Golden Peak

[Steve]

There's a lot of confusion here. The sequences have exactly the same probability, and with enough spins will both happen the same amount of times. There is no difference at all between the two sequences. It's all completely in your head, 100%. The casinos thrive in this kind of stuff. Again it's all really old news! Every serious player needs to understand it.

Just use the free software i published. That's what it's for.  Don't take my word for it, just test and see.

[Blue_Angel]

Oh Turner, could you please do me a favor?

Could you be so kind to provide me one, not two, just 1 sequence of 37 roulette results in which there were 37 times the same number??

Or could you show us just 1 sequence of 37 outcomes in which all of the 37 numbers have  hit once regardless of their order??

Since the very first spun of the ball till this very moment, not even once has happened such travesty and you want us to believe that this has the same probability as any other sequence of 37 results!

Do not insult our intelligence!

[Blue_Angel]

Where is the proof of  1/37 ?

Where is the proof of equal probability?

Out of the billions, trillions, gazillions roulette sequences in history, from real casinos and RNGs you cannot bring not even one single proof, just your empty theory!

[Steve]

BA you still aren't getting it.

Everyone see link:://:.roulettephysics.com/roulette-pattern-detector/

Test with at least millions of spins so the results are clear. Check any sequence like 1,1,1 and compare to others. You can test much longer sequences but then you need more spins to test for reliable results.

It's black and white, not grey

[RouletteGhost]

Same probability

Yes

But

Probably

Wont

Happen

[Blue_Angel]

Same probability

Yes

But

Probably

Wont

Happen

If it had the same probability why we have not encountered it?
It would has happened at least very few times if it was equal with everything else.

On the other hand we observe again and again specific sequences, so not all of them have same probability.
Take for example the average sequence of 37 spins contains 24 uniques and 13 sleepers/ repeats, if that was equal with having 37 different numbers out of 37 spins and/or 37 times the same number, why it hasn't happened?!

Steve, perhaps it's convenient for you to consider all methods and systems as junk in order to endorse what you are trying to sell.
Sorry but I don't buy it!

[Steve]

This has nothing to do with what i sell. Just test. Why are you avoiding testing?

Rg, have you ever seen the sequence 23,12,5,16,2? It's the same as any other sequence. You are still not understanding this.

[Blue_Angel]

have you ever seen the sequence 23,12,5,16,2?

So why don't you extend your theory to longer sequences such as strings of 50 numbers, 100, 200...?

It would still be the same right?

[Steve]

YES, it would still be the same. But naturally you'd need more spins to prove it conclusively. Why argue more? Just test.

[RouletteGhost]

This has nothing to do with what i sell. Just test. Why are you avoiding testing?

Rg, have you ever seen the sequence 23,12,5,16,2? It's the same as any other sequence. You are still not understanding this.

But i do understand

You are making an assumption about me

[Steve]

Because of the way the software is designed, to properly test you need to test with two digit numbers for proper results or enter a marker to identify where one number starts and another ends, like a comma character. I'll give a larger file for testing soon.

RG you said something that's incorrect. I'm just assuming you didnt know it was incorrect.

[Blue_Angel]

YES, it would still be the same. But naturally you'd need more spins to prove it conclusively. Why argue more? Just test.

Not needed to test what I already know.
The thing is that this horse-puckey has been served to us as the only reality, no thanks!

Steve, you seem to have a talent for finding troubles...could you explain us why?

[Steve]

Not needed to test what I already know.

What you think you know is wrong. Anyone can test and see it.

The thing is that this horse-puckey has been served to us as the only reality, no thanks!

To deny reality is "delusion". Math is not an opinion.

Steve, you seem to have a talent for finding troubles...could you explain us why?

Because people tend to hold onto delusion. When I try to help them, they attack me rather than admit their mistakes. Well that's one reason.

What's the problem here BA? The testing shows what I'm saying is the truth. The entire professional gaming community agrees with me. But you claim to know better, against all clear evidence. It's nothing personal BA, but you are wrong here and i'm just trying to help. Please dony give me that crap that I'm trying to sell something. That has nothing to do with it.

[Blue_Angel]

That's your definition, let's say that I'm not trying to prove the obvious but quite the opposite...
Everyone can say that 1+1=2 but you cannot claim profit, novelty, reward out of such obvious things, these are for "parrots" and "monkeys".
I really don't care what the majority believes, says and does, but I'm going to tell you one thing;
If the majority was correct then the majority would be in privileged status, actually what happens is quite the opposite...
I prefer to differ, not just for the sake of it, but because it does make sense afterall!

I'd like to thank ALL of you for derailing this thread!

Like you did on "POSITIVE EXPECTATION CAN BE PROVED MATHEMATICALLY!"

[Steve]

BA all I did was correct your incorrect statements. That's not de-railing a thread. I'm sorry but you have no idea what you're talking about and have a lot to learn.