Turbo Denzie or is it Denzie Turbo

[falkor2k15]

This is not about "guessing grails" because there isn't a single grail being described here. This is about concepts and FACTS, such as 3+ types of dependencies existing in Roulette where everyone assumed each set of spins were independent of the previous. The facts and evidence is what leads to the truth. Do not trust people - trust the facts and evidence.

[Steve]

Yes but the facts and evidence contradict what you say. And even when i point out one clear example, you ignore it.

You arent the only person who does this.

[RouletteGhost]

Now join his forum

It's private and confidential.

Carrot on a string.

Falkor thinks people are stupid.

[Bayes]

The facts and evidence is what leads to the truth. Do not trust people - trust the facts and evidence.

Couldn't agree more. The trouble is there is disagreement about what counts as "evidence" and facts. That's why I say you should start with clearing up misunderstandings about probability, and learn something about how to make inferences from data. An understanding of basic logic would also help. Discussion is pointless if we can't even agree about basic terms.

Your statements are so vague and confused that it's hard to know what the hell you're on about. After reading a few of your posts I start losing the will to live. And all that stuff about the flat earth and other conspiracy theories doesn't help either.

This is not about "guessing grails" because there isn't a single grail being described here. This is about concepts and FACTS, such as 3+ types of dependencies

If you want us to understand the concepts and "facts" then give some concrete examples using actual data and numbers, not just a picture with arrows on it, which is about as much use as a fart in a hurricane. But of course you can't do that because it would be giving the game away, so yes, ultimately it comes down to "guess my grail". 

[falkor2k15]

1) Fact 1: All streams generated from the original straights stream are dependent - some more than others - disprove this FACT!


2) Fact 2: Repeats depend on the uniques that appeared before. R... 75% chance red will repeat - disprove this FACT!
R... BB = 25%
R... R or BR = 75%

3) Fact 3: HL and LH here have only 1 difference - disprove this FACT!

link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=18814.0

[Steve]

1) Fact 1: All streams generated from the original straights stream are dependent - some more than others - disprove this FACT!

An example of vague.

What's a stream? What's as original straights stream? Dependent on what? Nobody has any idea what you're on about. And the parts that are clear are incorrect.

[falkor2k15]

An example of vague.

What's a stream? What's as original straights stream? Dependent on what? Nobody has any idea what you're on about. And the parts that are clear are incorrect.

Stream = collection of spins:
Straight Up Numbers stream - 30 23 9 15...
Dozens stream - 3 2 1 2...
High/Low stream - H H L L...
Dependent on each other!

How's that vague!? I beg to differ...

[Bayes]

2) Fact 2: Repeats depend on the uniques that appeared before. R... 75% chance red will repeat - disprove this FACT!
R... BB = 25%
R... R or BR = 75%

No, that's wrong. It's true that there is a 75% chance of red appearing at least once in the next 2 spins (actually, a little less because of the zero), but it doesn't depend on what went before. It would still have a 75% chance of showing if the previous spin was black. That's what independence means.

3) Fact 3: HL and LH here have only 1 difference - disprove this FACT!

link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=18814.0

Seriously? falkor, this is a one-off coincidence. You're seeing patterns which are statistically insignificant. Try generating that table several more times and see if you get the same numbers. You won't.

As for "fact" 1, I'm still trying to figure out what your tables are supposed to be telling me.

[falkor2k15]

No, that's wrong. It's true that there is a 75% chance of red appearing at least once in the next 2 spins (actually, a little less because of the zero), but it doesn't depend on what went before. It would still have a 75% chance of showing if the previous spin was black. That's what independence means.

Not talking about 2 spins - we describing the repeat as an event (could be 1 or 2 spins). We want to predict if Red or Black will repeat, so the fact is: if R appears once then it has 75% chance to be that repeat, hence repeats depends on the uniques that came before.

Seriously? falkor, this is a one-off coincidence. You're seeing patterns which are statistically insignificant. Try generating that table several more times and see if you get the same numbers. You won't.

As for "fact" 1, I'm still trying to figure out what your tables are supposed to be telling me.

No coincidence here; you are obviously not seeing it. Look closer at the table and compare HL and LH; note there's only a difference of 1 in the tally/registry - agree/disagree?

[Bayes]

if R appears once then it has 75% chance to be that repeat, hence repeats depends on the uniques that came before.

No they don't. It's your wording that's misleading. If R appears once then of course it doesn't have a 75% chance of appearing again on the next spin, but it does have a 75% chance of appearing again (repeating) in the next two spins. If Black appeared once then red would still have a 75% chance of appearing in the next 2 spins, although in that case it won't be repeating.

Regarding the table with HL and LH, yes I knew what you were referring to because I had a look at Priyanka's "funny sequences" thread. The pattern has no significance whatsoever as you'll see if you generate more tables. You appear to have a severe case of Apophenia.

[DoctorSudoku]

3) Fact 3: HL and LH here have only 1 difference - disprove this FACT!

Gilius-Falkor,
Yes, I agree it is NOT a one-off result, but a general result.

However, there is a reason for that.

It is the way Priyanka "defined" or "generated" those H/L pairs. As is well-known, she is obsessed with dependency (just as you are).

To achieve this dependency, what she did was this:
For each TWO consecutive pairs of an H/L combination, she used the SECOND element of the FIRST pair as the FIRST element of the SECOND pair.

Doing the above -- inevitably -- resulted in HL and LH having a difference of either 0 or 1.

[falkor2k15]

If R appears once... it does have a 75% chance of appearing again (repeating) in the next two spins instead of black

Who is correct - Bayes or Doctor...?

Regarding the table with HL and LH, yes I knew what you were referring to because I had a look at Priyanka's "funny sequences" thread. The pattern has no significance whatsoever as you'll see if you generate more tables. You appear to have a severe case of Apophenia.

Gilius-Falkor,
Yes, I agree it is NOT a one-off result, but a general result.

However, there is a reason for that.

It is the way Priyanka "defined" or "generated" those H/L pairs. As is well-known, she is obsessed with dependency (just as you are).

To achieve this dependency, what she did was this:
For each TWO consecutive pairs of an H/L combination, she used the SECOND element of the FIRST pair as the FIRST element of the SECOND pair.

Doing the above -- inevitably -- resulted in HL and LH having a difference of either 0 or 1.

[cht]

Gilius-Falkor,
Yes, I agree it is NOT a one-off result, but a general result.

However, there is a reason for that.

It is the way Priyanka "defined" or "generated" those H/L pairs. As is well-known, she is obsessed with dependency (just as you are).

To achieve this dependency, what she did was this:
For each TWO consecutive pairs of an H/L combination, she used the SECOND element of the FIRST pair as the FIRST element of the SECOND pair.

Doing the above -- inevitably -- resulted in HL and LH having a difference of either 0 or 1.

Good that DocS finally pointed the obvious out else ppl might think that it's a magical distribution based on some newly discovered math law.

[RouletteGhost]

Falkor shows all the signs of an internet troll or someone whose life depends on attention

Creating a confidential forum is just a tell tale sign

Believing conspiracies is one thing. I know I do. But the flat earth thing just makes someone a crack pot. Buy a weather balloon and a go pro. Prove it's flat. Because elementary experiments show a sphere with go pros attached to balloons.

the magician over at bet selection forum gave him a proper response in his thread

It's the standard carrot on a stick. He's nuts.

If you want to waste time read his threads

[DoctorSudoku]

Then I ran this experiment again and again and again.  Results of 10 such runs are below.  Then I noticed a peculiar thing.



Hmm! Then I ran the same experiment for 5000 spins for 5 times and looked at the results. I still noticed the same peculiar thing. Do you see what I am seeing in the stats of opposites (HL and LH)? What do you think?

Cht,
You can be as sarcastic  as you like. That is your prerogative.

Take a look at the above quote -- that is Priyanka's first post to start that Funny Sequences thread.

Focus on the parts that I highlighted -- evidently, Priyanka thought that she had made a notable discovery.