TurboGenius Solve the puzzle

Something I've found back recently...

Let's say there's a very large field and someone put out a grid of squares that fill the area.
They are all equal sized, etc etc.
Let's say there are 100 squares - for the sake of making it easy to picture. A 10 x 10 grid that covers the entire field.
Every day without fail a thunderstorm appears around noon and lightning hits one of the squares.
You have to decide every day for 100 days what square to stand in. (good luck with that - yikes).

So here is the reasoning we have to look at since the lightning strikes are completely random in nature....
We "know" that all 100 squares won't be hit by lighting over the 100 days. Ok - some scientist will say that it's possible - the odds of that happening can be worked out with math (and it shows this event to be damn near impossible so it's not even considered by you during your 100 day test)

Now you get a freebie on the first day - you get to see where the lightning hits and you don't have to risk anything. This isn't how roulette works - but for the sake of the analogy I'll use it.
You can chart everything and take notes if you want.... but you'll begin to realize a few things.
Any square that hasn't been hit by lightning is potentially a safe one to stand in... since we know that all 100 squares won't be hit in 100 days.
Any square that has been hit already is potentially a square that will have 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 hits on it over the 100 days.
So you can pretty much rule out those squares as being "safe" to stand in - the fact that they were hit once puts them in the category of "future likely hits" - while the opposite for the unhit squares applies as well... Any square that hasn't been hit yet - as time goes on - makes them even more and more safe as they are in the small group of squares that potentially won't get hit at all.
You can say that each day and each lightning strike is independent from the day before - and that is entirely true ! But the 100 days as a group will give you amazingly predictable results.
You'll see at the end that x amount of squares got hit, x amount didn't, x amount got 1,2,3,4 hits etc.
So you could use that knowledge before-hand to choose the best squares to stand in if you don't want to get hit !
It won't be perfect - you'll end up getting hit possibly even with your best choices, but as time goes on you'll be able to make better and better decisions. You'll avoid squares that have a hit (because they are potential multiple hit squares) and you'll choose to stand in unhit squares because they are potentially squares that will never be hit.

What I'm saying in roulette is the exact opposite - we know what's going to happen and where to bet because just like the lightning field - once a number shows, it's now a potential repeater.
And any number that hasn't appeared is to be avoided as a potential "sleeper".

In the field - if the lightning strikes weren't random - you would have only have to watch what square hit and then stand in it for the rest of the 99 days ! Because 100 days would mean 100 squares got hit.
Random is beatable (in more than roulette) because it's random - it doesn't end up being "every number hits 4 times in 4 cycles" type of game.. By avoiding the numbers that don't (or aren't going to) show up you can actually change the math of the game..

 

So bet on repeaters.. with a progression.. denzie, I am trying lol.

 

And what about those numbers that are due?

 

That looks oddly familiar

 

I've heard a wise man say this

 

I would be interested in them after 100 strikes...or more precisely after 111 strikes...like the 6 coldest ones for example ( I know , the fallacy )

 

I will have a test tomorrow. Appreciate the effort Denzie!

 

Well testing done. First let us address the lighting strike analogy. Do you have a better chance to standing in an unhit square or one that has a hit before. The logic indeed sounds that it is a better idea to stand in one that hasn't got a hit.

Well after 1000's of lightening strikes. What do we get:

Staying on an unhit and moving after a hit. 1 in 100
Staying on the top hit square 1 in 100
Hopping randomly 1 in 100

After 111 hits how many squares are unhit? about a third (sound familiar)

Picking an unhit from that group playing until a hit? 1 in 100
picking 2 unhits? 2 in 100
picking 3 unhits? 3 in 100
etc etc

So sorry no difference.

I think we all by now have an idea that these kind of ideas has no edge unfortunately. I will however let everybody know how my 2 others are doing in the upcoming weeks.

 

Just keep read, learn, try and dont give up.

Someday will get the fruit of hard work. Some of wise man in this forum already say that.

 

Now put Turbo and Denzie together at a table, what do we get?

After 111 spins, 6 numbers are unhit.
Everytime one of these unhit numbers show we put one unit extra on them in order of appereance.

For example sake;

At spin 124 number 1 shows (1st time) 1u
At spin 131 number 2 shows (1st time) 2u
At spin 146 number 3 shows (1st time) 3u
At spin 150 number 4 shows (1st time) 4u
At spin 169 number 5 shows (1st time) 5u
At spin 197 number 6 shows (1st time) 6u

We keep these units in place every spin we play. We don't raise and we don't lower our bets.
Once one of these 6 numbers show for a second time we remove that bet and continue with the rest until we are at a new high.

The further a number is away from 1/37 the smaller the spins in between will be after it shows.
At least, that's what i have heard

 

Appreciate the effort. But we have been here before, this doesnt work…

 

some angry looks because only one of us can sit next to the wheel

 

"So, only 7 remaining, 51 spins?"

Not Naughty number: 6 unhit at 66 spins, RNG 1.000.000 times,

(yes I know, nobody can play so many spins, rhabarber and zinnober)

 

Yes Herbie, only 51 spins till the 111, with on average only 7 of the starting 37 remaining.

On R-sim 60 spins can be +/- 1-2-3 non-hits or repeats; could be even +/-5, but thats rare.

Herbie; Denzie said get 100 wins. well here's 33, betting top4.
Has he got further past 21?

 

Get 100 wins is a metapher I think. Not to take it literally.

I'll have a try with 33.

 

I built a function named: Denz
To call the function several times: Table Denz
With 33 I call it: Naughty Table Denz

 

I played 100 no loss sessions in 3hours last weekend.

 

Denzie,

Stop recycling the same old gambler's fallacy ideas over and over and over. You could go to the old Gambler's Glen and find the same idea repeatedly posted there as well. That old stone age nonsense didn't work then, and it doesn't work now. You've got to free your mind and escape the box.

 

Looks good.
And your game fits thematically to the puzzle ?