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

Yes any specific series of 38 (or 37) events is astronomical. But so what.

Math is useful for describing probabilistic features of what we expect in those 38/37 results. The birthday parodox or law of a third means on average we can expect a certain number of repeaters in a series of spins with a defined probability.

So it is in fact more probable to see some repeats in 37 or 38 spins than the astronomical event of not seeing a repeater with your example of seeing every number 1-38. I'll bet on a repeater appearing (even if it's a pure guess) before your astronomical event any day.

I'm not suggesting the math predicts WHAT number will repeat next but it certainly helps in understanding the character of outcomes which can be useful for developing staking plans and bet selections.

When the binomial distribution function says that there are 60 roulette EC events in 210 spins with nine 9's of confidence and you have seen 150 spins with only say 20 occurances then I'm betting those remaining 60 spins expecting a high density of outcomes for that EC. 1 in a billion times I will be wrong and 999,999,999 times I will be right. But that's fallacy you say. Well sorry, not sorry, its not fallacy, go argue binomial probability distributions with a math professor.

A binomial distribution calculation provides a defined certainty on the minimum number of occurrences one can expect of a particular event within X spins or trials. I can tune the degree of certainty by increasing or decreasing the trials required and apply a staking plan within those parameters. But that's fallacy you say.

At the end of the day one needs just enough confidence that a method has good enough probability of doubling a bankroll a few times. Sure a practical method may not be nine 9's of certainty, it maybe only be 3 or 4 or 6 nines before the nemises event but sufficient to double the bankroll several times over and layer bankroll management on top to handle the inevitable session bust events. Rinse and repeat.

Understanding the boundaries using math is useful for worst case modelling whether in gambling, trading or business.

Your opinion is limited and ignores many mathematical facts as well as the tactics that successful gamblers, traders and business owners apply to their captial. Sure not everyone understands the math but successful gamblers can arrive at an approach supported by the math through trial and error. Gambers fallacy has supporting math, given sufficient trials we CAN expect certain events and the binomial distribution function tells us how many trials we need for the level of confidence we require.

 

This must be some kind of sophistry disguised as a troll attack.

 

So, you don’t read. Could you read random, don’t think so.

Here you go Gizmo; this has been known since before 2016.

Spins 1-10; 1 repeat.

Spins 11-20; 3 repeats.

Spins 21-30; 5 repeats.

Spins 31-40; 7 repeats.

So, Gizmo, 1-3-5-7 =16 repeats over 40 spins.

Or 9-7-5-3=24. 24 non-hits over 40 spins.

Like you at 60 spins it’s usually 30/30; 50/50 or 30 of the starting 37 hit and you get 30 repeats.

Turbo Knows some will get hot from the 30. The posts a few back; R-sim gave 1-3-5-7 and 29. 29 repeats over the 60 spins.

I’m currently playing this on R-sim and where’s the advantage; no where even with 7 numbers.

Look how many 1x could go R1, 18

 

Gizmo I said repeats at 40 spins could be at worst +/-5; here we are 4 repeats down.

We’d be better just watching how the non-hits are hitting. If they hit, how fast. When would you make a decision to bet for a repeat?

It’s all been discussed in KTF, WTF.

But you carry on with reading random.

 

Don't talk at me.

 

So, being 4 down for repeats at 40 spins. To get to 30 repeats by spin 60, we’d need 18 repeats.

We’re now -2 for repeats.

Now you can watch each 1/37 spin and make a decision whether to bet or not.

Bit like your trying to read random.

 

It's nothing but a baloney festival.

 

I wish this is true.

 

Thank You! A voice of reason in this geriatric madhouse.

 

A key board jockey festival in progress. Do not disturb.

 

Bit like you over the years of failure and the other one ND with his red/black snake shite.
Play at your own risk

 

Is top 7 better than top 3?


Now you can all F--- --F

 

The math says, the longer you play, the more you will lose since there's two too many pockets on the wheel. Money management, "tactics," won't even make a dent in the house edge when playing the random game. By the way, trading principals will in no way help you play professionally. The only way to win is to increase the accuracy of your predictions via VB or to exploit defects in the wheel.

 

Easier to zigzag on red/black,

300 in 60 spins not like top 3 or 7

 

A reject from RFcc has voiced hid opinion . KTF bull shit dragged in too.

 

Gizmotron earned the like for " baloney festival "

 

No, trans4712, he's wrong too.
It might sound clever, but he's using past spins to predict future spins. Binomial distribution can't do that.

 

As much as DSA posts regurgitate the ....
I always, always laugh real loud seeing "that"guy .. & other memento dismaitius.

 

He doesn't say so.

"I'm not suggesting the math predicts WHAT number will repeat next but it certainly helps in understanding the character of outcomes which can be useful for developing staking plans and bet selections."

I can predict with 100% certainty that I will win 68% of my sessions based on repeaters / LOTT. Unfortunately I cannot predict which ones. And I cannot predict by how much.

 

If you can find the way how to lose less, then you will win more.