Latest discussion on repeaters(GF)

[cht]

If you have been following the on-going discussion revealed a lot. That last bit will never be revealed but the extent of the pros and cons has been made known.

These are the following key quotes by various members -

You sit at the table - past spins are useless and mean nothing. Here we are.
I ask you to tell me what number is going to appear - you have no idea, of course - how could you.
Now the ball lands on #10.
I ask you what number is going to be a long term sleeper during this session - you laugh and say
"obviously not 10 - it just showed up".
I ask you what number is going to be a repeater and you'd probably laugh again and say "I have no
idea, but 10 is the only possible option at this point".

See - you already know that when a number repeats, 10 is a possible winner while none of the others are
at this point. Surely a number that hasn't appeared once can be a number that repeats - common sense right ?
You also know that when your long session is over - 10 won't be one of the numbers that didn't appear because
you just saw it appear..... common sense.
Maybe...I don't know... think of it this way - instead of trying to bend the spoon (wait, that's a movie)....
instead of trying to figure out what number is going to show 1 time.... because you can't really...
try to figure out which number is going to repeat !!!!!!!!
A number can't show twice unless it's appeared once.
It can't show three times unless it's shown up twice.
repeat as needed. --------- TurboGenius

Well to be fair to TG I don't think he's trying to make a case for this at all. I think he's just trying to say that RANDOM game or not, statistically there are enough repeats to make his system work. ------- Mike(Jerome)

Exactly. I made it clear in other posts that at the end of the session I win - and most of the time I'm not even playing the best possible numbers - or the numbers that were the hottest or appeared the most. Of the top 10 I'm typically on a few of them and getting wins. There's no way to predict it perfectly but it doesn't have to be perfect or anywhere near perfect in order to win every time. In my "38 people go into a casino" thread - 13 people won flat betting their own number over a large number of spins. All anyone needs to think on is how to be one of those 13 people - it's not hard when the game is playing out and you can choose what to play. ------ TurboGenius

.....he does have to identify (from past spins) those numbers which are POTENTIAL repeaters. There's no avoiding this, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's committing gambler's fallacy (or reverse gambler's fallacy). -----Mike(Jerome)

Spins contained in the session I am playing aren't past spins. I don't use past spins (what's happened before I started playing) for anything. I do use spins that have appeared during my session. ------- TurboGenius

But it's ok to use past spins, even those that occurred before your session. Sir A is attacking an argument you're not actually making; you're NOT saying that past spins INFLUENCE future spins (which is what dependence is about, and what he is accusing you of saying). Gambler's fallacy is about "triggers" and virtual bets, all of that nonsense. But previous spins can certainly help to PREDICT future outcomes by identifying the probability distribution. If the distribution is skewed (biased) then doesn't that help to predict what will happen in the future? And even if the outcomes aren't biased, there is no fallacy in using stats to structure your bet selection.

Sir A even acknowledges that betting hot numbers is better than betting cold numbers. True, that's only because IF the wheel happens to be biased then you'll be betting on the "correct" numbers, and he says that for entirely random outcomes it makes no difference. But that's a different argument, and it's not as though you're following individual numbers in the belief that because they've showed up once they are "due" to show up again soon. Analysis of the behaviour of repeats (all numbers taken together as a group) is not the same as that of particular numbers hitting more frequently because their single appearance somehow triggers it. That would be GF again (and analysis would show that it doesn't happen, as you'd expect if outcomes are independent). -------- Mike(Jerome)

I don't care if he's using past spins or not. I don't care if he's practicing the gambler's fallacy.  ------- Sr Sir Anyone Anyone

[cht]

Based on the above conversation, it's confirmed the objection is not based on gambler's fallacy.

It's based on the ability to predict future spins based on hotties.

But previous spins can certainly help predict future outcomes. ------ Mike(Jerome)

The question is HOW ?

I found 2 ways where previous spins can help predict future outcomes. Here's one way played mechanically on roulettesimulator over 180 without crazy progression. It's all about WHEN and WHAT to bet revealed by frequency distribution vs fix unfair payout.

Purpose of this thread is to identify the exact nature of the objection - which turns out to be the predictability of future spins with the use of repeaters.

[cht]

The above game played at roulettesimulator is not a claim. It's an example of what's possible in the prediction department with the proper use of statistics.

[Madi]

Average are useless and the winning  hot number always show middle finger to the statistic.

[Lucky7Red]

The above game played at roulettesimulator is not a claim. It's an example of what's possible in the prediction department with the proper use of statistics.

can you tell me about roulette simulator? is it real numbers data from live table or rng computer generated numbers?

[Steve]

Same old circles. Nothing learned.

[Lucky7Red]

Then tests is not valid for me 

[cht]

can you tell me about roulette simulator? is it real numbers data from live table or rng computer generated numbers?

I believe it's rng.

This is not a strategy thread to play repeaters.

It's to determine the exact nature of DSAA objection towards repeaters.

Thanks to Mike(Jerome) detailed comments,

DSAA statement in response clarifies his objection -

I don't care if he's using past spins or not. I don't care if he's practicing the gambler's fallacy.

[Steve]

To know the truth about repeaters, all anyone needs to do is proper testing. Then they would know repeaters spin as often as cold numbers.

But the testing isnt being done, so the delusion continues. Its strange. Like being in a space shuttle and refusing to look out the window and seeing a round Earth, then calling Earth flat.

Dont laugh at the flat Earthers. Such ignorance is not so uncommon.

[Madi]

Steve tell us exactly what he is doing . We ll test it. Not just throw repeater doesnt work. Repeater is also a number like the unique. Its has the same chance of apprearing others. If it appears any time before 35th spin i m winner.

[Steve]

I already explained how to test, in detail. Its really not hard. Its one of the most extensively tested theories.  To statisticians and professionals, its really, really old news. On forums, its the potential hg.

Please people, start to learn. Test methodically and intelligently. Stop these ridiculous circles.

[Steve]

So many times ive been asked to give specific details. Then i spend lots of time explaining it all.

Then it falls in deaf ears, and i wasted more of my life. Frustrating is not the word for it.

Few people are learning. Im not entirely sure why.

[Madi]

I need to learn  and i m willing to. First i need to know what to test? No not all repeater system is same. Tell us exactly what he does.

Again just tell us exactly what he does. Untill we know that we cant test it i believe.

[Steve]

And when i lay out primary school math, in detail, there's often the dumbass that says I'm just censoring the hg so i can sell computers.

Really, im not being condecending or arrogant. Almost no progress is ever made. And even when the truth is smashed in faces, it is ignored and not understood.

[Steve]

Read my past messages and focus on relevant parts. Turbos system is clear. His explanations are understood. He's just wrong.

As for testing, past messages explain that too.