It works - RNG

[Bigbroben]

SLOPEZ007 started this merry-go-round thread and never came back.

Could've been Sergio Lopez.
Haunting forums...

[Bigbroben]

Taking aII 38 numbers into consideration, the Ieast number of times any number showed up was 16, and the most number of times was 50. This is a wider range, which accounts for the greater possibiIity of unconventionaI trends in a Iarger sampIing, but not one of the 38 numbers tried to escape from the corraI. Meaning, each one was compeIIed to show up a minimum number of times, but not too many times.

Given enough spins, all numbers will appear less than 15 times and more than 45 times.  It has to do with the bell-shaped curve.  Just give it enough spins.  No law here, just normal distribution.

Here is a chart of 200 x 1140 spins, 38 nrs.  It tells you how often a nr hits from 10-50 times in 1140 spins.

[Ares289]

Given enough spins, all numbers will appear less than 15 times and more than 45 times.  It has to do with the bell-shaped curve.  Just give it enough spins.  No law here, just normal distribution.

Here is a chart of 200 x 1140 spins, 38 nrs.  It tells you how often a nr hits from 10-50 times in 1140 spins.

Of course but what you wrote doesn't really change anything in the context of the whole that is discussed, because the key information resulting from this fragment is that:  "not one of the 38 numbers tried to escape from the corral. Meaning, each one was compelled to show up a minimum number of times"

[Moxy]

Of course but what you wrote doesn't really change anything in the context of the whole that is discussed, because the key information resulting from this fragment is that:  "not one of the 38 numbers tried to escape from the corral. Meaning, each one was compelled to show up a minimum number of times"

Thanks, Captain Obvious!

[Ares289]

Thanks, Captain Obvious!

Instead of thanking you can apologize on behalf of "Bigbroben" for the fact that I have to explain such  obvious things! 

[Joe]

Even more obvious is the fact that the number of pockets on the wheel doesn't change between one spin and the next. 

And why are you spamming the forum with Ellison's garbage?

"If every tabIe game resuIt is an independent event, how can we ever expect any particuIar number to come up at aII? We can’t, because there wouId be nothing to stop the wheeI from seIecting a different number, every time. And yet, the same peopIe who say that these numericaI events are immacuIateIy independent, expect the numbers to conform with the probabiIities. But if such events were truIy independent, there wouId never be a moment, or even a sustained period, when any number couId be expected to show up.

The main fallacy in Ellison's argument is the ambiguity of the terms 'independent', and 'expectation'. Some words have different meanings in different contexts, which the case here. In everyday discourse, the word 'independent' means 'free from control or outside authority', or 'having the power to do what it likes'. So, logically, if roulette events are independent, doesn't that mean that anything can happen at the table? But we don't see just anything happen; outcomes are predictable to some extent (at least in the longer term). Therefore (Ellison argues), roulette events are not independent. Same for 'expectation'. If something is 'expected', it must in a sense be 'due'. And if it's due, it makes no sense to say it's independent (in the sense just defined).

The problem is, these terms are not used in the same sense in the context of probability and statistics. In probability theory, 'independence' refers to statistical independence, which is defined as :

Two events are independent, statistically independent, or stochastically independent if the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of occurrence of the other.

Or, more precisely, as

Two events A and B are independent if and only if their joint probability equals the product of their joint probabilities:
P(A & B) = P(A) * P(B)

There is nothing in either of these definitions which says anything about events being free from outside authority or being able to do what they like. Because a distribution conforms to a pattern in the long run, does this mean that spins aren't independent? No. Because knowing what has occurred in the last 10, or 50, or 100 spins doesn't influence what will happen in the next 10, or 50 or 100. The distribution is predictable in the long run and as an aggregate but knowing the past order of spins will not help to predict the future order.

It's no good just knowing that the numbers will show up in the end. You have to know WHEN they will come, and that's what dependence means. Independence means that the 'triggers' don't work. Triggers are supposed to signal the imminent arrival of some event or set of numbers, but Ellison seems to think that just because outcomes conform to long-run probabilities it means the triggers work.  In the first place, long-run probabilities are just that : they don't materialize in the short term (at least, not reliably). Secondly, probabilities are proportions, so they don't tell you how many in terms of absolute numbers. Thirdly, and most importantly for triggers, they say nothing about what order the spins will come in. So outcomes conforming to long run probabilities doesn't mean spins are dependent, in the sense that the triggers will work. 

In aII of the groups of 1,140 spins, the 7 came up at Ieast 25 times, but never more than 38 times. That averages out to an occurrence every 30 spins on the Iow end, and every 45.6 spins on the high end. What’s the average of those two figures? 37.8. That’s just two-tenths away from the exact statisticaI expectation of 1 in 38.

Something is making that happen! Independent events are not that obedient or precise, particuIarIy in a sampIing that smaII.

So what? Those averages won't help to predict what order the spins are going to come out in. And there is no 'law of small numbers'; that's the gambler's fallacy. The law of large numbers says that in the long run the proportion of number 7s will approach the theoretical value of 1/37. This is of no use whatsoever in predicting whether it will turn up in the next few spins, or even the next 100 spins.

And again, this is completely irrelevant to the concept of independence. Read the definitions I gave above; they involve TWO events A and B. What are the two events which Ellison is referring to? There is only one! For an example of non-independence you have to define at least two events and state the relationship between them, but he hasn't even done that, so his example isn't even about independence, it's about probability and the law of large numbers, and distributions.

[cht]

And again, this is completely irrelevant to the concept of independence. Read the definitions I gave above; they involve TWO events A and B. What are the two events which Ellison is referring to? There is only one! For an example of non-independence you have to define at least two events and state the relationship between them, but he hasn't even done that, so his example isn't even about independence, it's about probability and the law of large numbers, and distributions.

Joe is spot on correct.

Triggers and due is nonsense.
Averages is nonsense.
Statistic count is history, also nonsense.

The WHEN question is the next spin and not more, followed by every other next spin.

Math wise it all comes down to this; events A and B

I avoided/ignored this part because you guys will be asking what is A and B.
That's why I have to disappear else some russian guy appears at my door with his AK37.

[gizmotron2]

Triggers and due is nonsense.
Averages is nonsense.
Statistic count is history, also nonsense.

What about the independence of something that is continuing to occur that can only continue to occur unless it has already been in a condition of continuing to occur? For that to be independent it must continue to occur.

[Joe]

gizmo, where are the events A and B in your question?

What about the independence of something

Ok, let's call this 'something' event A. What is event B? unless you specify B the question is meaningless. We all know events or patterns can continue to occur. The question is, does that pattern or event (A) correlate with some OTHER pattern or event (B). If it does, you have dependency, otherwise, you don't.

Actually, the event B could be the same as A, meaning that patterns tend to repeat. B need not be different than A.

What is the point of looking for your patterns if you don't know whether there is any correlation between it and what's coming next. You keep saying it's about tapping into coincidences, but if you have no way of filtering some patterns for others then you're going to be attacking any arbitrary pattern, and that can't result in any edge because the losing attempts will nullify the win streaks, such that the end result is the house edge.

[cht]

What about the independence of something that is continuing to occur that can only continue to occur unless it has already been in a condition of continuing to occur? For that to be independent it must continue to occur.

Something is event A.

What is so special about event A?

You compared it to another something event, that's event B that somehow made event A special.

Why you seperate normal spins into event A and event B?
What's your reason for this separation?
How is event A related to event B?

You saw pecularity in the entire population of spins or you saw pecularity in the last 10spins?

If last 10spins, are you suggesting this last 10spins is a mirror into the future?
How deep into the future?
Recency bias.

Thousands of questions to ask about patterns. 

This relationship between eventA and B.

Start with the simplest and most immediate.

Definition.

What is eventA?

What's so special about eventA?
Answer = eventB
If eventB do not exist there's no eventA.

How does eventB make event A special?

Are you sure your imagination didn't fantasised about eventB that created fantasy eventA?
Apophenia and pareidolia is common.

How about cognitive bias?

Step by step and so on.....

[gizmotron2]

Are you sure your imagination didn't fantasised about eventB that created fantasy eventA?
Apophenia and pareidolia is common.

Child's play.

Apophenia is the spontaneous perception of connections and meaningfulness of unrelated phenomena.

Pareidolia is the tendency for incorrect perception of a stimulus as an object, pattern or meaning known to the observer, such as seeing shapes in clouds, seeing faces in inanimate objects or abstract patterns, or hearing hidden messages in music. Pareidolia can be considered a subcategory of apophenia.

7 red numbers in a row is not an illusion or a figure formation that means something is due.  But it is illusion to project meaning that these capabilities are implied in order to make an argument. That argument here is clearly sophistry.

Event (A) is 7 reds in a row. Event (B) is the unknown future before it occurs.  If event (B) occurs as a red then Event (A) has performed a condition of continuation. If Event (B) occurs as Black or Green then this is not a condition of continuation.  It is real data and not a perception of Apophenia or Pareidolia.

Event (A) can also be a partial sequence of 50 recent past spins where swarms of repeats larger than 4 in a row have been observed as real data. In these swarms of real data a formation of continuation has occurred in showing that although this formation structuring was not continuous in one grouping it was observable as being continuous somewhere simultaneously in the data tracking charts. Again this is real structuring and not the illusions of perceptions best defined as Apophenia or Pareidolia.

I prefer real data over fallacy, magical beliefs, or false perceptions of meaning that suggest an ability to predict outcomes. That goes for rule based mechanical systems that have no use for conditional awareness.

[Joe]

Gizmo, I found that post that I was talking about. This is what I said :

There is no stand-out pattern there in terms of R/B, but the win/loss trend is clearly up for that particular bet selection (12 wins out of 17 bets). You may be tracking a half-dozen other bet selections, but DBL is doing better than any of the others at this point, so you play it. When another bet selection is doing 'better', you switch to it.

And this was your reply :

Congratulations Joe. You are the first person in 14 years, including all the students, to see that the bet selection does not matter to this method and to illustrate it with your example. Now try to keep that a secret. I managed to get people to get pissed off about the trends while leaving the real truth right underneath their noses. You just blabbed it to the world.

This is the thread, and your reply is in the 2nd page, last post.
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=3306.15

[gizmotron2]

So what's the big deal Joe? It's the results that matter. It's not the bet selection. Win streaks are streaks of wins not streaks of trends.  I'm just saying that when trends are working they are also win streaks. There is a different point to be made.

Your quote:

There is no stand-out pattern there in terms of R/B, but the win/loss trend is clearly up for that particular bet selection (12 wins out of 17 bets). You may be tracking a half-dozen other bet selections, but DBL is doing better than any of the others at this point, so you play it. When another bet selection is doing 'better', you switch to it.

This is reading randomness in its simplest form. Do you no longer believe it?

[leoncino74]

Quando un'altra selezione di scommesse sta andando "meglio", passi ad essa.

E quando un'altra selezione va meglio? Dopo che ha dato 4 spin di fila, dopo che ne ha dato 5? Quale si considera "meglio" ?

grazie

[Joe]

Una selezione sta andando meglio se ha più vittorie virtuali sullo stesso numero di giri di un'altra selezione.