Roulette Repost of 1961 video for those who asked for it

Here's the best thread posted in a while. It was posted by Jerome. Unfortunately it went completely over the heads of many people.

Jerome wrote,

"Quotes from the video :

"I can make STATISTICAL predictions".

"You must realize that a SINGLE marble still behaves unpredictably."

Unfortunately, you still haven't grasped the above, Turbo.

You say that independence applies only to the next single spin. No, it applies to any sequence of spins. What you're saying is like insisting that a wall built from individual red bricks is actually a green wall, lol. Knowing the past 1, 10, 100, or 1000 spins doesn't help to predict the next 1, 10, 100 or 1000 spins. That is to say, the distribution will be the same regardless of what happened previously. Yes, you can make quite accurate STATISTICAL predictions (the proportions will be about right), but this doesn't help you one iota at the roulette wheel and the predictions don't depend on what happened previously.

I see this a lot in forums. System addicts point to the reliability of the distribution (the shape is always the same for any given distribution) and jump to the conclusion that this means that spins are not independent after all. They will say "you never see X or Y happen, (like 100 reds in a row), therefore spins cannot be independent!". This is a misunderstanding of the technical meaning of the term; "Independent" doesn't mean "it can do what it likes", or "free from constraints" but only that P(A | B) = P(A), where A and B are ANY events (and an "event" could consist of many spins, not just one). You're always saying that "random has limits", and this is just you not understanding the difference between independence and the law of large numbers. The LLN says that outcomes are predictable STATISTICALLY, ie that probabilities converge to their theoretical values over many trials. Independence just means P(A | B) = P(A), or "given an event B, the probability of event A is the same regardless of whether event B happened", which is a separate issue entirely. Notice that the definition of independence involves the RELATION between at least two events, but the shape of the distribution (which is what is predictable), isn't a relationship.

If I find a biased wheel then the distribution of numbers may be quite different from that of a random wheel, but if on this biased wheel one of the (positively) biased numbers doesn't appear for many spins, it's still gambler's fallacy to believe that it's due, and it's still the hot hand fallacy to believe that if it starts to "clump" then it's more likely to hit again soon. You have to realize that they are different and separate concepts; saying IF X happens then Y happens (or is more likely to happen) is about independence, and the fact that the outcomes conform to a particular shape or distribution (Random has limits!) does NOT imply that previous outcomes influence future outcomes.

I admit that this seems counter-intuitive. That's why probability theory took so long to develop and most people don't understand it even when it's explained. We have a built in cognitive bias which seeks to find meaning in patterns, and it's served us well, but in this case it's wrong. Some things just aren't connected, roulette spins are one of them." - source is Jerome.

 

Oh boy

 

Jekhb1976,

What part do you disagree with?

 

I don't know how many times i have to repeat myself, and yet i'm doin't it over and over again.
It's not, and i repeat; It's not about a single marble or spin, it's about a combination of groups of marbles or spins that is important.
you can't make predictions when you look at one spin at a time, it's when you observe a large group of spins, the same pattern will be visable over and over again.

 

Jekhb,

Is there perhaps and adult around in your house that can explain the post to you?

The law of large numbers, by the way deals with the long term, not just the next few spins.

 

Wow, thanks for repeating his whole post ! And assuming people don't know how to read and understand things lol.

So cool !
There's no "12 numbers unhit in 37 spins" thing, it's all made up.
"Repeaters won't happen" is now true I suppose.
"Red can appear 240 times in a row" is now possible I guess.
etc etc forever.
Nope, it's just 1 spin (and 2 spins is just 1 spin and 1 spin - they aren't connected)
Bell curves don't happen, nothing is predictable.
No patterns, even though you see them every time.
Not predictable if you do see then, even though they'll happen and only certain
numbers can fill that pattern...nope.

It's all nonsense, the unicorn hunter says so.
Pretty strange since you don't base what you do on 1 spin either.
A bias needs many spins to appear and prove that it's there, but no !!!
No matter how bad the wheel is and how bias the outcomes are - nope.
Any 1 spin could be any number so what you do is nonsense then.
And if it's #1, #1, #1, #1, #1, #1 you still don't have an advantage because
that's just single spins that just happened to be #1's and are all independent of
one another !!

lol - Yeah, I'm the one with writers making my posts.
Past spins don't matter either - but you collect a ton of them and review them
to find a bias (which may or may not be there). Nice.
Sorry, it's just 1 spin and 1 spin. Write a program that tests 1 spin and then
resets. You'll never find a unicorn that way !!
(goes back to bed... maybe I'm dreaming this)

 

My god man, two questions:
1. Do you have some live spins, rng spins, bias spins etc, it really doesn't matter wich.
2. Do you have RX?
3. Can you read?

then go study, the result will always be the same, no matter how many trials you do.

Even if i spill it out for you, you still say turbo is wrong, eddy is wrong. rx is rigged, not enough spins, eddy doesn't collect unicorns it's all hocus pocus to you. even if you know we are right, you won't ever say it.

 

Turbo, let me try again.

All those things are true (yes, the "law of the third" is true, repeaters DO happen, and on a random wheel you won't ever see red appear 240 times in a row), but they are irrelevant to the purpose of my post. Read it again, I was trying to make the point that those events are about the distribution (or "pattern"), but just because those events are "predictable" doesn't mean that past spins INFLUENCE future spins. Knowing that event X has happened gives you no right to predict event Y. Maybe this is a subtle point?

I don't know why you're so fixated on this "one spin" thing, it's weird. I think most would take it for granted that whatever the relationship is between one spin and the next must also be true for multiple spins? That was what my analogy of the wall made from red bricks was about; looks like it went over your head.

Glad you brought this up because it gets to the heart of the matter. Yes, in order to find a bias you may need to track many spins. These past spins can help to predict future spins. So what's the difference between the bias tracker and the system player, who may both use past spins to "predict" future spins? Isn't the AP applying double standards when he criticizes the system player for using past spins?

No, and here's why :

For the bias tracker, it's not the future outcomes which are updated by what he observed, but what he knows about the probability model which generates those future outcomes. As I said before, if you discover from your tracking that #21, #12, and #9 are biased numbers, they are not more likely to hit again soon just because they have all hit "recently" - that's still the reverse gambler's fallacy.

I repeat : independent outcomes means that past outcomes do not INFLUENCE future outcomes. However, previous observations of INDEPENDENT outcomes can certainly help you to predict what will happen in future outcomes (as any bias tracker knows).

The probability distribution (maybe described by a bell curve) of the outcomes has no bearing on whether the observations are independent. All of the following scenarios could conceivably occur :

outcomes are BIASED and INDEPENDENT
outcomes are NOT BIASED and INDEPENDENT
outcomes are BIASED and DEPENDENT
outcomes are NOT BIASED and DEPENDENT

The point is that there is there is no necessary relationship between the pattern or distribution, or the probability model which generates it, and independence. Just because there are 12 numbers unhit in 37 spins, and you can predict this reliably, it doesn't follow that knowing what has happened after the 18th spin means you can predict with any more accuracy than random what the next outcome(s) will be. And as I keep saying, the casino only pays you for the next spin; it won't pay you to predict that there will be 12 numbers unhit after 37 spins, especially when you can't identify them, lol.

 

Go ahead Turbo,
Explain it, again ! pfff

 

Jerome, this is all theoretical nonsense. You have no understanding of probability,
it's just dubious text book rubbish/garbage and bears no sense of reality.

 

PAST SPINS ARE SPINS THAT CAME BEFORE OUR SESSION STARTED (before we sat down and begin to track, play, bet, talk with the dealer, look at beautiful girls, whatever) ALL THE SPINS THAT COME WHILE WE ARE DOIN' THE ABOVE ARE (present spins) THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PAST SPINS (again, numbers that have fallen before our sessions has started) All the fancy highlighted marque boards with hot and cold numbers have nothing to do with our play session and has therefore no value to us. The only thing that matters are PRESENT AND FUTURE SPINS (during our session). when we put our ass down and when we go home. man

 

@TurboGenius

Honestly the real nonsense is that after so many years you shouldn't still be on a demo mode, you should be a millionaire if you got what you pretend. Ok let's say you don't want to hurt the casino because it makes you feel sad (any other reason will be as ridiculous as this one actually). It seems you prefer to expose you 're a winner on forums, but unfortunately, we're so silly that we can't understand your genious system(sss) except that guy from Holland who deposit 10 euros on an account, and thos thumb up army that would sell their family for a hint.

Why don't you just find someone independant, with a very serious level of mathematics (as you say you can beat the math game) and expose him why you can beat it & report it here???.

Sometimes i can read some post from you that shows you're not an idiot (cf Those magicians tricks for example) but i personally think you cannot go back to reality after so many fallacies claimed...

 

delectus, ok please point out where I'm wrong. Be specific.

 

Of course you're using past spins. It doesn't matter whether you use the spins in your current session or before you actually start playing. Past spins are past spins.

You look at them because you think that what went before must influence what happens next; you're relying on the pattern (law of the third, or whatever). That's the fallacy.

As I said before, if you can't accept this then try using random numbers instead of your "special" numbers picked out by the bet selection process. There will be no significant difference in the results.

 

whatever you say jerome. i guess it remains different for everyone. it just depends how you look at things.

 

I have a question though and hope that someone can awnser it, because it's very anoying.
what is it when i'm logged in i still see jpg files displayed but witj only a red cross in it without showing the photo itself, and is there a solutiom for it? thnx.

 

Me too Jek!

 

No, it doesn't depend on how you "look at things". OBJECTIVELY there 37 equally likely outcomes (this is part of what RANDOM means), therefore how can past spins influence future spins? what force is working to make the numbers come out in the particular ORDER that your bet selection predicts?

Anyone???

Logic. It's always in the way.

 

That's what isn't logical.
You agree that a pattern will happen.
You see spins as they appear - the "pattern fills" and then it's over.
So the pattern was predictable and sure enough it appears.

The problem seems to be that you don't understand what fills that pattern ?
That you can't predict this ahead of time ? Think again because this is where
you're not understanding.

Let's say in a really simple example that the numbers keep showing up
1,2,3,4 and then down the road 1,2,3,4 and then down the road 1,2,3,4
(of course this isn't random)
And then at some point I show you "Hey look - it's 1,2,3" what do you bet on ?
4 of course. Why wouldn't you ? Yes ! 1,2,3 are past spins and this series of
outcomes is your key to know 4 is next.
Surely you agree with this.
Now, back to roulette - where it's "random" and won't be 1,2,3,4.
So I have a pattern that appears every time (predictably) based on
probability or distribution or whatever you want to explain it as.
Take the 12 no shows in 36 spins example -
Spins go by (past spins) and say "Hey look - 13 numbers haven't appeared
and there's only 2 spins left in the cycle ! I'm predicting one of those 13 to appear
in the next 2 spins !". Am I right ? Not always (nobody is perfect) but I'm right
A WHOLE lot more of the times than being wrong.
My prediction method has merit doesn't it ?
2 spins in the future the pattern is most likely going to be 12 no shows....
we know this.
There are 13 now - 2 spins to go in the cycle...so....... one of them
"should" appear..... right ?.... Logical.

Now you, Bago, Sir No One and a few others will continue and continue
to sit there at that point and say "there are 13 numbers left and each spin
is independent, those numbers have no greater chance of appearing than
any others !!". Why would you say this ? lol.
Do you understand on "our" side we see that makes no sense.
I KNOW that the majority of times this specific pattern is going to happen.
I HAVE the info that fills that pattern and there only specific "POTENTIAL"
numbers left to fill it.
You can argue all day that my odds are 1 in 37 but they aren't.
(I use the word "Potential" in my book too many times, it's almost annoying -
be warned ahead of time). But it's true.
Some numbers are potential winners and some aren't. But that's probably
another thread.... I made my point here.

 

No matter how we will say, better will say what happened with wheel and ball in that 34 spins? Why now some 13 number has a greater chance to hit? Why before some spins were other? So what changed?
I said you many times that ball fall or stops not because some numbers fall before, but because ball lost its energy. You had a chance all that see on mine wheel, where I can do that 40 spins will fall in one side and next 40 will fall like I want to the same side or to other, - so absolutely not depend on what fall before...