The "Statistical Imbalance" fallacy

[gizmotron2]

Back to the subject of this thread : anyone who thinks they can benefit from statistical imbalance using Kimo's methods or anyone else's should read and try to understand this :

Oh, good one. So let's see how this all plays out and if dependence or independence matters. For that matter a Roulette wheel is like replacing the cards on each try, in this case a spin.  Let's say that you can see a perfect reoccurring single on the weak side in the Red/Black grouping. Let's say that it has been happening for 14 spins in a row. In order for this characteristic to continue it must be a dependent event on the next spin. So the odds don't change but the situation is dependent on the condition continuing or not. So Roulette or a coin toss for that matter is a dependent game if you make it a dependent game. Who cares if it is or if it is not? Does caring make it dependent? Or does not caring make it independent, like purchasing a car and purchasing a coat in the example video? The odds don't change but one thing depends on the other for it to continue.  Odds don't tell you when a win streak will occur, how long it will continue, and when it will end. Yet these conditions happen every day. If this is conditional then why are smart people ignoring it?

[Joe]

In order for this characteristic to continue it must be a dependent event on the next spin. So the odds don't change but the situation is dependent on the condition continuing or not.

Giz, why must the event be dependent for the characteristic to continue? It doesn't. The characteristic might or might not continue but it's not dependent on the observed characteristic.

If the odds don't change that's enough to tell you that the events (the characteristic continuing and the outcome of the next spin) are independent.

The problem is that people read too much into what they see on the marquee. It's very simple but people have a tendency to make things complicated. We are pattern seeking creatures; that serves us well most of the time but not always!

[carvigno]

Can you do the same with a single dozen?

With a single dozen he can do better. Then it is 100%.

If you see these patterns repeating stubbornly you win 100% of the time:

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

By the way, if repetition of last 12 numbers spun (dozen, column or whatever group of 12 numbers) are missing, taking a nap, then it means 12 numbers are missing next spin if tendency continues  . So it is another way of having a dozen or column missing.

[carvigno]

The problem is that people read too much into what they see on the marquee. It's very simple but people have a tendency to make things complicated. We are pattern seeking creatures; that serves us well most of the time but not always!

You can always bet randomly, without watching the marquee. But it should be sad to be betting red, open your eyes and see a serie of 8 blacks.

[6th-sense]

i would say a random picked 12 number group would behave the same as a dozen or column bet...

for number groups its all on my tracker thats tagged alongside ayks main tracker...there are 4 groups in there...cross correlated to the wheel numbers if set out in a normal table layout ...

you really need to look at what the wheel is spitting out to give you its own 12 numbers within a statistical imbalance of the whole cycle not fixed numbers ..

just my two pennies worth...no static 12 numbers will be any different than a column or dozen

[Joe]

But it should be sad to be betting red, open your eyes and see a serie of 8 blacks.

Why sad? Some people will tell you that your next bet should be black and others will say it should be red. Those who are correct will say it doesn't matter.

[Joe]

just my two pennies worth...no static 12 numbers will be any different than a column or dozen

Good call. The only thing which affects the odds of a bet winning is how many numbers you bet, not what came before.

[carvigno]

ayks main tracker

Second time you refer to ayks main tracker. Which one is it?
If you feel like sharing thanks in advance.

Absolutely. Any group of 12 numbers isnt different than a column or dozen.

[carvigno]

Good call. The only thing which affects the odds of a bet winning is how many numbers you bet, not what came before.

The odds of a bet doesnt change due to how many numbers you bet. Same odds for one number bet x 12 spins or 12 numbers x 1 spin.

[6th-sense]

Ayks main tracker is on the left though we worked together on the features you see he’s done the best roulette tracker anywhere in the world as far as I’m concerned..

My personal tracker is The coloured boxes on  the right hand side

Ayks tracker link
link:://ayk.bplaced.net/tracker8/

[6th-sense]

Oh here’s the wheel layout in table form
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=20621.0;attach=37601

[Joe]

The odds of a bet doesnt change due to how many numbers you bet. Same odds for one number bet x 12 spins or 12 numbers x 1 spin.

Actually that's not correct. But what I meant was that if you bet 1 number the odds of winning are of course not the same as when you bet 10 numbers (for a single spin).

[carvigno]

Thanks for sharing, 6th Sense. Great job done there. Useful tool.

That's the wheel layout i work with. It means you are in the good track as you know.

[gizmotron2]

Giz, why must the event be dependent for the characteristic to continue? It doesn't. The characteristic might or might not continue but it's not dependent on the observed characteristic.

If the odds don't change that's enough to tell you that the events (the characteristic continuing and the outcome of the next spin) are independent.

The problem is that people read too much into what they see on the marquee. It's very simple but people have a tendency to make things complicated. We are pattern seeking creatures; that serves us well most of the time but not always!

Geez!
"Back to the subject of this thread : anyone who thinks they can benefit from statistical imbalance using Kimo's methods or anyone else's should read and try to understand this :" 

You can't read I guess?  You get me to go to this page on dependence or independence and then you yourself can't see what it says. Here, let me spell it out for you. To have 10 reds in a row you must first have 9 in a row. Ten in a row is dependent on nine in a row already occurring and has nothing to do with the odds. And there are odds for that too anyway. Three in a row on a coin flip is 12.5%. Four in a row is half of that.

[gizmotron2]

just my two pennies worth...no static 12 numbers will be any different than a column or dozen

Yep, that's the truth. People attach magical beliefs to new and unique groupings expecting a different result. It doesn't work that way.