1. Welcome to the #1 Gambling Community with the best minds across the entire gambling spectrum. REGISTER NOW!
  2. Have a gambling question?

    Post it here and our gambling experts will answer it!
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Discussions in this section are assumed to be EV- as they are outside of the Advantage Play section. For EV+ discussions, please visit the Advantage Play section.
    Dismiss Notice

TurboGenius Math and the art of describing randomness

Discussion in 'TurboGenius's Forum' started by Wolfie, Jun 14, 2020.

  1. Jerome

    Jerome Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Likes:
    172
    Occupation:
    Self-Employed
    Location:
    England
    gizmo,

    It's called an education. You should try it sometime instead of being proudly innumerate.

    Math Zombies eat the stupids for breakfast.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2020
  2. gizmotron

    gizmotron Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Likes:
    3,040
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    The West Coast of USA, RV'ing
    I'm not going. It's almost certain death for me.
     
  3. gizmotron

    gizmotron Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Likes:
    3,040
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    The West Coast of USA, RV'ing
    Perfect. You have your excuse and accolades to hold yourself in reserve. Basic arithmetic is all you need to back up binomial distribution. So these commandments of mathematics, do we really need to follow them? I keep breaking the rules. It's just me. I get to trash the "laws" of math. You get to prostrate yourself before the throne of delegated absolutism.
     
    CDN likes this.
  4. CDN

    CDN Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2020
    Likes:
    47
    Location:
    Earth
    You can see the forest from the trees, you just have to look at things from different angle.
    No one can predict the next spin. That is absurd. But random/chaos does create patterns and you can take advantage of them. See the video in the start of this thread.

    Numbers belong to classes and cycles and they interact and they cancel eachother. You get chaos-order-chaos-order and so on. Random and non random.

    In the grand scheme of all, roulette is all but a poor chaos generator. You play with only 37 figures. There are finite permutations.

    Try playing nature.
    There are 10 at the power of 80 atoms in the universe. Somehow, though billions of years of evolution, you are able to read this message on your screen. We are all conciouss lifeforms born out of chaos.
    How many 1/10 at the power of 80 interactions were needed to create the world we live in?



    Connect the dots.
     
    CarloDarlo, zorro and Wolfie like this.
  5. gizmotron

    gizmotron Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Likes:
    3,040
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    The West Coast of USA, RV'ing
    Oh yes, the Sierpiński Gasket. That is easily explained by the mathZombies. The figure formations are not really there. That covers it. Done with that, You can now all go home.
     
    CDN likes this.
  6. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,794
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    I would argue then that all 37 number appearing in 37 spins is one of the possible patterns that could appear.
    Yet it never will appear - which of course is no different than a specific list of 37 numbers (with or without repeaters) made before the session starts all appearing in the exact same order now at the table. Again, it's a possible outcome - but it is an outcome that will NEVER happen.

    So if we can agree to this and I'm removing possible outcomes from happening, surely you can see the math has changed.
     
  7. Rulet

    Rulet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2019
    Likes:
    64
    Location:
    England
    Number 37 appeared on Sergio’s session dump.
    You deleted my post.
    Shame on you
     

  8. Rulet

    Rulet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2019
    Likes:
    64
    Location:
    England
    Look, I am not agreeing to anything you say anymore, unless you show proof.
    60’s video doesn’t count as proof, ok?
     
  9. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,794
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    I have no intention of trying to convince you of anything, that's not my job.
    Feel free to have whatever opinion you wish to have. But I will remove any and every post that doesn't
    somewhat resemble an adult conversation.
     
    Wolfie and gizmotron like this.
  10. gizmotron

    gizmotron Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Likes:
    3,040
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    The West Coast of USA, RV'ing
    Can you remove some posts from another forum for me? The trolls are like fly's there.
     
  11. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,794
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    I'd like to, but I can only do it here in my section.
    Rest assured to the haters though, I don't delete posts - I just moved them to the "graveyard". They aren't deleted.
    Someday I might move them all back to a single public thread and they can witness how absurd they sound.
     
    gizmotron likes this.
  12. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,794
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    So which side of the argument are you on ? That random isn't predictable or that it is ?

    I ask because I can show data that 24 numbers appear on average in a cycle of 37 spins.
    (Sometimes more, sometimes less... but we all know what the most common outcome is.. 24.)

    So here we are at the table and on spin #28 with 9 spins left in the cycle - we've had 24 numbers appear.
    Now surely you would agree that the best bet would be that over the next 9 spins, most will be repeater numbers
    and not new ones. The data shows this. It's a "fallacy" of course isn't it ? To use historical data to predict future outcomes ?
    So we can play these 9 spins, 7 of the 9 spins are repeaters and 2 new numbers are added to finish at 26 appearing.
    A normal outcome, it didn't break the math or the game - yet I predicted the results and won on 7 of the 9 spins....
    Was it magic ? Was it that the "fallacy" isn't really a fallacy ?

    What if we sit down and run off spins, I make a mark on my silly scorecard every time a number in dozen 1 appears.
    At the end of 37 spins I only have 1 number marked. This is rare of course, it will typically be 8 numbers marked.
    But I bet you "I bet you that in the next 37 spins, that exact same pattern won't repeat... ie. the same number in the
    dozen appearing alone" - Well, you'd have to take that bet because according to you it's entirely possible. According to
    me it's impossible.
    Sure enough after the next 37 spins I have 10 numbers marked in that dozen - the math isn't broken.
    I made accurate predictions based on past spins only. So why is this so hard for people to understand ?
    Because as we all know each spin is independent, but for some of us - we don't see each cycle of spins as independent -
    it won't repeat. Knowing what won't happen allows you to predict what will happen.
     
    Spider and Platton like this.
  13. gizmotron

    gizmotron Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Likes:
    3,040
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    The West Coast of USA, RV'ing
    That's actually interesting. I can write software that checks for that 24 average. It can also wait until when the average number of 24 occurs and gets an average number of spins left. It would be interesting to see the data on that. I spent years on double dozen bets. I could also use a sleeping number list to see the relationship between the previous cycle of 37 too. Looks like fun. I would laugh if this is really good.
     
    TurboGenius likes this.
  14. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,794
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    It should come out to around 24.666666666 actually.
    Which I might add is 2/3 of 37 of the numbers appearing and 1/3 not.
    But when you mention the Law of Thirds (or whatever it is called now) - you'll just be told that
    Sir No One's friends invented it as an explanation of how they won against a bias wheel.
    In reality it's a reliable statistic that works on ALL betting locations.
    Making a prediction based on past spins is a "fallacy" also. Yet here we are knowing what is likely to happen
    and what isn't and can bet accordingly....

    A real kicker is that you can pick any random 3 numbers on the table and play them.
    In 37 spins guess how many will appear (on average).
    2 of the 3.
    I've played this way many times and it's incredibly reliable, it's not 100% a winner because in some cases
    I picked 3 numbers that did not appear at all in that cycle. But that's ok, if you formulate your bets properly
    this isn't an issue.
     
    CDN likes this.

  15. gizmotron

    gizmotron Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Likes:
    3,040
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    The West Coast of USA, RV'ing
    It wasn't the 24 that interested me. It was once you reach the 24 you still have a few numbers left before you close the cycle. That was interesting. I never thought about it like that. You could bet the 24, a double dozen, and for some reason it was more than 66.6%. In other words there is an expectation that that third that won't hit will actually not hit on average. That's an interesting way to see it. That is what I want to research.

    I have known for years that you can pick any three numbers and get at least one of them to hit in a cycle. I started researching the three hottest numbers in 1993. I wrote my first gambling sim regarding the three hottest numbers using Shockwave. This all comes down to understanding the nature of randomness.
     
  16. CDN

    CDN Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2020
    Likes:
    47
    Location:
    Earth
    Absolutely true!
    There are many practical applications to this.
    3*37=111 *2/3= 74
    You will get a third hit within maximum 74 spins. Not even close to 111
    4*37=148 *2/3=98.66( roundabout 99)
    You will get a forth hit within maximum 99 spins.
    Not even close to 148
    5*37=185 *2/3= 123.3(roundabout 124 spins)
    You will get a fifth hit within maximum 124 spins
    Not even close to 185
    6*37=222 *2/3 = 148
    You will get a 6th hit within maximum 148 spins
    Not even close to 222..

    These values are all mathematical truths.
    Maximum interval to see a k-peater:
    Int(K*37 * 2/3) for the European wheel.

    I leave it to the village idiots("1/37" spandex boys) to calculate this for a trillion spins.

    As i said in the past, the Law of the Third is a direct application of the Birthday Paradox, one of the few math paradoxes that can be applied successfully in game combinatorics.
     
    TurboGenius and Wolfie like this.
  17. Platton

    Platton Active Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2020
    Likes:
    26
    Location:
    East
    Turbo, throughout this time, you're just blowing up my brain!
    Especially at the heart of when you talk about the law of two thirds.
    I wrote at the very beginning that when I accidentally went to this site, I stayed here because I saw conversations about Vaddi. And I've only studied it for over 5 years. And his system was based on the law of two thirds. And I studied this law as much as I could. But I could never figure out how to use it, and what does it give? But you and the others have opened me a different plane of vision! As others are stuck on 1 spin, I am also stuck on only 37 spins. The day before your post in another thread, it came to me that this law could apply to the following rotations based on previous rotations. I.e. when 2\3 falls out of the first 37 spins, 2\3 will also fall out of these spins, etc. I've already tested it all, and it really is. Yes, I could think of at least that then, maybe I would have done something on that basis. I also checked, as Wolfi wrote, that the same law also applies to ten cycles. I.e. he's just everywhere! And I don't understand how anyone can not believe in him if there are such? This is not even at the level of faith. It just can't not be. I can only believe that I can fly, but this law will never die!
    Now I am not trying to open the Grail Vaddi, but I am following the path that you propose. BUT, now I see a lot of similarities between what he shared and what you're discussing now. I think you drink from the same source, but in different ways. He said that there are many different options for victory, if you take the basis, and put your ideas on it. And this is all connected with this law, as I understand it now. By the way, he never mentioned how to use it. Only once wrote almost at the end that you need to think from the point of view that 24 numbers and 12 repeaters fell (this is our average law). Ratio 2 to 1. Factors 8 and 4. 24/8=3. 12/4=3. And that's the basis for the Grail. I never knew what the 3 was. Why do I write this? Because the only thing that occurred to me was a dozen. I've been testing all this. And just as you write, for 37 spins in each vertical and horizontal dozen, there will be an average of 8 numbers and 4 repeaters. Clearly, I don't know how to use it. But like I wrote, I keep watching what you say about predicting something that won't happen. And now, on the basis of what you write, a little different thoughts come, how it can be used. There's something to test. Still, I would like to understand how to combine what you provided us in 3 parts about repeaters and tabulations based on them, and using the law of two thirds.
    Anyway, thank you and all others who help, for allowing to think more broadly and get out of the same plane of thinking!

    P.S.
    What do you mean when say "the same number in the dozen appearing alone"?
     
  18. 6th-sense

    6th-sense Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2019
    Likes:
    66
    Location:
    Uk
    this isn,t excactly true i,m afraid...look at the uploaded sheet i did on the other thread...the rolling 37....the results are there...yes its rolling but you have to look at it as though each spin beginning and end is where you started from at any point during the 1000,s of spins results...each spin is the end of any session you jump into...yes you can say thats a rolling 37 BUT it does show you the results at the point of any session you have started and ended the 7 out of 9 wins isn,t plausable...
    no disrespect...it totally ends up as a two dozen bet looking at it like that...
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2020
  19. 6th-sense

    6th-sense Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2019
    Likes:
    66
    Location:
    Uk
    please use nottos ayk repeat tracker to see what i,m talking about for repeats set config to 37 sets to a rolling version...

    copy paste a few 1000 spins and click on step ..import numbers...then just press the step button for each spin to come out

    heres the link
    http://ayk.bplaced.net/notto/
     
  20. Jerome

    Jerome Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Likes:
    172
    Occupation:
    Self-Employed
    Location:
    England
    The chance of a pattern repeating only depends on the length of the pattern and the odds of the individual bet making up the pattern. So in my example (even chances) you can't say that the pattern has been "removed" and therefore won't repeat, because the chance of it repeating is only 1/16. But in the case of the last 37 numbers repeating the odds are astronomical, so it's virtually impossible that it will happen. Thus, you could effectively argue that the pattern has been "removed".

    But the point is, whether that pattern has just shown or not is irrelevant, because either way the odds of seeing it are minute. In a way you've argued this yourself by your example of all 37 numbers appearing in 37 spins; that pattern has never appeared, so how can it repeat? Now the fact that the odds for this are the same as the last 37 numbers repeating proves that it's not the prior occurrence of the pattern which somehow "removes" it. What "removes" it is the odds of it happening being so small.

    So in a way you're right : the math has changed, but it hasn't changed in a way which shows that spins are dependent after all, and isn't that what you were trying to prove? Maybe not, lol.
     

Share This Page