Roulette It's insane ! It's all a fallacy !

Spoken as a true scammer teacher.
You never want outsiders to learn anything, just the ones who paid for the class.
Disgusting.

 

So then "yes" is your answer.
"you can eventually expect" - your own words.
Gambler's Fallacy has been debunked finally, as we can expect things to happen !
I'm glad we got over this hurdle.

 

Turbo,

Why don't you play your "due" method on the red/black or other outside bets too?

Due..hmm...Sounds an awful lot like gambler's fallacy to me.

Example:
On August 18, 1913, at the casino in Monte Carlo, black came up a record twenty-six times in succession [in roulette]. … [There] was a near-panicky rush to bet on red, beginning about the time black had come up a phenomenal fifteen times. In application of the maturity [of the chances] doctrine, players doubled and tripled their stakes, this doctrine leading them to believe after black came up the twentieth time that there was not a chance in a million of another repeat. In the end the unusual run enriched the Casino by some millions of francs.3..
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/gamblers.html

 

It can certainly be played on the even money bets at the start, but the payout 1:1 just isn't worth the time - even though it would just be a few spins.

Your "Example" from a book 105 years ago (a story actually) only supports my position.
So the Min Interval for "Black" would be 26 and play would begin on it, and end on it
when it had appeared at or better than 1 in 2 tries. Simple.
If a player had been playing it at the time of that streak - they would have only lost 26 units,
and that is nothing to make back up flat betting on the other locations during the session.
I'm not sure why you are pulling something from 105 years ago when we have massive amounts
of statistics recorded in recent "times" thanks to technology.

But regardless, like I said - your own words that we can expect something to happen
clearly means that things are "due" and the "Fallacy" doesn't exist, so we can move on.
"Random has limits" might be next.

 

I get it. You need to be validated so badly that you post pretty pictures of your grandeur. It's "AN EMINENCE FRONT."

 

I woke up this morning and had a great idea. Let's save millions of people from gambling addiction with a well documented and referenced book. You better tell your secret because I'm thinking of telling mine. When I get done all the main table games will be extinct. You won't be able to get a game of Jacks.

 

GREAT SONG

 

GREAT SONG.

 

How does that help anybody anyway? I have a baccarat strategy I am taking to the grave with me! Fuck everybody else!

Roulette....well say what you like about that game, I still consider it a lot more about speculation and luck compared to skill even if you know a bit more than the average Joe.

 

Well I've always said Fuck Eugene, you can ask everyone. He's no average Joe.

 

My point above is that all you guys claiming to withhold roulette secrets are kidding yourself not anybody else.

Well that's great then. Everyone can get fucked! After all, it's what makes the world go around. LoL.

 

Now I respect you. My point is that Turbo is just playing at being a teenybopper tease. It would be so fun to blow up his fantasy.

 

You see, there is the rub of it all. Even if Alrelax is a bit of a fruitcake, he understands the psyche of it all. You could post what you liked and most people couldn't use it. Now to be fair, you have said this for years and you are actually right even though to some, it probably all just sounds like bullshit. As for Turbo, I don't really know what he is trying to say, because he doesn't say a lot really when you think about it, at least nothing that wasn't blatantly obvious even 10 years ago! Sorry Turbo, but that's the way I see it. Either say something or say nothing.

 

Alrelax actually knows how to beat Baccarat. He has one problem though. It happens to be the same problem as myself and one other. I solved that problem for myself. Each person must find their own way to solve the problem. They can use other people's ideas and make them their own. Once figured out it is so simple that any newbie could learn it in a few days. I found my answers by really playing and losing money. At the table with risked money is the only real practice that there is. Glen really plays at real tables.

 

Yep.

 

Turbo,

Your logic is bizarre. It's like saying because I wore black socks, red will hit.
I'm trying to help you, but you need to revisit the basics. Visit the wizardofodds.com

 

"In order for a number to hit twice, it has to first hit once.
In order for a number to hit three times, it has to first hit twice."

Deep stuff! LOL!!! Here's one that you can add to Turbo's list. I'm sure he would approve. "In order for a number to hit once it can't have hit before."

 

Here's another step-by-step example for those with questions.
(That TurboTemp guy is great, he really pays attention)
https://roulette-simulator.info/en/game/0f16c7b874079ffc7621d35eca81db4b

If you still don't understand what I'm displaying and talking about eugene - then I can't help
you - it's been explained in great detail.
Even Sir Anyone now says you can expect things to happen, and in the same breath says
Gambler's Fallacy exists. I haven't seen a good explanation yet as to how both are possible
at the same time... they aren't.
Back to insulting posts Sir A because you had to admit being wrong about something ?
Typical child mentality. But others learned something as always, you on the other hand
are learning things too but can't bring yourself to acknowledge that in the open...
I agree with Turner - you're president of the fan club and prove it every time you post.

Here's more details of the Roulette Simulator session above for those interested.
Go ahead Sir Anyone - tell everyone how bad it looks...
77.6% advantage to the player - lol.
YOU don't even get anything close to that with bias wheels, and computers don't even
produce results that good.
But insult away - there's no law against making yourself look foolish

 

Turbo,

As you recall I put forth a challenged and you chickened out.

What you've posted above isn't impressive. It's only 177 spins. Why not just post one spin? (My point is that 177 spins isn't statistically relevant.) Also, you're not posting the units. You're posting in dollars, showing bets that you could never afford to even make.


My graph looks better.

 

Okay.....dont get all upset now Dr Sir.

First, I dont agree with the TERM Law of the Third. There is no law, we can all agree on that but there is something that happens (can happen) regardless what title we give it. I dont care if we are starting FRESH and going up to 37 or 50 or 300.

"IN ORDER TO" have 3 hits, we must first have 2 hits. Isn't this common sense? I also agree (here comes the laughter) in order to have 1 hit, yes, we must have zero hits (starting out). Even on the heavy end, in order to have 8 hits, we must first have 7 hits etc.

To me, thats not an issue at all. The *MAIN* issue is, if/when it'll get that next hit within your session period. Lets be honest, no guarantees. Meaning, the 35 got its second hit on the 16th spin. There is NO promise of a third hit within 37/38. I think thats where we (most here) are having the "disagreement". My older method, Catch the 8 Train, is loosely based on this.

In conclusion, yes, a number cannot hit 4 times UNLESS it has hit 3 times BUT there is no guarantee of a 4th hit.

Ken