Roulette Hot vs Cold / Gambler's Fallacy proven a "fallacy" yet again

I explained this already. You shouldn't be confused.

 

What numbers are going to be FUTURE hot numbers which you will be betting on ? (well, not you - other people).
Would the future hot numbers which you need to win on come from the PAST hot numbers or the PAST cold numbers.
I posted lots of charts up there, look at them.
Playing hot numbers means playing numbers which are hot WHILE you are playing them (obviously). It's not hard to figure out that I'm not making a U turn. Maybe you just don't see that it's a straight road.

 

So posting for people to divide until they reach 0 and that you can't get 10 reds in a row during 9 spins is your argument against what I posted ? I don't get it. Like I said above, if that's all that your going to do then your comments don't mean anything. If you think I'm wrong - explain how I'm wrong. (or just keep posting nonsense)

 

I need a laugh now..
Sir Anyone as a baby finds his very first bias wheel and exploits it.
Then it was nap time.

 

So you're betting on cold numbers assuming that because they're cold they will be catching up real soon. Sounds like pure gambler's fallacy to me, but you're saying it's not a fallacy after all because it "works".

 

I posted lots of charts above that I ran off while making the post. I can do more if you want.
The past cold numbers appear (or at least one of them) at a rate which can allow the player to win.
The past hot numbers appear at a slower rate in the future which makes the player lose.
I bet on past cold numbers for the examples. My advice has always been to play numbers as they are getting hot in order to win (which I've demonstrated and done). This doesn't mean using past spins, it means that if I sat down and played - someone who was at the wheel already watching my numbers win would probably pull out a notebook and point out how most of them were cold numbers in the recent past. I don't need that info though. I only need present and future spins.
Sure it sounds like running in circles, but it's not. You can play numbers that are currently on a streak getting hot - it really doesn't matter that they were cold in the recent past.
But for the sake of the thread - showing that Gambler's Fallacy is a fallacy itself - I had to use past spins to show how it works.

 

In the original chart I posted at the top (the first one with the hot and cold standard deviation lines) - you could do that with a single number and show how it hits that "limit" that I always talk about and drops, or drops and climbs and drops - always contained within limits if it's above expected or below expected.
This leaves one logical result - if a number is cold it's going to stay cold or get hot. If a number is hot it's going to stay hot or go cold. There's ONLY one of these that can benefit the player obviously, we have to win on numbers that appear above where they are supposed to. It's not perfect (progression). wrap it up and call it a day lol.

 

I posted more than ten years ago at Gambler's Glen that the hottest few numbers in a 500 spin cycle will occur between 300 and 450 spins. The TG graphs above all show a use activity that begins at spin 250. That is the point where cold numbers begin to show the start of replacing existing hot numbers that will cool off at that point. It is the rare cycle that a hottest number or two reaches 450 spins still in the lead.

You can see a new hottest number by looking at the duration between hits in the shorter run. It's good to identify the new hottest numbers because they will hit many times in less than 20 spin intervals. A hottest number will hit from 12 to 28 times in 300 spins, with an average of between 14 and 18. I chose 300 spins because I could only stand to play for more than ten hours at the most, at a live casino. There were no machines, Rapid Roulette, or Air Ball back then.

If you can identify the new hottest few numbers then you can beat Roulette by flat betting. If you get an average of 30 spins between hits then you are still a winner. TG has just confirmed my reasoning's of more than 11 years ago. I started out with the three hottest numbers and 300 spins as the basis for reading randomness. I wrote many computer applications and graphing software using Shockwave as the platform. If you sit down to play, and have no past reference of spin results, then you will in fact be seeing the new hottest numbers emerging in your playing chart. You don't have to wait for 250 spins to find the end of the cooled off numbers emerging into hotter active numbers. This change phenomenon is always happening. It has too. You must have a method to find the new hottest numbers as they emerge.

I know that this thread is about randomness having limitations. But what would interest players the most is in identifying the best numbers to bet on while you play. If you can do that then you can also speculate on the changes in 24 numbers at a time instead of just 3 or 4 numbers as a baseline for reading randomness. There are limitations there too. The volatility between active opportunities are much shorter and profound and so are the wider swings occurring in much shorter intervals while guessing the hottest opportunities. Streaks of singles and sleeping dozens all occur in many forms if you look at enough combinations or groupings of dozens. Then there is the global effect that has the appearance of occurring all across the spectrum at the same time. You don't have that feature with hot number betting. I like to kill the randomness features while they are in a state of extreme opportunistic coincidence. My latest successes come from these opportunities and micro-sized wave-fluctuations in a minimalist graduation. "Inch by inch, anything is a cinch."

 

I would like to see a few more, thanks. I assume you record spins until there are 7 left unhit. These are the cold numbers, right?

 

It seems I am always one step behind you. I'm getting a little sick of it. (lol)

Ken

 

Your way sounds just as good, it would take less spins. They would all have 0 shows so cold, the top 7 numbers would have plenty by then.

 

You guys do understand that you must let the cold numbers run their course before they turn to the hot side don't you? It's not enough to recognize the seven coldest numbers. They have an expectation to them that is easily described as a limit to them. They are just like the randomness of hot numbers.

 

Michaela,

Someone is confusing the cartoon world with reality.

 

Your lack of explaining your point of view just validates what I said more.
Use your vast knowledge and explain why my charts gave those results when it's complete fallacy.
Try not to use words like "cartoon", "toy", "not enough spins", etc. For once make a point ? If not then
your leaving the readers with my explanation as the truth - which you don't believe.

 

Now you are on to something. Explaining the dogmatic view's of snowman by the use of empirical data. That would be a new discussion feature at forums. Too bad such a world does not exist.

 

Turbo,

On the random wheel and a good rng, hot and cold numbers are part of the cloud of variance. They are not exploitable, because the house payoff is always going to be short of what the probability says is fair. Overtime, you're going to lose.

Claiming that you can read or exploit randomness is an Oxymoron.

 

It's no oxymoron.
I just showed above how random is contained, it has limits. It act a in predictable way or else the charts would be jibberish.
I also explained how numbers will repeat, and how to use that info. I'm not sure where the confusion is on your part.

 

Maybe, but at least TG makes an effort to SHOW that his ideas have some substance by posting charts. He's not just hot air, and that's a rare thing on the forums. It wouldn't kill you to acknowledge it?

 

Claiming that you can't read or exploit randomness is just moron.

 

Because the martingale can work for 100 spins, it is what you've proven, congrats.

Yes there is certainly a limit but it is not your progression 1,2,4,8,16 that will beat Roulette Randomness. A single number can sleep for more than 600 spins. And you don't show how randomness is contained with a chart of 700 spins, numbers have much higher and lower STD in the long run.

You like it or not, but any number at the time you bet on it will have a hit rate of 1/37, long term tests prove it, and you have a return of 36, that's why a martingale on frozen, cold, warm, hot numbers will never work. You can certainly win on short term sessions like I did on Celtic Casino, making around 100 every session, but only 1 bad session and your bankroll is vanished. Beating Roulette has never been an easy task, if it was that easy, it would have been beaten a long time ago.