Roulette I've seen a new absurd claim that the gambler's fallacy isn't.....

Markov chain, really? LOL!!! I love the way system junkies toss that one out there every so often. It will, of course, in no way whatsoever change the odds. So what's next, are you going to bring up "Brownian motion?"

Psst...each spin is an independent trial, with no link to the past spins.

 

In general, what Twoup, Turbo, and the rest of the silly squad are implying is that they can somehow exploit "regression to the mean." ( Meaning, they think that numbers become "due" to hit...which is, of course, gambler's fallacy!

 

Yes every specific sequence of 120 spins is a rare event and there are billion of sequences that provide at least 40 reds in 120 spins. I just showed you 8 possible combinations of a coin flip to keep it simple for poor folks like yourself. Then I counted up how many sequences have 1 head and the answer was 7 out of the eight. Given the probability of each sequence is the same 0.125 we can multiply that by the 7 for the sequences that do contain at least one head and we get the answer. Another way is to compute 7/8.

The fact you dispute the basic math shows you're a clown. If you think 1/8 is greater than 7/8 I can't help you.

You're saying look! Look! There's a sequence with all tails and that proves something! Can't you see that sequence was excluded from the distribution count? That why the certainty is not 100% it was 87.5% as 12.5% of the time we toss a coin three times we will see 3 tails and the other 87.5% we will have at least one head.

But apparently this math is way above your head and you hang by the thinnest of thread and focus on the ONE rare event (which is fully accounted for in the confidence of the binomial distribution calculation).

All you're doing is saying there are some Markov chains that don't have 40 heads (That exactly what I'm saying with the confidence of 1 in 4056 it will fail). But it all sounds mystical because you don't know how to add.

Clowns do and say lots of silly things.

 

Sorry for using the correct terms. I've used them for so long buliding hidden Markov models, k-means clustering etc that I forget the simple folk sometimes. Perhaps I should I be copying and pasting "stuff" from the internet like you do?

You also misunderstand again what I'm saying. You keep fixating on odds changing and I have never inferred that is the case. Perhaps your too cross eyed from watching pockets and balls whizizing around to see straight and read what is written.

I've said repeatedly the probability never changes and CANNOT change because I'm relying on the probability distribution calculation which requires three things, constant event probability (cannot change, again sorry for the big word "constant"), the number of trials (for you that means spins), and the number of desirable events (that means the number of desired even chance outcomes such as 40 reds).

The probability cannot change. Can we agree on that?

Can we agree that the probability directly leads to a distribution of outcomes, with a typical bell curve?

We agree we can build the curve empirically through much trial and error or use the binomial distribution calculation to draw the curve?

Or is everything above all fallacy?

 

If you're not inferring that the odds change, then why bother with the Markov models? And by the way, it's obvious that you haven't got a clue as to how to use Markov models.

Then why are you wasting your time with any calculations???

Knowing the "curve" will in no way whatsoever help you win or lose at a rate that is different than the house edge in the long run, unless you're attempting to exploit a bias wheel.

 

Follow the logic.

If you look at your data and you see that red has hit 20 times in a row, then why would black be more likely to hit in the next series of spins?

1. Are there fewer red pockets on the wheel for the next series of spins? Did the dealer block some of the pockets?
2. Is there some kind of force at work that will mysteriously make the ball less likely to land in a red pocket? If so, then what is this force?





Is it magic ?

 

Ok then. Do you think that's what I'm using here?

I've modelled financial markets using HMM's but that's ok you say I haven't. So that must be it Mr copy and paste.

You're seriously the most conceited d0uchebag I have ever communicated within my life. This forum would be better without you.

I could never in good conscience recommend anyone ever use this forum.

Clearly you have been hanging around the wizard for too long.

I'm outta here.

 

I'm afraid you still don't understand independence. What you're talking about here is the distribution, and no one is saying that the first results invalidate the remaining results. What we're saying is that the first results don't affect the probability of the later results (in roulette). Marcov chains? they are worthless for roulette because the transition matrix is identical for any 1-step transition in the Markov chain (roulette outcomes are independent and don't depend on the previous spin or any that came before).

So you believe that the chance of getting red on the 10th spin after seeing 9 blacks in a row is 99.874%? Because that's the logic you're committed to. Try it. Write a simulation and see if it holds up. ;-)

Turbo, you can't bet on a streak directly; you can only bet on the next spin. Take the next 10 outcomes as an example and ignore zero to keep things simple. There are 2^10 = 1024 possible patterns of Red/Black, so the probability of any particular pattern occurring is 1/1024. After the first spin (say it's red) there are only 2^9 = 512 possible patterns (number of patterns halves every spin). But here's the thing : exactly half of those 512 patterns will start with black, and the other half will start with red. Then after the 2nd spin there will be 256 patterns left, and again half will start with black and half with red. This is the case for every successive spin. Suppose you're betting for at least one red in the 10 spins. The first 9 spins come out black, so what's the chance now for red? Now that you have seen 9 blacks, there are only 2 series that are possible : BBBBBBBBBR and BBBBBBBBBB. ie, 50:50.

 

Do you understand why think that you haven't? That is very simple - to do modeling , or simulating roulette is much simpler and you still can't do, or understand how that must be done...
You must understand simply thing - in roulette wins that who can predict which number will be in next spin more often, than is payment. If your payment is 1 to 35 - that to be a winner you must guess right say 1 time from 34.

All is super simple. Dr. Sr Anyone knows how that to do ( to guess more often, than payments ), but you - not, and this is the reason why you do not like him...

 

@TwoUp, you keep avoiding the real issue and continue to muddy the waters with irrelevancies. You can't use the binomial distribution or any other distribution to increase the probability of a win, or series of wins using past spins. Past spins CAN tell you about the distribution, and therefore may reveal a bias. Suppose you record thousands of spins and observe that red has appeared 55% of the time. This knowledge can help you win by betting red. But the distribution of outcomes has no bearing on whether the outcomes are independent. If the distribution is 55% red then outcomes are still every bit as independent as a perfectly unbiased wheel.

 

So what if they are independent & there are 37 pockets & the probability doesn't change.
All you are telling is 'you can't do this, you can't do that' like some kindergarden teacher ..
turning the sentences around, telling the samr thing over & over again

just tells you haven't figured out how you can .. surrendered & now I the deepest of the debts you simply cannot bear the possibility that 'you can' .. tripping on others being converted into some narrow-minded religious cult of reason

fun, innit?

suceeding & winning is FULFILLING.

 

Yes! It's magical math.

 

Or unless you are exploiting random coincidence which also has no basis in math. You might get 20 reds in a row once every three months on a table. Does that mean that you can expect that because of some magical math? It's nice when it happens but zig-zag and singles on the weak side are far more common. Once again, math will never tell you when a win streak will start, how long it will last, and when it will end.

 

Haha we are going round in circles more than a roulette wheel.
Seriously, Two Up, if you're reasoning was true then it would be very easy to beat roulette, now wouldn't it?

 

And also if it were true it would have been discovered hundreds of years ago.

 

Beating roulette ? Enjoy the dream of the centuries.


Dream on .

 

You should be grateful you're sitting in your comfy chair using a machine created by that "narrow-minded religious cult of reason", and not squatting in a cave praying to the Sun God. Whatever floats your boat I guess, knock yourself out with your systems. LOL!

 

Which systems are considered crime think ?

 

There's nothing wrong with reason .. but you are obviously using it in a very narrow-minded way, believing .. not knowing .. its the best way of utilizing it.

If it doesn't take you beyond itself, you're as good as a worm always trailing & regurgitating the same mindlines.