bringing up Gambler's Fallacy.
For anyone who doesn't know -

So basically - you are wrong if you look at past spins hoping to find some clues to what future spins will be.
I've given examples of why this "Fallacy" isn't actually a fallacy at all - and this post will contain yet another one.

For the example, I'll use the roulette wheel/table and track numbers as they appear.
How long will it take for every number to appear at least once ?
(Well, this will vary from one session to the next but we can work out an average quickly
and have something to plug into an answer).

So I'll run off a bunch of sessions and see how long it takes before the last number appears....
(how long it takes every number to appear at least once).

test 1 = 135 spins test 6 = 139 spins
test 2 = 124 spins test 7 = 278 spins
test 3 = 127 spins test 8 = 130 spins
test 4 = 144 spins test 9 = 128 spins
test 5 = 262 spins test 10 = 103 spins

So the average for 10 sessions is 157 spins. Let's use that to continue on..
So it took 157 spins for every number to show at least once. This is perfectly normal
and expected.

Now - how long will it take for every number to appear at least twice ?
If the past spins mean nothing then surely it will be 157 spins for every number to show
at least once + 157 spins for every number to show at least twice. (314 total)
If the past spins are meaningless, then this number won't change much at all.
So a new test - how long it takes for every number to appear at least twice.

test 1 = 174 spins test 6 = 175 spins
test 2 = 162 spins test 7 = 194 spins
test 3 = 183 spins test 8 = 171 spins
test 4 = 247 spins test 9 = 239 spins
test 5 = 254 spins test 10 = 244 spins

So the average for these 10 sessions is 204.3 which I might point out is quite a big
drop from the 314 expected average isn't it ?

To show this even more extreme and over a longer period of time -
I'll chart a session and note when all numbers have reached at least 1x, at least 2x,
at least 3x, etc. Won't the averages be the same as the 1x value ? No, it will drop
and drop heading more towards 37 because random is controlled by limits and there is
no Fallacy at work that I can predict this now before I even do the data.

All numbers at least appearing :
total spins average
1x 229 229.00
2x 241 120.50
3x 307 102.30
4x 347 86.75
5x 356 71.20
6x 458 76.33
7x 479 68.42
8x 533 66.62
9x 582 64.66
10x 676 67.60
11x 722 65.63
12x 762 63.50
13x 806 62.00
14x 832 59.42
15x 920 61.33
16x 1009 63.06
17x 1043 61.25
18x 1093 60.72
19x 1106 58.21
20x 1149 57.45

Is this clear enough ? It isn't 229 spins and never will be aside from the first
cycle to 1x - from that point on the average drops and drops.

The "problem" if there is one - is that a gambler in the casino will be playing for
a few hours and will never be able to sit down at reach the point where they could win.
At best they will be playing during the 1x to 3x period which means they are subject to
losing more than they could win back.
You would have to avoid/"record only" the spins until such time that it becomes playable.
Once this happens you are fine because most people with a calculator can figure a very
simple progression that covers 70 spins or less.

I demonstrated in the other thread how predictable random becomes over time...






So using past spins ONLY we have a predictable result for future spins, regardless
of using hot or cold numbers.

The problem is that either way takes time for the results to level out and become
playable. The casinos know this because 99.9% of players walk in, sit down and begin
betting during the worst possible time they could be playing. Having no advantage at all.

In closing, I want to repeat what I have always said concerning this so-called Fallacy.
You can't have it both ways.
It's impossible to say "Past spins don't influence future outcomes" and "every number
will appear on average 1 in 37 spins"
It doesn't work and these statements can't be used together. One is false therefore.

If it takes 250 spins for #1 to appear for the first time, and we all know the average
for any number to appear is 1 in 37 - we are 213 spins behind this average and I can
tell you with 100% accuracy that #1 will "catch up" or attempt to as it's average
will drop from 250 down to a value closer and closer to 37.
This means "random" is predictable using past spins and the Fallacy is no fallacy at all.

Thanks for reading.
Enjoy your day.
Ed

 

The gambler's fallacy is logic/comprehension problem that some people will never get past.

 

I agree the Gambler's Falacy is such a joke.

Let me use another example:

The house edge, whatever it is, 5%, 0.5%, 3%, 1%?...if one were to flat bet any game, in the long run, the player would lose by approx the house edge.

In the short term the player betting flat, may be above or below the house edge, but ultimately he will lose by approx the house edge.

So smart alek mathematicians say that one can never predict what's going to happen in the future, based on the past! Yeah, well how can mathematicians say that the gambler will lose by approx the house edge? That is a guaranteed prediction of you ask me.

 

This is betting on the last number to reach 1x, 2x, 3x when it is alone.
For example - only 1 number remains to appear 1x it is bet on. When only 1 number is left
to appear 2x it is bet on.
I used the wrong progression but just running off spins - every 10 spins I increased 1 unit
on the bet and dropped back to 1 unit on a win. It could be done much better.
I skipped the 1x to 3x because as I showed above this isn't in the player's favor to use.



This was with $5.00 as the unit size.
As we can see, the average bet was $11.86 or 2.37 units bet per spin.
The highest the progression went was 16 units.
The profit was 2,238 units over 4,370 spins - so 1/2 unit per spin profit.
(on average 1 unit profit was made every 2 spins)

 

If something is shown repeatedly over and over to be wrong but people choose to believe it -
they yes - some people will never get over it.

So you don't agree that numbers on the wheel will appear on average 1 in 37 ?
Isn't this common knowledge ?

 

Here is the Reading Randomness take on "gambler's fallacy."

Sometimes gambler's fallacy works and sometimes it doesn't.

Sometimes it strikes you with a loss on the first attempt to use it while just before it was working.

Sometimes you can get a perfect streak of first try losses even though before each time it was working.

People call this luck, bad luck to be specific.

Then there are other times that gambler's fallacy is working no matter what you do.

So the point is to check to see how gambler's fallacy is working. If you start down a string of losses then it is not working. You must wait until the bad streak ends. All it takes is checking to see what is happening. Most people would rather not check the conditions as they happen. So for them you get gambler's fallacy, also known as "gambler's ruin."

 

I often wonder why this “genius” never took his wild fantasies over to Wizards site. Those guys would eat him alive.

Sadly it seems like he has a higher IQ, but has some kind of block that makes him believe he can change math.

He’s basically a blend of Christopher Mitchell & MDawg with a cool Avatar.

 

if you want a lop-sided view of the world that WOV agree with, then that's where you wanna be. I certainly don't.

 

Then it would be a waste of my time since my goal is to help others.
If I had to spend my time replying to hostile comments then it wouldn't be a very productive
use of my time and ability.

Google provides this :
"TurboGenius" About 20,500 results
"Turbo Genius roulette" About 11,000,000 results

Feel free to say what you like but I am one of the leading experts when it comes to this game.
I'm still learning and still sharing ideas whenever possible.
I'm registered at most forums and there are posts by me or about me at all of them.
But now I should go to yet another forum and post there so that people (who clearly don't agree
with anything I say) can waste my time ? Why would I do that ?
They can come here and post replies to my comments - I don't remove posts that I don't agree with....
If I'm wrong then it is easy to point that out and show why.
This thread doesn't have anything that contradicts what I posted other than S.A. saying I'm
unable to get over it.... where are the posts explaining why I am wrong ?

Do numbers appear on average 1 in 37 ? Of course.
Does that mean a number that hasn't appeared in 37 is "due" ? Of course.
There is no Fallacy then - and no one can say otherwise unless they ignore
the basic math of the game.

The same people who believe in this fallacy also believe the Law of Thirds *or whatever
name it has now* is all mumbo jumbo.
I can run off cycles and 24 numbers appear and 12 don't. Anyone can produce a chart
showing this bell curve which is obvious - but It doesn't exist, it's all made up.. ?
You can't use past spins to predict future ones - but on the same note here is all this
predictable data that they deny exists... and I'm the one who's wrong ? Strange indeed.

These are all illusions in my mind I suppose ?
So I took 3k and flat bet only to reach 1 million using only this past spins "fallacy"... means nothing
though because it isn't real... There is no spoon..... I understand.
I posted a video showing how this works on my YT channel - only 762 views and 4 "thumbs up"....
Of course a scammer with "How to win at roulette strategy" has 200,000 views lol.
Why not invite him or her to post at that forum and be "eaten alive" ?
Never mind, I'm rambling and have better things to do.
Cheers.

 

The only thing you're doing is "helping others" lose their money faster.

 

And that is simply a delusional "opinion" that has no grounds to stand on.
I'm so popular because I help people lose money...... Thank you for your worthless input.

 

Turbo,

Can't find your video with 762 view. Are you already deleted it ?

Thanks

 

Sorry about that.
I have "TurboGenius" and "Turbo Genius" as YT channels......My mistake, the video is on the other.
I will merge that video into my main channel as well since it was uploaded to the wrong one.

 

All Minimum Intervals will drop to 1.
We don't need them to drop to 1 though, only to the amount equal to their expected appearance rate.
This is backed up by this thread showing that over time all locations drop down and fall into line.
For example, a street not appearing for 40 spins should be at 1 in 12.
It will appear at different rates but will certainly appear better than 12 spins in the future because
how else would be know it will average 1 in 12 ?.
The video shows this for the relevant locations. It's just a matter of charting and winning....

Unless Gambler's Fallacy is a real thing, in which case none of this matters and you can never
predict random, can never win *unless you have a bias wheel* and all is for naught.
I guess the readers can make their choice.

 

Did someone say charts and graphs ?

So here is the absolute nonsense that doesn't work because Gambler's Fallacy is a real thing
and past spins don't mean anything when it comes to future spins. So what if there are averages
and every location works towards that average - the math people say it's nonsense.
So here's 10 tests. I could do more but... why ?
This is "Minimum Interval" which even Bago liked somewhat - and it deals with only past spins
and making predictions of future spins based on average of appearance vs expected.
"Things are due" kind of thoughts....
10 sessions run off one after the other in RX using streets, then splits, then straight up numbers.
Ending each section when there are no locations with a minimum interval that is higher than the
expected appearance rate.... things catching up, things being "due". $10.00 unit size.













1) +$2,540.00
2) -$1,460.00
3) +$2,090.00
4) +$2,420.00
5) +$1,380.00
6) - $540.00
7) +$2,760.00
8) +$1,150.00
9) +$3,580.00
10) + $240.00
============

*gets out calculator* + $14,160 for only 10 sessions using only $10.00 unit size.
+1,416 units in profit on something that doesn't work at all I suppose.
==============================================================

 

First of all, a hat down for the work you put in to play and produce those charts.

But, if the proposed logic is true - that would mean it would be a "holy grail".

Gambler's fallacy describes exactly what you did. You played for 10 days (let's say you went to a casino and played one session a day), and you won $14,160 - amazing!

Yet, if you keep going to the casino for 20 more days (20 more sessions), you'll realize something you don't expect - the initial logic has some fallacy in it (the Gambler's one?)

Even if the luck serves you for 20 more days, after two months - you'll go bust.

I'm still wondering, with all the experience you have playing roulette for decades, whether you don't realize that - or you just adore fooling people around on forums out of boredom.

 

After all this time (4 decades now actually) I've learned that some people won't learn anything.
I've accepted that. I'm open to learning though. I'm also very open to being wrong.
I can see that in my 10 tests two lost and 8 won. I see that the average losing session was around 100 units then.
Sitting on 1,416 units of profit I know that it will take an immediate 15 sessions in a row losing to deplete
my profit. Do the charts show a possibility of that happening considering the 80% win to loss ratio ?
So I should accept that over the next 20 sessions *or in a month or year* that every session I play
will lose and my profit will be gone ? That seems reasonable given the data ?
Is this another "Well if it works, go make millions" or "You haven't tested enough spins" ?
By all means don't explore it. Even when you know for a fact that each number has the unmistakable
1 in 37 of appearing over time - and the numbers far behind this have to appear to actually have that average
be a "thing".... but then deny they will appear and to assume they will is nonsense.
It almost seems that some people are determined to lose - as if it's some Roulette Stockholm Syndrome.
You can never win ! Roulette can't be beaten ! When someone posts a way that might just work they
clearly are lying because you can't win at this game ! It's impossible.
I have never once thought this game was unbeatable and with that mindset have been able to see
how it can be.

 

OK, so you say the simple method you've just shown is "the grail" - it wins more than it looses in the long run?

There's no reason to lose the temper

 

Two more run off at Roulette Simulator to check for different results.



So this was with a $5.00 unit size meaning these two sessions produced 621 more units of profit.
So at 2,037 units for 12 sessions with the average loss being 100 units.
So I now have to lose 20 sessions in a row to not be in profit.
Wins = 10 vs Loss = 2 but 20 losses in a row are possible ? Hmm.
It's almost too easy if it weren't for the tracking required throughout the session.

 

You still put in the time Turbo. Much appreciated. THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX IS THE ONLY WAY !!!!!!

Ken