@ turbo

[Steve]

Read back my example of a few spins and repeaters probability. Its the math behind repeaters.

It just doesnt help change the odds. Such an approach is like saying in 100 spins, I expect there to be around half reds and blacks. Try it. It doesnt work.

So what am i missing? Please, I would like to be wrong then I'd learn something new. I'm serious. Educate me. But if you have nothing to substantiate your claims, then why would I change my position?

[Madi]

can you approve my moderated posts
can you put me on watch instead of moderated

Let him say. Moderation doesnt allow someone to participate on time. His discussion can be fruitful to others.

[Scarface]

General,

Your approach is to take data from thousands of spins to find bias numbers, using chi square or whatever mathematical approach you take.

But you are so closed minded, you do not believe that random creates bias on it's own.  And it can be taken advantage of.  There will be an x number of repeats in 36 spins...as well as 72 spins...or 108 spins.  This is due to the unequal distribution of numbers, and it is predictable!

Ok, don't believe me?  I propose a challenge for you.  Let any member here pick a a sample of 108 random numbers from random.org.  That would be 3 cycles of 36.  I guarantee there will be at least a 1 to 7 ratio between the hottest number and coldest number.  Everytime I win, you pay me $100....if the ratio between hot and cold is worse than 1 to 7, I pay you $100....we'll play 100 games, and see who wins 

Hell, I don't even want your money.  Just the satisfaction of you admitting that bias is a natural part of randomness. 

Let me know if you accept the challenge, or at least admit that you could learn a bit more on how randomness works.

[cht]

CHT all the bell curve shows is what i said before in my example. But you cant use that as I already explained. It is mathematically impossible because there are still the same number of pockets and the same payout.

You are correct to say that the bettor can't simply win with this bell curve distribution knowledge alone.

What we know is at the extremes of no repeats and all repeats the probability of occurrence is close to impossible. This probability increases as the number of repeats approach the average  of 12 repeats. This is what a repeaters  player exploit.

However, most people  are stuck with general's question-

Let me rephrase this for you.  Let's say after 16 spins we have 12 numbers that have hit and 26 numbers that have not hit.  Which numbers do you feel are more likely to hit?  The numbers that have hit or the numbers that have not hit?  Why?

I have somewhat answered the question in my earlier posts. To go any further  I have to reveal everything  that I will not do.

[Andre Chass]

... because there are still the same number of pockets and the same payout.

Why it's hard the people here understand the basic?

Either they need something to believe in or some are not smart enough.

Let the players try it for themselves...

[The General]

It's this simple, the number of pockets available for the ball to land in determines the probability of a number winning.   

[Scarface]

Steve,

Seems like you're saying that 37 numbers with no repeats have the same chance as any other sequence.  Sounds like what Andre was saying earlier, which I tried to explain to him.

Kind of missing the point.  Not sure of Turbos game, but if he can win with a repeat then the comparison is all wrong.

You need to compare all cycles with repeats vs all cycles with no repeats.  If you ran a simulation of 37 spins 1000 times, Turbo could win with all those with repeats....so how many didn't have any repeats?  Its is astronomically small that would even happen.  And if that very rare event did happen, would it be enough to offset all the wins?  What's the odds that would happen back to back?  Same as the odds that the number 12 would show up 37 times straight.

[cht]

It's this simple, the number of pockets available for the ball to land in determines the probability of a number winning.   

That is correct when you look at it from an individual spin perspective.

[The General]

That is correct when you look at it from an individual spin perspective.

It's correct when you look at the next spin.
It's correct when you look at the next series of spins.
And it's correct when you look at the long term.

[Andre Chass]

Let's make it simple.

A dice has 6 sides.

The odds of these combinations or any other combinations happening  would be the same.

Example:

1-2-3-4-5-6.

2-5-5-6-3-1.

5-3-6-3-1-4.

4-5-3-4-1-6

Etc...

Prove I'm wrong!

Please prove I'm wrong

[cht]

Read back my example of a few spins and repeaters probability. Its the math behind repeaters, ie. to compare the least likely against the most likely to demonstrate this glaring difference in probability  of occurrence .

It just doesnt help change the odds. Such an approach is like saying in 100 spins, I expect there to be around half reds and blacks. Try it. It doesnt work.

So what am i missing? Please, I would like to be wrong then I'd learn something new. I'm serious. Educate me. But if you have nothing to substantiate your claims, then why would I change my position?

The best way to help you understand is this example, ie. to compare the extreme against the most likely to demonstrate the glaring difference in probability of occurrence.

Which do you think is more likely to occur 1st ?

0 0 0 0 0 .......for 37 spins, 1 1 1 1 .......for 37 spins .....and so on......

OR

12 repeats in a sequence of 37 spins ?

The frequency distribution graph provides the answer.

[Andre Chass]

Roulette has more numbers than a dice, so it's harder to know which numbers will repeat, how many numbers will repeat and when they will repeat.

A dice has less numbers than a wheel so it's easier to know any number can repeat soon.


Please, put the brain to work

Please prove I'm wrong

[Andre Chass]

Nobody here is retarded. Of course there will be repeaters.

Now pick up two combinations. For example:

1-2-3-4-5-6.

2-5-5-6-3-1.

Now run the test 1000 times. Roll the dice 1000 times.

The avarege that the combinations appears (or don't appear) will be the same.

I insist... Prove I'm wrong!

Please prove I'm wrong

[Andre Chass]

Everybody knows repeaters appears.

The problem is that you will not know which numbers will repeat, how many numbers will repeat, and WHEN they will repeat.

You can win for days or even months, until some day you do not hit the number that will be repeated soon. Then your bankroll is done.

Imho and my advice...

Please prove me I'm wrong

[Steve]

Cht, The later and i already explained that myself. What's your point, exactly?