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

This reminds me of a time ...years back...when i was busy with imbalances and cold , coldest # to catch up.....to be honest it never tanked.....the only thing that did tank was my patience.......the tracking was boring and i kinda moved on to faster sessions ( hotties)

 

I tried min interval plays before after seeing your video etc., did not have much success, but I did something similar to what you describe above yesterday and while I was starting earlier and I find that chasing for too long can eat your profits, it looks good. As you say many of those below avg hit 2-3 times after the initial hit after a long break. I would only play those "sleepers" after they hit not before. I stop when over 200u and only 4 numbers left on board to play.

 

Thanks. Hard to translate what you mean in some cases. So I understood the logical essence a long time ago, but here's how to use it... There are a lot of questions about your examples, but now if you can just superficially a few questions:
The first thing here is what you write at the end

Do you mean if you continue with the number 5 or at all? That you were lucky with this example?

Next,

So, here is this difference, what I did before and what I thought you suggested and I asked you about it earlier before the example.
In the first case, with No. 5, you deduced the total average for all spins. Whereas in the following example, you continue to play with the same numbers and the next number 19 you played only 2 times and just waited until its minimum interval is less than 37. Although in the example with No. 5, the interval less than 37 was also on the second time. Why did you play like that there, and here in a different way?

In the game on the next number, I understand your logic, why you played 3 times on it. BUT I still can't understand how you played according to the chart? When you write that it didn't show during the next 37 spins, then you wait until it appear, and as I understand it, you don't bet on it. And you had this 2 times in a row, i.e. there should have been no bets more than 74 spins. But on your chart, the flat bar (i.e., no bets) is generally less than 37 spins. As if you didn't adhere to any rules that you explained to us, but purely played on intuition that soon this number should fall out and without waiting for the end of the first 37 idle spins or after the first 37 idle spins you started betting and your chart go down, and after the second 37 spins, which should also be idle according to your words, you increased the bet, it can be seen from the chart and then after 8 spins you made a profit, although you shouldn't have! According to you, you only had to wait for this number until it triggered, and only then after 3 spins to make a profit. So is there any rule about this? Thanks.

 

Gigi
Remember when we said we could look at the laps left to right and take a perspective look at it like GUT?


Advantage ?

 

Yes in the original explanation I wouldn't play a location after it reached it's expected Min Interval.
My example above, using RX was to show that you could go beyond that and if the player noticed *as I did*
that there was an advantage to keep going on the same location then to do it.
I tend to wander in a few directions at once and it sometimes confuses people - or it gives them the idea to tweak
what I say and make it into something even better, which is a plus.
I'm also working on a simpler version that can be played without the need to chart every location ever spin
and will be posting on that shortly. The basic concept though from the original post is why this works, and
the variations work.

 

Don't have to be boring. Wins with flatbet.

 

Flatbet

Get lucky with flatbet.

 

Got lucky with flatbet.

 

Have to wait longer for the luck to come.

 

All right, Turbo. I just waited a little bit not to distract you with questions every time you put out the next version. Because, yeah, every time you put something out, I'm more and more confused. But as you are either busy or will not post a new version, I will ask at least the last most important question so that I can already somehow normally test something. It's just that you yourself that playing this is damn difficult, and therefore testing, so I wanted to know all the nuances.
Okay, please answer at least what the trigger is in your tests in RX? I.e. You started from the streets, but you always played from one street, then switched to another. And this was always a different number of streets, i.e. in one game it could be one street and then you switched to splits, and in another it could be 3 streets in a row. What does it depend on, can you say?
Also with splits and singles. Always a different number of numbers, it can be 2 numbers, and can be 6 at once. Why does this quantity depend on? And why the streets are only one, and the splits and numbers are several at once. You can at least explain it, please. Thanks.

 

Lucky, how can I contact you?

 

When I'm looking at probability of an event I like to understand the degree of certainty I need to build my staking plan around. I want limits, aka "guarantees" if you will, that I can bank on as an absolute practical worst case.

Not to pour cold water on the ideas here, I often use a binomial calculator to understand the worst case. In roulette (1/37 chance) you need 756 spins to have certainty that the number will appear (that provides a billion to 1 guarantee the number will show and that's about as certain one needs to say "guaranteed" ... as most things in life are never that certain. A sobering reminder, if you're in a first world country, you have about a 1 in 120-150 chance of dying this year, far more likely than losing to a 1 in a billion event in a casino.

To compare the certainty we can expect a number to appear within 100 spins, there is a much less certain 1 in 15 chance you WON'T see it, and that's a far cry from a 1 in a billion.

With bacarrat I know that within 100 hands there is a practical guarantee of at least 20 bankers, and within 200 hands it's around 63 bankers with a billion to 1 certainty. But baccarat only has one EC bet.

For the even chance bets in roulette, within 210 spins you can bank on a minimum of 60 favourable outcomes for any of the EC's, with a billion to 1 guarantee in your favour. Play all 3 EC's together and you can reduce the variance / drawdown across those 210 spins. If you play all three EC's you have a practical worst case bound on wins vs losses of 30/70 and can expect a MINIMUM total of 180 favourable outcomes across 210 spins and a worst case MAXIMUM total of 450 losing bets, but no more.

The above provides the practical worst case parameters to design a staking plan around. Still not an easy task, but it is based on the math of binomial probability distributions of random events and is not fallacy or notion of events being "due". I can say I expect an outcome with nine 9's of certainty.

So in some respects when a lay person says something is "due" they are to some degree supported by the math given a large enough sample! However the fallacy is realised when one uses a much smaller sample size and an aggressive progression than that supported by the math.

 

Now go form a team of 2 or 3 players doing their shift

 

I really got to much free time but here it is . I gave it a try . It was quite interesting to see the "fallacy" at work . I guess it was on a break at the moment. Lmao . Fun method. TG what would you consider a better or the best progression for this one ?

 

Omg you really are bored

 

Actually yes . The misses wanted to go to the beach so....after an hour or so I get bored. So I did this as entertainment. It worked very well as expected. My first number being bet on ( first 3x) actually went from last place to 23th in record time . You might begin to think to start a race with cold numbers as at least one of them put on their sprinting shoes

 

I dont think in this case it differs much from picking random number using same progression you used for that lonely 3x

 

Again this data is so wrong! Why because you start to count differently!

You start: there are 0 numbers: Fact it will on average take 150 spins for all numbers to apear once.

Then you start to calculate wrong, for example from 19x to 20x you start to calculate from the last 20x and subtract the last 19x. Yes on average you will get 54 spins. But how many numbers were left??? 0 ??? No on average there are 2 numbers left not zero! The first of the 2 will get the first hit at 18 spins and the last one will get a hit on 36 spins (fair no zero wheel) So again no edge!

 

That lonely 3x was only played shortly because I had to change numbers as described in the method.

 

Right, because they you switched to a lonely 4x etc. It is unfortunately an impractical way, since even a "lonely" 3x can sleep for a while regardless of an average. The waiting can of course be skipped entirely by reading of an online stats board initially and just add to RX etc.