The "Statistical Imbalance" fallacy

[Joe]

Your problem is that you face the game of roulette from a mathematical point of view and that's not the way to find a solution to solve the puzzle of the game.

These rhythms that produce symmetries can be analyzed, since they are data, and converted into statistical information.

Those two statements are inconsistent. So using statistical information isn't facing roulette from mathematical point of view?

If you're going to criticize mathematics, at least understand what it is.

Mathematicians seek and use patterns[8][9] to formulate new conjectures; they resolve the truth or falsity of conjectures by mathematical proof. When mathematical structures are good models of real phenomena, mathematical reasoning can be used to provide insight or predictions about nature. Through the use of abstraction and logic, mathematics developed from counting, calculation, measurement, and the systematic study of the shapes and motions of physical objects. Practical mathematics has been a human activity from as far back as written records exist. The research required to solve mathematical problems can take years or even centuries of sustained inquiry.

[carvigno]

You are a laughable character Joe. You dont have a clue but you give your opinion as an expert. In my country it is said: La miel no se hizo para la boca del asno. Translated into plain english should say : honey was not made for the jackass' mouth.
Im done in this thread. A waste of time and energy. For what? Now it's me i dont have a clue.
Have a nice weekend.

Carpanta

[Joe]

Carpanta, is that it?

Come back when you have some actual data to back up your absurd claims.

[gizmotron2]

Gizmo has been giving us this drivel for years. He clearly has 'issues' and can't even tell us basic stats concerning his results. If he doesn't even know that himself he can't know that what he does is any better than random chance. His posts can be entertaining at times but as regards helping anyone to win at roulette, it's well past the time to put him on ignore.

I told the existence of the global effect and the elegant pattern from the very get go. It's now coming up on 15 years since I first suggested it at Gambler's Glen.  And in all that time none of the experts of gambling have bothered to prove it does not happen. They seem to self advise that it is not necessary because it can't exist. Even when I show it to them they can't or won't see it. It is the greatest opportunity in gambling. It is far more rare than minimal patterns and synchronous patterns. Yet it happens if and only if you are prepared to exploit it when it does happen.

If the stock market is made up primarily as evidenced by the chickens running scared that we see now because of a killer virus then why should that aspect of human nature not also effect the thinking of gamblers without good judgment as well? People don't want to work hard for something, even if it is worth it. Any savvy stock trader knows that this is a buying opportunity. Passing on Reading Randomness is the same thing. It's an opportunity that people should check to see if it is true or not for themselves. The chickens that run scared in this should not stop you. Especially since it is free. There is free to use practice software to back it up. It can be learned at no risk to you or cost. It's taken 12 years to simplify it and to explain it clearly. The funny thing is that it is not simple enough for some people. It causes them to defy it. It is like the stupidity of liberals wanting free stuff and thinking that there is an endless supply of other people's money. If they can't get that then you are a racist phobic deplorable worthy of disparaging pejoratives. I did this to embarrass the hell out of experts and skeptics that assure you that they are right and I am wrong. That is the only motivation for all this crap. It's pseudo harbingers of mathematics that grandstand even in the face of conflicting results. They are not convinced yet because they haven't been clearly shown to be wrong yet. But that is their fate. A large enough gathering of common practitioners of reading randomness will show them all up to have been victims of group-think debility. The only thing missing from this is for it to go viral. It will. It's the same as counting cards. It scared the casinos at first. But now they let the neophytes trying it to go ahead. Like that they will let the failures try reading Randomness too. They will just kick out those that are good at it. When this thing blows up it will be too late. This is like buying Microsoft stock at $8 before it went global. And the best part is these experts of math and probability will have missed it completely.  And even worse they will have gone on record as having tried it and declared it worthless.

I and others have demonstrated a 2 to 1 win to loss ratio. That's in a negative expectation game.  Even if the best some people can do is 1.2 to 1 that alone blows the current beliefs completely out of the water.

[Joe]

I and others have demonstrated a 2 to 1 win to loss ratio.

No you haven't. Or if you have, it's over just a few spins. Stock trading is nothing like roulette because it's not entirely random. 'Reading randomness' is an oxymoron.

[gizmotron2]

No you haven't. Or if you have, it's over just a few spins. Stock trading is nothing like roulette because it's not entirely random. 'Reading randomness' is an oxymoron.

It's more like an expert with an opinion (moron) riding on an ox. Student 1 did a full month of one on one instruction and then did 60 hours of practice in front of me after that and producing those numbers. Each session was from 40 to 120 spins. He did two sessions per lesson. That's 60 sessions that were confined to 3 net wins or 7 net losses. He went from being less than breaking even to more than doubling the expected mathematical amount. That was with personal lessons. Then someone from here duplicated those results without personal one on one instructions. That person is still breaking all the math that is expected. This is not a progression that wipes out all your progress. It is flat betting or not funding a bet selection. It doesn't need a million sessions to confirm that it works.  But you might need it to take millions of sessions before you will see it.

Stock trading has moving averages, real after the fact data. Reading Randomness is seeing the real data after the fact also. And it has moving averages too. Best of all you are oblivious to it. Thanks for contributing the the national brain trust.

[Steve]

In the stock market, people trade based on price history. So the past affects the future.

With rng, the past is meaningless.

[Joe]

Student 1 did a full month of one on one instruction and then did 60 hours of practice in front of me after that and producing those numbers. Each session was from 40 to 120 spins. He did two sessions per lesson. That's 60 sessions that were confined to 3 net wins or 7 net losses.

Your arithmetic doesn't add up. You claim 2:1 wins to losses for an even chance. So if a winning session consists of 3 net wins, in order to maintain that 2:1 ratio the session lengths must be very short indeed, lol. ie if you make 5 bets and have 3 net wins it's still not as good as 2:1 (it's only 1.5:1). And this means that 60 sessions isn't many spins at all, probably less than 300.

Stock trading has moving averages, real after the fact data. Reading Randomness is seeing the real data after the fact also. And it has moving averages too.

So what? You can get moving averages for any data you like, it doesn't necessarily mean anything. You can make money in stocks by following the trend because people are like sheep, and stocks prices are based on human emotions like fear and greed. Roulette is just a ball and a wheel. Isn't that f*ckin' obvious? 

[gizmotron2]

Your arithmetic doesn't add up. You claim 2:1 wins to losses for an even chance. So if a winning session consists of 3 net wins, in order to maintain that 2:1 ratio the session lengths must be very short indeed, lol. ie if you make 5 bets and have 3 net wins it's still not as good as 2:1 (it's only 1.5:1). And this means that 60 sessions isn't many spins at all, probably less than 300.

If you ever bothered to read the thread you would know exactly how and why that 2 to 1 win to loss ratio math works out. But you don't Mr Wizard. So you are so dang smart that you just look smart. Arguing with you is like arguing with a child.

[Steve]

Past rng spins dont affect the future, at all. You're stuck with 1in 37. So besides luck or precog, how is it possible to win with higher accuracy based on past spins?

By definition and logic, its not.
It's impossible.

[Tacwell]

If you ever bothered to read the thread you would know exactly how and why that 2 to 1 win to loss ratio math works out. But you don't Mr Wizard. So you are so dang smart that you just look smart. Arguing with you is like arguing with a child.

Incapable of comprehending basic probability, insults those that do...

My god man, do you understand how much you're embarrassing yourself?

And then you try to relate roulette to the "stock market".
Prices are based on fundamental data, which overall public sentiment generally reflects, when financial data changes, so will the price. Financial data isn't random.

There will likely be many opportunities to profit by buying into the electronic markets soon, thanks to the corona virus, and all of those prices will be below their short term moving averages, you'll be buying against the short term negative trend, the opposite to what you're proposing wrt your system or method or whatever you call it.

Roulette spins will continue to be random, with a negative betting expectancy, regardless of what patterns or trends you witness or think might happen, that's all hindsight, but your narcissistic tendencies won't let you see that, and you'll likely use more sarcasm as your defense.

[charly]

Past rng spins dont affect the future, at all. You're stuck with 1in 37. So besides luck or precog, how is it possible to win with higher accuracy based on past spins?

By definition and logic, its not.
It's impossible.

Steve, have you ever tried to beat roulette with random number generator? It would be random VS random. Not just a random bet selection but random money managament too.  Example, 10 spins play with one system, after that, by random number generator, choose another system. You need a list with 20 different systems. 

[charly]

In the stock market, people trade based on price history. So the past affects the future.

With rng, the past is meaningless.

People do that because they believe that in stock market past affects future. In stocks past is meaningless as in roulette and other casino games.
People want to believe that exists strategy with which from past datas they can predict future. What a bullshit )

[Steve]

Steve, have you ever tried to beat roulette with random number generator

No because it would be a stupid thing to try. 0 + 0 = 0.

It would be random VS random.

It wouldn't be a "verses" situation at all.

Not just a random bet selection but random money managament too

Should you use space radiation to predict rng? What's the theory that makes it a good idea? Where's the data to back it up?

People do that because they believe that in stock market past affects future

Past does affect future. Do you think price movement is uselessly random?

In stocks past is meaningless as in roulette and other casino games.

No, its not.

People want to believe that exists strategy with which from past datas they can predict future

It can only be done if theres a preductable correlation between any variables and winning numbers. With rng, theres none.

[gizmotron2]

Incapable of comprehending basic probability, insults those that do...

Well we must remember to protect those safe zones for probability snowflakes mustn't we?

My god man, do you understand how much you're embarrassing yourself?

I've been doing it selflessly for decades. I've been programming simulations for others with their hair brained mechanical systems out of general largess and for the benefit of spreading the knowledge of probability and gambling discussion for the most part. It's fun to stand in another persons shoes for a short while. I even got caught up in the depletion of uranium discussions by TurboGenius. And from all of those sims I provided telemetry so that the recipients could see where their ideas break down. I have never seen a mechanical system beat Roulette.

And then you try to relate roulette to the "stock market".

Oh, now we have the stock market police. Thanks for that. I guess you are such an expert on speculation, guessing, that you need to marginalize me for using a video as a way to make a point. I clearly state that the author of the video can't even see the same lie that you make about what the real truth is. That lie is that the house wins because of the "house's edge." I then go on to prove that this lie is not the real truth.  I wonder if you can even figure out what I'm saying? There is irrefutable proof. Did you get the memo yet?