Building systems around RARE EVENTS that never happen in your lifetime

[The General]

Think of it like this...

How many ways can 37 different numbers occur within 37 spins?
Now, how many different ways can it not be 37 different numbers within 37 spins? 
If you think about it this way, then you'll find that there are a gazillion more ways for it not to hit 37 unique numbers.

The 37 spins that inevitably occur are just as unique as the specific sequence 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,...36
It's just that nobody is ever looking for the specific sequence that does inevitably hit.

Another comparison is with the lottery.  Many people believe the 1,2,3,4,5,6 is far less likely to occur than 1,23,35,38,41,53, but both are just as likely to occur.

Hope the above helps.

[TurboGenius]

So no matter how you re-arrange the numbers on the table, the math stays the same.

I'm recording and at spin 102 I'm finally down to 2 numbers not appeared.
That means at spin 101 I had 3 numbers that hadn't appeared.
So a street going for 101 spins is a "rare event" in my example.
Now it's appeared at spin 102 !  Player "2" starts, silly bastard waited
for that "rare event" before playing.
The math is the same, regardless of what the numbers are.
So here's a street bet - now that the rare event has happened, let's see
the results.
Spins until a win on any of these 3 numbers (street)
16 spins (we still have 2 that haven't appeared) Betting 1 number and won in 16 spins, not 37
9 spins and the next to last number appears. Now we're betting them both.
6 spins later the last number appears. Now we are betting all 3 - a street bet.
2 spins later, a win
10 spins later, another win
12 spins later, another win
2 spins later, another win
18 spins later, another win
26 spins later, another win
8 spins, win
2 spins, win
14 spins, win
6 spins, win
26 spins, win
11 spins, win
1 spin, win
11 spins, win  So about 1 win every 10.23 spins.
That's fine - the expected is 1 in 12.33 spins.
Player "2" did a little better than expected with +56 units flat betting.
---
But what about player 1 - who didn't think there was a benefit in trying to
take advantage of a "rare event".. he started from spin 1.
He finishes at the same time as player 2 - he's down 198 units !
Here are the charts - so there is NO benefit in attacking after a rare event
has occurred (in this example a street sleeping for 101 spins)
I ran this in RX of course as I typed this, wouldn't want anyone to think I
hand picked some spins that benefited by explanation.
So if the people who think it's rare to see some event happen such as
a street sleeping for 100+ spins, then surely they have to admit that this event
happening twice back-to-back on the same street are also rare.
Therefore, you can't say there's no value in waiting for a rare event to happen
and at the same time argue that when it does happen - it won't happen again.
Imagine the numbers rolling out of "random" and the last 5 numbers
appear and we keep tracking. NONE of them show again until they are the
last 5 numbers again ?  That's absurd. Of course there's a benefit because
we know what "won't happen" and can use this to our advantage.
Here's the two player's charts. They are the same except for one thing -
the "rare event" destroyed player 1 - it had NO effect on Player 2.
You can't lose a single unit by not betting on a number that doesn't appear.
The same, you can't lose a single unit on a rare event happening if you aren't
betting on it while it's happening. Now once it happens.... you can bet that
it won't repeat itself.




The only difference here is that 1 player could care less about the rare event
happening and lost because of it - the other waited for it to happen and then benefited from it NOT happening again (in the near future)
So this is one little example, there are tons of them - and the results are
better and better based on how "rare" the event is, because the likelihood of
it repeating now is so small it's completely unlikely to happen while the player
is in the same session.

[RouletteGhost]

either GF realllllly sucks

or the general wanted to bring this over here for a larger audience

[TurboGenius]

Another thing is the constant argument that
1,2,3 is no different than 32,12,4 and how you
might notice 1,2,3 but wouldn't think twice about 32,12,4 yet
they have the exact same chance of appearing. Fair enough.
But what about rare events ? Or how long it takes before sleepers
appear ?

You can test this yourself - wait for the longest street to appear
and note the number of spins. Then wait for one of the last 3
numbers to appear and note the number of spins. That's exactly
the same as one of the numbers in the last street appearing.
It's all the same right ? A street is 3 numbers, the last 3 numbers to appear
and a street bet should produce the same results right ?
Nope, not even close.


The last street "could" be equal to one of the last 3 numbers appearing
ONLY if those last numbers are in that street. They aren't a huge amount
of the time.
So the amount of numbers is the same - the results are different.
Seeing 1,2,3 might be the same odds as seeing 32,12,4 but if
you're looking at rare events or patterns - (see above)
the last street always shows before the last 3 numbers.

[Steve]

Turbo, if the spins you used did not suit your hypothesis, would you still have posted the results? I'm not sure you would have. It's like 17 spins if I'm reading right. That's your proof of concept?

What you're saying is like choosing 5 random numbers (at the start), and betting that they wont ALL spin in 30 spins. It's a rare event, right? Those 5 numbers are no different to any other 5 numbers in terms of if or when they will spin. So the bet selection changed nothing.

The fact that you chose the numbers at the start makes no difference. Neither does an elaborate bet selection method that expects past spins to influence future spins.

[Steve]

Another thing is the constant argument that
1,2,3 is no different than 32,12,4 and how you
might notice 1,2,3 but wouldn't think twice about 32,12,4 yet
they have the exact same chance of appearing. Fair enough.
But what about rare events ? Or how long it takes before sleepers
appear ?

Pick any of your sleepers or hit numbers, and the odds of them appearing either next or sometime soon are the same as any random number.

Your explanations are really as clear as mud. I'm only understanding part of what you are saying. But let's nail this down and see who is right and wrong. Please, make your explanation crystal clear.

[The General]

Turbo,

If I'm understanding your example correctly, then you've merely curve fitted the results.  Unintentionally I'm sure. 
It looks like you purposefully put player one on the worst numbers you could find (by looking ahead), rather than any two numbers at random,
and player two on the numbers only after player one had been playing them for a while.    The way you've explained the test is rather difficult to follow, as I'm not even really sure what it is that he was betting on.


Perhaps you can create a better example.  By the way, the graphs kind of confuse the example.

In short, it appears that you're not comparing apples to apples.  It would be like me looking for ten reds in a row, and then starting player one from the start betting black, but starting player two betting on black on spin 11.  Surely you can see the flaw in the testing.

[The General]

Here's another example of curve fitting...

Player one decides to see what the longest losing streak is for red as he's certain that randomness has limits.  The player searches over hundreds of spins and discovers that the longest streak is NINE losing spins in a row.  He then declares that,  "Nine losing spins is certainly the longest streak that he could find in 512 spins."  He then plans to build a sure fire way to win by betting a progression starting after only six misses in a row.

Player two comes along and says to player one, "You're wasting your time by waiting. "

Player one then says, "No, I have proof, as I have gone through the last 512 spins to find the longest losing streak and the longest that I could find was only nine spins in length."

Player two then says, "No, you've tested your theory only once, because you've only run your test once, rather than testing it 512 times.
You see, you have to wait around for about 512 spins for nine in a row to occur...   but you need to conduct your test 512 times to see if the trend continues or ends at only nine."

(Awe this too is probably a terrible example.  I'll reword a better example tomorrow.)

[cht]

(Awe this too is probably a terrible example.  I'll reword a better example tomorrow.)

Lmao ! Tomorrow then.

Do continue this interesting discussion.

[cht]

Another thing is the constant argument that
1,2,3 is no different than 32,12,4 and how you
might notice 1,2,3 but wouldn't think twice about 32,12,4 yet
they have the exact same chance of appearing. Fair enough.
But what about rare events ? Or how long it takes before sleepers
appear ?

You can test this yourself - wait for the longest street to appear
and note the number of spins. Then wait for one of the last 3
numbers to appear and note the number of spins. That's exactly
the same as one of the numbers in the last street appearing.
It's all the same right ? A street is 3 numbers, the last 3 numbers to appear
and a street bet should produce the same results right ?
Nope, not even close.


The last street "could" be equal to one of the last 3 numbers appearing
ONLY if those last numbers are in that street. They aren't a huge amount
of the time.
So the amount of numbers is the same - the results are different.
Seeing 1,2,3 might be the same odds as seeing 32,12,4 but if
you're looking at rare events or patterns - (see above)
the last street always shows before the last 3 numbers.

That's 42,840th worse street vs fixed 12th worse street.

[cht]

So no matter how you re-arrange the numbers on the table, the math stays the same.

I'm recording and at spin 102 I'm finally down to 2 numbers not appeared.
That means at spin 101 I had 3 numbers that hadn't appeared.
So a street going for 101 spins is a "rare event" in my example.
Now it's appeared at spin 102 !  Player "2" starts, silly bastard waited
for that "rare event" before playing.
The math is the same, regardless of what the numbers are.
So here's a street bet - now that the rare event has happened, let's see
the results.
Spins until a win on any of these 3 numbers (street)
16 spins (we still have 2 that haven't appeared) Betting 1 number and won in 16 spins, not 37
9 spins and the next to last number appears. Now we're betting them both.
6 spins later the last number appears. Now we are betting all 3 - a street bet.
2 spins later, a win
10 spins later, another win
12 spins later, another win
2 spins later, another win
18 spins later, another win
26 spins later, another win
8 spins, win
2 spins, win
14 spins, win
6 spins, win
26 spins, win
11 spins, win
1 spin, win
11 spins, win  So about 1 win every 10.23 spins.
That's fine - the expected is 1 in 12.33 spins.
Player "2" did a little better than expected with +56 units flat betting.
---
But what about player 1 - who didn't think there was a benefit in trying to
take advantage of a "rare event".. he started from spin 1.
He finishes at the same time as player 2 - he's down 198 units !
Here are the charts - so there is NO benefit in attacking after a rare event
has occurred (in this example a street sleeping for 101 spins)
I ran this in RX of course as I typed this, wouldn't want anyone to think I
hand picked some spins that benefited by explanation.
So if the people who think it's rare to see some event happen such as
a street sleeping for 100+ spins, then surely they have to admit that this event
happening twice back-to-back on the same street are also rare.
Therefore, you can't say there's no value in waiting for a rare event to happen
and at the same time argue that when it does happen - it won't happen again.
Imagine the numbers rolling out of "random" and the last 5 numbers
appear and we keep tracking. NONE of them show again until they are the
last 5 numbers again ?  That's absurd. Of course there's a benefit because
we know what "won't happen" and can use this to our advantage.
Here's the two player's charts. They are the same except for one thing -
the "rare event" destroyed player 1 - it had NO effect on Player 2.
You can't lose a single unit by not betting on a number that doesn't appear.
The same, you can't lose a single unit on a rare event happening if you aren't
betting on it while it's happening. Now once it happens.... you can bet that
it won't repeat itself.




The only difference here is that 1 player could care less about the rare event
happening and lost because of it - the other waited for it to happen and then benefited from it NOT happening again (in the near future)
So this is one little example, there are tons of them - and the results are
better and better based on how "rare" the event is, because the likelihood of
it repeating now is so small it's completely unlikely to happen while the player
is in the same session.

It surely did not happen to player 2 who waited.

It did happen to that 1player who did not wait.

Everthing else is the same.

Lets see if anyone can debunk this.

[Steve]

I would love to respond in detail, to debunk or give credit. Problem is I find the explanation as clear as mud. Turbo, please more clearly explain what you mean.

[TurboGenius]

Problem is I find the explanation as clear as mud. Turbo, please more clearly explain what you mean.

It's perfectly clear

[Steve]

Clear to you. Parts are ambiguous.

From what i gather, your proof is a set of spins that match your hypothesis.

Naturally the player that bets less will end up with more money remaining. And if there happens to be some lucky wins, they may even profit. That's all your data is showing.

Its like saying:

Two players sit at the table for 100 spins.

Player 1 bets on all 1000 spins and loses $500.

Player 2 bets on only FIVE of the spins, and he won once.

This is proof it works.

What am i missing here?

[Steve]

Another thing is the constant argument that
1,2,3 is no different than 32,12,4 and how you
might notice 1,2,3 but wouldn't think twice about 32,12,4 yet
they have the exact same chance of appearing. Fair enough.
But what about rare events ? Or how long it takes before sleepers
appear ?

You can test this yourself - wait for the longest street to appear
and note the number of spins. Then wait for one of the last 3
numbers to appear and note the number of spins. That's exactly
the same as one of the numbers in the last street appearing.
It's all the same right ? A street is 3 numbers, the last 3 numbers to appear
and a street bet should produce the same results right ?
Nope, not even close.


The last street "could" be equal to one of the last 3 numbers appearing
ONLY if those last numbers are in that street. They aren't a huge amount
of the time.
So the amount of numbers is the same - the results are different.
Seeing 1,2,3 might be the same odds as seeing 32,12,4 but if
you're looking at rare events or patterns - (see above)
the last street always shows before the last 3 numbers.

If i understand your point correctly, then your error is forgetting there are lots of possible groups of 3 numbers, but only one of a particular street.

Of course any possible 3 numbers will spin more frequently than a specific 3 numbers, because there are lots of combinations vs only one combination.

If I've misunderstood you, please clarify.