Roulette Proof of Turbo's Fallacy

Ok in the other thread @TurboGenius said the following: https://www.gamblingforums.com/threads/gamblers-fallacy-absurd-proof.22620/

"I wish more people would understand this before they say there is a Fallacy or that
past spins don't matter."

So according to @TurboGenius past spins does matter and we need it to get an edge.


Let's try the following example at home:

Grab a piece of paper:

Note down 14 placeholders from top to bottom.

In the first step you write down 74 for all 14 of them

Grab your favourite random simulator roulette rx or what have you.

Pick 14 random numbers start playing them until a hit and note down how much it took to get the first hit. combine the result with 74. Is the average above 1:37 continue is it at or below 1:37 stop.

Keep going until all 14 numbers are at 1:37.

What are the results???



here is one of mine, notice a difference? Do it a couple of 100 times and what is the average in total?

There is your PROOF! PAST SPINS DONT MATTER. We started with 14 random numbers straight from the start and we got the same results as we would have played according to turbos premise that past spins do matter!

P.S.

In case you are wondering where I do get the 74 from. It is the average of spins the first 14 numbers have until the first hit.

 

Ka2, nice. Thanks for doing this. I doubt that Turbo or any of his fanboys will respond though.

 

Ka2, your example makes no sense and from your posts in Turbo thread it's clear you did not understand what he was showing (he isn't best at describing his examples probably on purpose but that last one could not be clearer).
What's the point of having 74 at the start? You would not be playing 14 numbers after 74 spins.
Whole idea is that you don't pick random numbers but those that come out of past spins, plus nobody is telling you to wait for all to get to 1:37 that would be nuts. You can I'm fairly sure always hit some profit quickly, no need to play 800 spins.

 

I'll take this on based on Reading Randomness & situational awareness. For there to be a fallacy with the expectation that something must be due or is about to take place the observer must rely on magical belief to some degree. You know that by math somewhere some number must become very active, at least several must become active for a while as others go to sleep. And you know that all in all that these activities must average out in the long run. People want to know where these changes will occur. But that magic does not exist.

The hottest number of the 37 or 38 can still have a huge interval between hits and yet it will still remain the current hottest number. I've seen a number that hit 24 times in 300 spins still go to sleep for 111 spins during that period. It's all part of the nature of randomness. If you had selected it and flat bet it for all 300 spins then you would clean up like it was magic. Even though you went on a huge losing streak there for a while you would have still won a lot.

You see it just takes 9 hits that win out of 300 spins to break even for any single number bet. Any wins after that are all profit. Getting 24 hits makes you a massive winner.

We know from observation that there must be an average number for the hottest number from each independent patch of 300 spins. I could just say that it is around 14. I don't in fact care if it is 17 or 12. But there is no way that it is at 9 or below 9. The same goes for the coldest number. There must be an average value for the coldest number that balances the algorithm to 1 / 37.

Nobody knows where the hottest number is, when it will change, and how long it will remain as the hottest number. It's just a guess. That is why Reading Randomness is so good at speculating or finding the hottest number. Turbo says it himself. It can't repeat a third time unless it has already repeated a second time. That's empirical evidence that during a passage of time something has occurred. It might be what you wanted and it might not.

This is single event kind of thinking. You take the larger activity of considering 300 spins as a single event. In that event you hope you can get at least 9 winners for each number continuously bet on.

The important thing to know from Reading Randomness is that just because you can't know what the next interval of any selected number will be before it repeats you can see it as still hotter than 1 /37 or colder than 1/37.

Now Reading Randomness is about doing better than average on guessing knowing that at times you will have losing sessions. A skilled player gets two to one in winnings using flat betting. This is done because they have win streaks that they exploit. When a hottest number has 22 hits in 300 spins that is a win streak. Only nobody knows where that number is before the session. Sessions just like individual numbers have hot streak intervals too. Math will never tell you what the next 300 spins are going to be like. Will it have a 12 times repeating hottest number or a 24 times repeating hottest number? Math will never give you that answer.

You must play each 300 spins as an independent event. That comes to around ten hours on a live casino table. It's true that in a chart you can see the current hottest numbers. If you bet on just one at a time you hope in order to have a winning session that you are on any number while it is in its hottest phase. You also want to switch to any number that enters a new hottest phase. You lose, just like in Reading Randomness when you jump to a new number and it enters a cold patch. If you have a swarm of these change attempts then you have a lost session. You might end up only getting 4 or 5 winners in 300 spins. That is common randomness. There are swarms of losing streaks.

Just like there are swarms of losing at times there are swarms of winning at times. You can know what type of a swarm you might be in by betting on and finding the numbers that are in a condition of being active well above the 1/37 interval. That number might be 14 or it might be 20 spins between intervals in any individual session. Nobody knows in advance the quality of the win streaks. But you can notice the win streaks as they occur. You can go hunting for the numbers that are in a win streak phase. If you get skilled at this then you can protect yourself and your bankroll.

All you need is a single index card with 37 or 38 lines on it and all you have to do is make 9 columns down representing every 37 spins. You then place X's after each number hit. You will be able to use visual dexterity to see the active numbers.

There now. I just coopted the hottest number hunting skill for Reading Randomness. Is Reading Randomness a fallacy or an acquired skill? Until it is performed by many skilled players it remains to be seen. Just look at my signature when you are not logged in. That gives you the answer.

 

Let me show you the nature of randomness and hottest numbers. The picture and chart below are the same thing. Each line represents a number on the table. 37 is single zero. So each line has a following row of numbers, each number representing the interval of spins between each hit for that corresponding number. Now you can see typical intervals for randomness.

Code:

01 | 018, 006, 026, 021, 079, 004, 124, 008, 049, 
02 | 017, 010, 036, 013, 036, 022, 031, 031, 002, 077, 025, 008, 039, 006, 
03 | 030, 009, 008, 072, 036, 014, 144, 008, 
04 | 091, 090, 013, 022, 051, 015, 063, 
05 | 021  059, 025, 022, 006, 013, 013, 014, 007, 027, 073, 009, 051, 020, 
06 | 135, 060, 108, 031, 
07 | 005, 009, 011, 035, 014, 016, 093, 078, 044, 005, 033, 
08 | 004, 022, 027, 087, 064, 027, 011, 008, 
09 | 011, 002, 028, 016, 022, 007, 061, 017, 085, 004, 011, 023, 031, 004, 011, 
10 | 002, 038, 052, 028, 008, 015, 043, 006, 010, 007, 009, 009, 007, 003, 001, 002, 014, 050, 033, 015, 
11 | 089, 005, 078, 004, 009, 004, 068, 006, 016, 015, 063, 
12 | 007, 074, 034, 108, 016, 032, 019, 
13 | 006, 002, 085, 015, 015, 008, 008, 028, 034, 013, 149, 
14 | 020, 008, 021, 019, 103, 058, 001, 029, 014, 029, 056, 
15 | 015, 050, 002, 057, 027, 019, 150, 006, 024, 
16 | 073, 064, 019, 031, 001, 018, 030, 040, 033, 035, 017, 
17 | 078, 005, 019, 011, 001, 048, 106, 087, 
18 | 009, 037, 008, 002, 032, 057, 048, 006, 073, 052, 015, 017, 
19 | 072, 010, 013, 043, 004, 010, 060, 040, 022, 017, 005, 
20 | 077, 008, 018, 008, 102, 008, 023, 033, 
21 | 010, 034, 053, 003, 009, 012, 082, 032, 010, 
22 | 058, 052, 069, 072, 015, 003, 024, 026, 
23 | 136, 041, 118, 
24 | 084, 012, 033, 012, 078, 003, 025, 065, 
25 | 023, 020, 135, 006, 076, 071, 007, 
26 | 012, 010, 009, 006, 183, 095, 
27 | 032, 002, 110, 024, 023, 006, 027, 004, 037, 023, 004, 015, 010, 
28 | 001, 047, 003, 048, 002, 157, 012, 
29 | 126, 079, 021, 020, 051, 001, 030, 002, 019, 
30 | 029, 030, 011, 017, 035, 035, 086, 012, 072, 035, 
31 | 052, 012, 011, 023, 008, 084, 021, 004, 018, 068, 005, 036, 
32 | 003, 035, 017, 098, 057, 007, 045, 
33 | 033, 009, 020, 045, 125, 082, 002, 009, 004, 003, 004, 005, 018, 
34 | 035, 031, 003, 047, 016, 031, 011, 051, 016, 113, 010, 
35 | 036, 009, 059, 013, 041, 003, 005, 016, 103, 061, 019, 
36 | 016, 003, 042, 069, 019, 107, 025, 002, 
37 | 118, 007, 023, 012, 015, 025, 008, 040, 036, 015, 012, 012, 025, 003, 

 

None of that has anything to do with what I posted.
Thanks for not reading it I guess.

Well, I try not to waste my time or other's time or let people waste mine.

 

Ka2 has shown that by picking random numbers instead of sleepers you end up with the same results. How is that not relevant to your posts?

 

So you are going to argue now that numbers (regardless of how they are picked) are expected to appear 1 in 37 correct ?

Asking for a friend. This is like chess where you have 1 move left before checkmate isn't it.

 

I'm not arguing anything. That's what the data says - all numbers no matter how picked will result in 1/37.
Ka2's analysis doesn't have the same form as yours, but that's only because you gave a single example. For large amounts of data you need to present it in another way.

 

Thank you, "no further questions".
That was simple. You just completely made my case for me and proven me correct.
Now what do I do with the rest of my day, the sun isn't even up yet. Maybe go for a walk.....

 

Obviously you disagree. That's ok. Further proof is forthcoming. Enjoy your day.

 

Any "proof" that shows numbers appear 1 in 37 (which is true and accurate) will further the fact that I am
right. Numbers above this value will appear better than 1 in 37 more than they will appear over this value.
As you can see - the more you argue, the more you prove me correct.
Which is fine also, we can all get together and argue that I am right.
If a number is appearing 1 in 80 and you said yourself we can expect it to be 1 in 37 then there
is only 1 way for that to happen. Only 1 way. No other way.... So see ? We all agree.
It will be a good day.

 

Turbo, as I've already said in a previous post, our disagreement is in WHEN 1/37 will happen. We both agree that it will, but you say it tends towards 1/37 (notice I didn't say it will be exactly 1/37 or even very close to it) fast enough and reliably enough so that a player will make a profit flat-betting time after time. I won't waste my time or yours trying to argue with words any more. I'll let the data do the talking. That's one thing I appreciate about your posts; you do actually give numbers.

 

But what data? Ka example makes no sense and isn't relevant. Picking random numbers won't give any advantage, picking those that still need to catch up will. Most likely won't win flat all the time but as mentioned before and Turbo also nobody tells you to play them all out, hey no one even tells you to play roulette

 

Maybe this will be easier to explain if I change it around a little.
I'm sure "they" won't agree with me though, even if it is laid out plain and simple like this.

So any number on the table for a cycle of spins has a 2 in 3 average chance of appearing in a cycle.
I'm pretty sure they won't argue this, it's the facts. After 37 spins we have typically 24 numbers
that have appeared and 12 that haven't. Still no arguments I hope.
So any number on the table during 37 spins will on average show at least once - 2 out of 3 tries.
(you can chart this and see it, don't take my word for it).
This isn't about bankroll, etc - because numbers will show 3,4 times in one cycle or even more
at times. Just stick to the 2/3 statistic.
So by waiting say 1 cycle and noting a number that hasn't appeared - we have a plan right ?
Since it appears on average 2 out of 3 tries and 1 just happened without the number appearing....
2 out of 2 of the remaining cycles should have our number appear. Well, that doesn't always happen,
but on average it will....but you call that a "fallacy".
So for every cycle a number doesn't appear - it should appear 1 time in 2 future cycles BUT
that would mean it's average is 2 in 111 spins. See ?
If you want to believe the truth, that numbers are expected to appear 1 in 37 tries
and 2 in 111 doesn't equal that - you can expect it to appear more than 2 times.
You can't both have a 1 in 37 average AND say a number isn't "due" because it's
appeared 0 in 111, or 2 in 111, etc etc.
I showed in a thread once about 37 people going into a casino and everyone playing
their own number. I showed how 36 people won - I also showed how the 1 person
who lost was only down by 1 single win in the end, not a huge loss at all.
But none of that matters - I can demonstrate it all day but some people can't combine
the arguments they make and understand, they will argue both ways.
I should make a new thread in my section and show again how everyone can win -
even the 1 losing person (because the player who won on spin #1 covers this player's
loss) but you will all argue I am wrong I'm sure lol.
I don't mind, run in circles I guess and don't see random for what it is.
More threads about how/why I am wrong filled with posts that back up what I say.

You should understand that sitting out 37 spins means I only need a number to appear 1 time in 74 spins now... and you clearly know numbers appear 1 in 37.
Why do we argue over something so obvious ?

 

Why doesn't someone, maybe Denzie who is testing it, or yourself, take your method of the hottest number in each dozen, and compare the results with a random number in each dozen.
If the results are similar, what would you say?

 

That's a good idea !
I've done it before but will do it again and show the results.

 

It's pretty fruitless to continue since Median pointed it out: No argument against chances better than 1/37 for sleepers. No argument against nos appearing as no shows:shows:multiple shows in a cycle. No argument against leading "horses". And no argument against different probabilities for ONE event vs a chain of events. It's all true and easy to proof with whatever tool is at hand.
The only problem is WHEN does this happen? Or differently put: How much does it cost to wait for such an (inevitable) event? If TG or anybody else has found an answer to this then he has a winning system.

 

Catch up from what? Catch up from when? This is too funny. Last night the zeros were hot and today they are cold. Who's keeping track of when they are caught up anyway? It's just personal expectations based on confirmation bias. What happens when the zeros go on a pattern of perfect hot / cold for ten thousand spins? There is no such thing as catching up. It's like saying something is due.

 

I just did something like that - comparing the 25th spin on a rolling basis against the previous 24 and against some other random numbers (all in Excel). The results are exactly the same - in 65% of the cases the 25th number was part of the previous set (counting all appearances). Which is obvious since there is no quality difference between the two sets of 24...