Roulette The "fallacy" of "Gambler's Fallacy"

So Ed, I'm not going to out these people. But we have been having an on going discussion despite your feminine hormones and all that. BTW, I kept everything. We really do have that 90%.

 

Yes - and the Pope said to tell you hello. He wants in on your on-going discussion but I told him to wait until it comes out in book form or a class. He was very interested "BTW". If I were you I would charge him triple. The Vatican has shit-tons of money to blow... they should put a casino in there. "God's Bias" would be in effect though.

 

So you are nuts in your grandeur. The more you prattle on and posture yourself as the Zin of Roulette, the more I actually like you.

 

So, does the Pope Poop in his hat or in the woods with the bear?

 

The Pope gave me this:

 

Please tell me that you guys aren't trying to devise systems to win the lotto.

 

Then why do you use progression?if it can be achieved without it

 

It's completely related to roulette - can you answer the question. It's going to drive you insane though lol

 

You two should put your heads together then and find out why those "inconsistencies" happened.
I'd say that's the key to the puzzle - don't give up ! There's one simple step missing.

 

There are 4 of us working on this now. If we do figure it out, it will remain among us 4 only. I have just begun to write bet selection options for 1 to 3 numbers, positive steps, and truly analytical basics that apply to hottest number characteristics. I've been massively distracted in the past 6 months. I decided to figure this out though now. I've been watching the others put together their data. This is the first algorithm that jumps on the massive recovery process in conjunction with the most likely to hit theory.

 

Working on what???

If you're talking about how to exploit hot numbers, then you're a little late to the game. Been there, done that, and have won grievous amounts of money doing it correctly.

 

Man i really like you. Hahah

 

Ha
But seriously - there's just one part missing, and it's not that hard to figure out so I'm pretty confident you'll get it.
As far as anything remaining anywhere..... lol. (and it would be 5 of "us" wouldn't it... I'm already written out of the history book and it wasn't even written yet)

 

Sir anyone ? Not going to give the Lotto question a shot ?
Each draw is independent from the last draw (same as each spin in roulette).
So what do the math experts tell people if they want to maximize their chances of winning ?....
You might realize then that roulette isn't a 1 spin game, and the math actually changes according to how you play.

 

Turbo,

You forget. One of us plays professionally, the other one plays in free mode on a cartoon wheel.

 

To the original topic of the thread though.

Ran off spins until only 1 number remained (was #27 not that it matters).
It took 146 spins total before it appeared.
From that point on - it appeared 13 times over the next 333 spins making it
show on average 1:25.61 spins, not 1:37. Fallacy debunked - it hit more than it should have
after being the longest sleeper/coldest number.
Can you win when a number hits 1:25 and the payout is 35:1 ? I sure hope so.

Ok, not a fair example to the naysayers I know.
Ok, I won't wait for the very last number to appear.
I'll run off 2 cycles of spins (74) and then note what the numbers do that haven't hit yet.....
*using those same spins of course

Spin 1-74 noted spins. 7 numbers haven't appeared. 479 total spins in test
#.....1st show spin #.....spins played for.....hits....average
15...............75...............404.................15........26.93
32...............78...............401.................10........40.10
30...............81...............398.................16........24.875
31...............87...............392.................10........39.20
13...............93...............386..................9.........42.80
29...............98...............381..................5.........76.20
27..............146...............333.................13........25.61
=============================================
averages :.......................385.................11.14....34.56
Not 1:37, actually the last 7 numbers to appear averaged 1:34.5
Pays 35:1. Hmm.

 

Man, I was hoping for better than that.
Did you notice that the pictures and memes get bigger the more that you don't want to answer
the question lol

 

Turbo,

You didn't debunk the gambler's fallacy, you merely ran a pointless simulation for about 479 spins.

 

I know, it's impossible to win when numbers hit 13,15,16 times in such a short period and God forbid
you use a progression.
LOL. Wow... it just can't be done, my calculator is broken I think or it's just lying to me.
Hot numbers nonsense, I tell ya - don't waste your time on it. lol

 

Turbo,

You have no way of knowing whether a number will hit frequently or infrequently over the next series of spins.



That is, unless you are of course...Me.