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

Roulette More on that so called Fallacy.

Discussion in 'Roulette Forum' started by TurboGenius, Jan 4, 2019.

  1. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,791
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    So Gambler's Fallacy (which doesn't exist) claims that past events
    don't influence future ones, random isn't predictable, there's nothing that can be
    expected to happen because it's random. etc.
    This is clearly knocked down immediately because we have statistics, and math.

    We KNOW that each number has a 1 in 37 chance of appearing.
    We KNOW that long term (as long as you want) each number will hit on average once
    every 37 spins.
    There could be 4 repeats of the same number, or a number not appearing for 500 spins -
    And yet we have a reliable "average" of 1 in 37 for a number appearing.
    So it's both sides of the coin these people like to play.

    The math is clear that you can expect a result to happen.
    The Fallacy preachers say that you can't expect anything to happen.
    So it's the math - or it's the Fallacy preacher that is right ? It's always the math
    that is right.

    This means that long term a number should/will (given enough time) appear just
    as it should - 1 in 37 tries in total, on average.

    So we sit down and start tracking numbers.
    148 spins later the final number appears. (#24)

    Now, we have to understand what "average" means.
    Average :
    We KNOW the math average of #24 appearing is 1 in 37 spins.
    Now, there is only 1 way (and only 1 way) where #24 can achieve anything close
    to this 1 in 37 average when it took 148 spins to appear.
    In order for the average to equal 37, there HAS to be times in the future when it will
    appear below 37 now. The only value we have (from the example above) is 148
    We KNOW the calculation, don't we ?

    Z can be used for the mysterious future appearances of #24 and at this point -
    this is the info that we have. These are facts.

    148 + Z + Z + Z + Z + Z + Z + Z + Z + Z = a total we don't know yet.
    this total divided 10 will be around 37
    Since we KNOW the average - we also now know that there HAS to be
    appearances below 37 spins in order to compensate for the 148 spins (and also
    for every other time it takes longer than 37 spins to appear.
    It's impossible for it to appear above 37 spins over and over and somehow
    manage to end up with a 1 in 37 average.
    This one example alone shoots down "Gambler's Fallacy" as being a "thing".
    We CAN expect future events to happen because we know it's going to be
    1 in 37 long term, and we know the only data we have so far is well above that.
    This means appearance below 37 are inevitable, predictable.

    So how does it perform now ?
    number...appearance....spin....appearance average
    24.........#1..................148....148 avg
    24.........#2..................153 (5 spins later... fallacy ???).....76.5 avg
    (see how the average dropped to 76.5 ? That's because it's ALWAYS being drawn
    to the math average of 1 in 37. This isn't a fallacy, this is basic math.)
    24.........#3..................182....60.66 (still moving to where it's expected to be)
    24.........#4..................185....46.25 (see what is happening here ? is the average going
    up - staying level or going down to where it is expected ? It's going down, it's predicable.)
    24.........#5..................212....42.40 (so the average went from 148 to 42.4 - magic)
    24.........#6..................327....54.50
    24.........#7..................371....53.00
    24.........#8..................426....53.25
    24.........#9..................461....51.22
    24.........#10................464....46.40
    24.........#11................473....43.00
    24.........#12................480....40.00

    Please note the obvious, the average goes from 148 down to 40 and 1 in 37 is expected.
    So every time it shows below 37 spins - the average drops, when it shows above 37 the
    average climbs. It will settle extremely close to 37 over time.

    So where is the fallacy ?
    There is a average of 1 in 37 appearance for this number.
    148 + 5 + 29 + 3 + 27 + 115 + 44 + 55 + 35 + 4 + 9 + 7 = 481

    481 / 12 = 40

    In order for the average to fall and level at 37 -
    for every outcome over 37 (in this case 148, 115, 44, 55)
    there will ALWAYS be outcomes under 37 (in this case 5,29,3,27,35,4,9,7)

    So there is NO fallacy, there is only the averages and another case of random
    being predictable - based on what's expected and what will happen... not a fallacy
    of any kind.

    Something is "due" is called that because something IS due.
    If it weren't due (or expected) then there would be no average of 1 in 37 like there
    is with every number on the table.

    I hope this info helps, let it sink in - if someone wants to spout "Fallacy" when you say
    something is due - just explain to them how averages work, and how clearly in any test
    that you want to run, averages will happen - predictably and it's not hard to see
    from the above example (5,29,3,27,35,4,9,7) that profits can easily be made.. and you
    can tell when it's coming - because....... there is NO fallacy.
    If you see 148 for example - there are hits coming at or well below expected. It's proven.
     
    trellw24, stringbeanpc and Mako like this.
  2. John Blerg

    John Blerg Well-Known Member 👹 Troll 👹

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2018
    Likes:
    189
    Occupation:
    Founder of CalAsia Proven Baccarat Wagering Method
    Location:
    Self Banned Troll
    I actually ran out of butter on my popcorn

    On second thought I ran out of popcorn
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2019
  3. Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone

    Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone Well-Known Member Lineage to Founders

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    Likes:
    931
    Occupation:
    Shoe Cobbler
    Location:
    Merica
    You're confusing basic probability, statistics, and the gambler's fallacy.
    It's time to let the healing begin... :)


    Step one: Read below

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy

    Step two: Post your comment above on the wizardofvegas forum so that you can receive un biased opinions other than the ones here that you so vehemently disagree with. There are plenty of mathematicians/actuaries there, so I'm sure that they'd love to read your post. ;)

    Step three: Report back here and let us know just how many other people agreed with your post.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2019
    Nathan Detroit likes this.
  4. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,791
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    There are no steps to take.
    This is common sense and simple math.
    Everyone knows that averages are formed by taking results and dividing by the total number of
    trials.
    Everyone knows that every number on the table appears 1 in 37 on average given enough trials.
    (or a close enough value). I'm sorry to explain to you that random has limits.
    Ignoring the unicornish bias wheels - standard deviation doesn't go...
    +1.0, +2.4, +2.9, +3.7, +4.9, +8.2, +10.3 etc in continuous growth.
    Only in the world of defective wheels do you find this - Standard Deviation when charted
    clearly shows to anyone with high school math education that random has limits.
    You will of course continue to argue this despite you being wrong and easily proven wrong.

    Values greater than the expected average will result in future outcomes less than
    the expected average. That's how averages are calculated - convenient when we already know
    the value at the end of the equation.

    Posting on another forum to argue the facts and simple math is a waste of time.
    I need no one to agree with the truth and no one to tell me that I'm right.
    Anyone who understands basic math will read my post, understand it and agree with it - it's common sense.

    *My post in no way represents results from a bias wheel, and as we all know - bias wheels
    don't produce random. What I explained is how random works - if you need a mathematician to explain
    how averages work and probability, then perhaps roulette is too complex a game for you.

    Posting a link to "Gambler's Fallacy" when it doesn't exist is no different than
    pointing to the bible when someone asks if God exists. You'll need actual proof
    and the only proof is in my corner - so let's bury the Fallacy nonsense.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2019
  5. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,791
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    As a side note - another thing which is called fiction is the law of thirds.
    Please note - the amount of time the number appeared above expected = 4 of 12
    the amount of times the number appeared below expected = 8 of 12
    Once again, 2/3 of the time the number will appear at or below expected.
    1/3 of the time it will appear above expected.
    This will happen in every test you run with any number, or any location.
    This is how random works (within limits, predictable) and there's no debate, anyone
    can test it themselves.
     
  6. mr j

    mr j Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Likes:
    1,806
    Occupation:
    self employed
    Location:
    Milwaukee, WIS
    I have always agreed with the law of the third in THEORY, it is a "thing", I do not argue that. I just dont like people using the title (law of the third) like its an actual math teaching, its not. or a math term, its not.

    Ken
     
  7. Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone

    Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone Well-Known Member Lineage to Founders

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    Likes:
    931
    Occupation:
    Shoe Cobbler
    Location:
    Merica
    Turbo,

    By itself, the law of the third has nothing to do with the gambler's fallacy.

    Of course some numbers will hit more than others. That's the nature of basic probability combined with randomness.

    The distribution happens because in 38 spins there's more ways for some numbers to hit a few times, some a couple of times, some once, and some not at all, then there are for all numbers to hit just once. Understand??? That has nothing..zip...zero...nadda to do with the gambler's fallacy!


    What is gambler's fallacy is when the player believes that past spins have some kind of influence over future spins. For example, if the player says that based on the law of the third the numbers that haven't hit are more likely to hit, or vise versa. That would be an example. Another example would be if the player saw 10 reds and then decided that black was due as a result of the previous spins, or vise versa.

    By the way, the normal distribution (law of the third) proves that the past numbers will not enable you to beat the random game because it proves that there are one or two toooo many numbers on the wheel in order to win or break even!
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2019

  8. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,791
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    Let's make this simpler, simpler is better right ?
    You're a smart guy...

    I'll give you some outcomes, and I'll give you the average - fill in the blanks.
    It's easy, requires no brain work or calculator.

    Here are some numbers :

    (150 + 101 + 88 + 120 + ? + ? + ? + ?) / 8 = 37
    I'm giving you the past spins - the future spins are the ?

    The average of these will be 37 as shown - we all know the answer already, despite
    the unknowns. How convenient this game is.

    Now please...tell me how it's possible that the "?" spots aren't numbers under 37.
    Math is math.
    The average is 37 - the values we have from "past spins" are all well over 37.
    You can only achieve the average if the unknown (future spins) are very small
    numbers.
    Let's not argue over obvious simple things. It's not a fallacy to KNOW using math
    that the "?" spots are going to be so far below 37 that they compensate for the
    known (past) outcomes and create the average (which we know).
    There's no Fallacy here, the past spins give more than enough info on the future outcomes.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2019
  9. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,791
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    No it's not - but it is a pattern that appears when there are random outcomes, and it's predictable.
    I can bet anyone in the room that 24 numbers will appear in 37 spins.
    I'll be right an amazing number of times. The results will form a bell curve every time.
    It's not magic or voodoo - it's just a pattern that appears in random.
    When people say they use it to win, they are ridiculed. Or - "it doesn't help with future spins".
    As if knowing something will happen (oops, Fallacy again) won't help someone win.
     
  10. Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone

    Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone Well-Known Member Lineage to Founders

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    Likes:
    931
    Occupation:
    Shoe Cobbler
    Location:
    Merica
    Step two: Post your comment above on the wizardofvegas forum so that you can receive un biased opinions other than the ones here that you so vehemently disagree with. There are plenty of mathematicians/actuaries there, so I'm sure that they'd love to read your post. ;)
     
  11. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,791
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    Feel free to post there, I have no need to.
    You can't answer my questions ? Aren't the "?" values in the equation going
    to have to be < 37 in order to reach the average that we all agree on.
    Or do you not agree that each number has a 1:37 chance of appearing..
    You argue for the sake or argument instead of just agreeing with the facts, that's fine.
    In your world the "?" can all be > 37 and the average can be some imaginary number instead
    of what it's going to be.. I prefer to deal in reality and won't argue over facts that we all
    know already to be true
     
  12. mr j

    mr j Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Likes:
    1,806
    Occupation:
    self employed
    Location:
    Milwaukee, WIS

    I agree.
     
  13. Bombus

    Bombus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2016
    Likes:
    435
    Location:
    amongst flowers

    Yes, but what if #24 appeared 7 times in 35 spins just before you sat down?


    The probability used for this average scenario is always a moving window, and so IMO very unreliable.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2019
    gizmotron likes this.
  14. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,791
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    All data/statistics begin when the player begins. Past spins aren't relevant.
    I plan on making another thread about this topic as well.
    The "moving window" also isn't relevant because we know the average and that is set in stone
    thanks to math.

    For example, if the #24's appearances were 11, 23, 1, 5, 20, ?, ?, ?, ?
    then you can make the exact same argument that it's going to show well above 37 spins
    in the future (the "?") because the average over time will be 37 - and all results to
    this point have been less than what's expected.
     

  15. Half Smoke

    Half Smoke Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2018
    Likes:
    50
    Location:
    Rockville, MD
    a good way to understand gambler's fallacy is this:

    a player doing a 5 stage martingale might think to himself that it is very unlikely that red will come 5 times in a row

    and he is correct - it is very unlikely

    but that is only before the streak has started

    once 4 reds have come up in a row it is no longer very unlikely that another red will come making the streak 5

    the probability of red coming again has not been decreased because of the 4 prior reds

    it is the same as if there had been any prior sequence

    there might be a one in 10 billion chance of getting run over by an elephant if you were in India

    but if one was charging down the street right at you you wouldn't stand there and say it's only a one in ten billion chance of happening
     
  16. Benas

    Benas Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2018
    Likes:
    156
    Occupation:
    Looking for peoples who play better...
    Location:
    Ania,PL
    I do not know here are talks what works what not. For example, Turbo say that law of third helps to win against roulette, why then simply not demonstrate that? Say I am a dealer and you play in mine casino - let's demonstrate how you can win. Few hours will be enough to play 200-300 spins and after all will be clear.
    Very easy to talk that can jum3 meters high, but what is from such talks without demonstrations?
     
  17. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,791
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    What I detailed in my initial post is exactly how and why "Minimum Interval" works. (for example)
    All stats on the table (when the data begins, ie. the player begins charting) will show that
    the Min Interval will reach 1 (a repeat). This happens on all numbers and all locations.
    The average being 1 in 37 proves that when a number has a average much higher than this
    for appearance rate - it's going to show below 37. If it didn't happen then the average of 37
    would not exist... and it does.
    This video demonstrated the Min Intervals all dropping to 1 from whatever high number they
    are at. It happens every time and is predictable.


    In this example - #7 just appeared and anyone can note the Min Intervals for the other numbers
    and the Min Interval of #7.
    It's DUE - it's the only number so far outside of the other number's stats.
    untitled.png

    Right now it's average appearance is 207 - as I said above, we KNOW the average is 37.
    It can only appear lower in the future to reach this average.
    Anything appearing better than expected is a profit for the player.

    It appears 11 spins later.
    25 units profit for the player.
    And now it's Min Interval is 11 (on it's predictable way to 1 like all the others will be)

    this is the simplest way for a player to win based on the predictability of random,
    the limits of random.
     

    Attached Files:

  18. TurboGenius

    TurboGenius Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Likes:
    1,791
    Occupation:
    Self proclaimed Theoretical Philosopher
    Location:
    Near Atlantic City New Jersey
    Sadly no. The people who spend their life telling people they can't use systems to win will simply say
    "Not enough spins tested"
    "Rigged"
    etc etc etc

    30 billion spins is the only true test for these people lol.
     
  19. Bago

    Bago Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2017
    Likes:
    326
    Location:
    Mars
    Hi Turbo,

    I see you are revisiting your Min Interval Strategy. We all know the average of a number hitting is 1 in 37 on the Single Zero Wheel and the payout that you don't mention at any moment is 35 units.
    The negative expectancy would not be a problem IF we would know when a number will hit within 37 spins, but we can't unless being God or have a Crystal Ball because randomness is unpredictable. Long time ago I remember having used Saliu's software that calculated the consecutive intervals streak a number would show and I assure you I have seen things like: 148 - 232 - 120 - 88 - 140 - 30. Running short term tests you won't see this, as you are unlikely to see 20 reds in a row spinning RX for several hours. And excuse me but I don't see a progression contained within the table limits that could lead to a profit after such extreme consecutive intervals.

    Best Regards.
     
  20. Half Smoke

    Half Smoke Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2018
    Likes:
    50
    Location:
    Rockville, MD
    If gambler's fallacy was a false concept there would be a great many long term, rich winning martingale players.

    But in reality there are zero.

    that is, if they have played for a reasonably long amount of time.

    who would you like to believe? mathematicians or somebody posting on a gambling message board?
     
    Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone likes this.

Share This Page