do present spins have any influence on the probability of past spins?

[amk]

Just posted a new thread in the testing zone which can add to this discussion...........

Parrondo's Paradox

link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=8672.msg75055#msg75055

[Bayes]

Maui, so it all boils down to luck, then?

Why not just scatter a handful of chips over the table in a random way? why bother to make any effort at all?

My point was, that if you try to increase your chances of winning in any way, by any kind of structured method (which you obviously do), then this makes your views on randomness just as "insane" as Gizmo's.

[MauiSunset]

Maui, so it all boils down to luck, then?

Why not just scatter a handful of chips over the table in a random way? why bother to make any effort at all?

My point was, that if you try to increase your chances of winning in any way, by any kind of structured method (which you obviously do), then this makes your views on randomness just as "insane" as Gizmo's.

It would take me an entire website to explain my views on Roulette - luckily I have one....

[MrJ]

Why is it that every form of a roulette bet is gamblers fallacy EXCLUDING the person complaining about gamblers fallacy?

Ken

[GARNabby]

I'm with Ken, on this one.

This has nothing to do with "independent events".  Also these sorts of past events are virtually-independent, but that doesn't stop us from knowing each.

The issue here is of the distinction from future events to past ones.  But these all become the SAME sort of outcomes, eventually.  (Past ones were once future ones.)

Think about it.

[MrJ]

QUESTION: Are there not different examples of past numbers, may or may not 'help' with temporary future betting? Meaning.....I'll give two different examples:

A) in my opinion, useless information.....the 1 hit and then the 2 hit. The 3 is now due to hit.

B) in my opinion, this CAN BE useful information.....in the last 25 spins, the 34 has hit six times.


Both A and B deal with PAST EVENTS but is somebody gonna tell me BOTH are the same? You're crazy. 

Ken 

[vladir]

I see your point from a mathematical point of view Maui.
But, can you then tell me why there haven't been 100 consecutive red's or blacks? For some reason, this DOES not happen, I never seen it happen, and I bet no one here has seen it happen ever, not in RNG, not in real life, it's not even a rare event, it's an incredibly irrealistic event (it may happen one day... but I guess I won't be here to see it). I won't even be here to see 50 red's in a row!
What happens next is simply this, the more consecutive reds come out, the closer we get to this irrealistic event. After 25 reds (the most I have ever seen in a row, but I have eard stories of 29), you are now 25 steps closer to complete the irrealistic event. Next 10 spins will change to black, and you can play a progression of 10 spins here on black, I'm 99,9999% sure of that (unless you are witnessing the happening of the irrealistic event itself, or you are playing on a biased wheel).
This said, I challenge you to get not 100 red spins, not 50, but something far more easy, 35 red or black spins in a row, in a real wheel.
Good luck with that mate

[MrJ]

@MauiSunset >> Can you PM me a link to your site? I'd like to JUDGE whether or not you use gamblers fallacy. Thanks man!

Ken

[MauiSunset]

Let me restate Gambler's Fallacy:


A wacky idea that past events can change fixed probabilities/odds of future events.


It's that simple folks.


I flip a coin 10 times and the last 9 times heads comes up.


The odds for a head appearing again is 50% and 50% it will be tails; the odds don't change.


Same with Roulette - the odds never change in Roulette under ANY circumstances......

[MrJ]

"Let me restate Gambler's Fallacy" >>> Hmmm, my above question MauiSunset.
Are both A and B the SAME in your opinion?

Ken

[GARNabby]

A wacky idea that past events can change fixed probabilities/odds of future events.

You can't even have future events without having past ones.  And, the future ones are just "past ones which haven't happened yet".

[vladir]

I was not talking about probability...  It would be more close to what Ion Saliu called "degree of certainty", if I'm not mistaken in the term.

[Gizmotron]

Maui- " A RNG or Roulette wheel spits out random numbers thathave all kindsofpatterns-means nothing at all in the real world. No one here can point to any scientific evidence that exists."

You are the lab rat. So you see one of those pattern you suggest that you can see. You observe that it continues to occur. Had you placed bets that go along with it you would have won all those bets. But you didn't we'll say. Guess what? It continues to keep happening.  You don't  have the mental capacity to take advantage of an obvious opportunity. So, the lab rat that you are, you lash out at others that have no trouble taking advantage of conditions like this. The obvious conclusion is that the experiment confirms the diminished capacity in some lab rats and thier continuous defensive reaction to others.

[MrJ]

I don't know how to answer gibberish - with gibberish?


What was spun out on a Roulette wheel 1 year ago means nothing, 1 month ago means nothing, 1 hour ago means nothing and the last spin all mean nothing towards the next spin.


No science supports the wacky idea that past spins can be used towards forecasting the next spin - you can not supply one link anywhere to any scientific study.


So why debate gibberish?

Try again. So in your OPINION, A and B are exactly alike. Correct?

Ken

[Gizmotron]

MauiSunset - " Gizmo; your wacky theories are not supported by another living humanbeing thatI amaware of."

Someone please send this pest to hell. There's  no scientific proof there is a hell. Even so, please give it a go.

THANKS